Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-23-2016 Council PacketAgenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, May 23, 2016, 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 The public is invited to address the council regarding any item on the regular agenda. If your topic is not on the agenda, you may speak during the Public Comments section. Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Approval of Agenda 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. Council Meeting of May 9, 2016* 3. Council Work Session Minutes of April 25, 2016* Presentation 4. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) 2017 Budget 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/City Engineer Report 5. Annual Public Hearing for NPDES Phase II Storm Water Permit 6. 16-3832, City of Orono, Variance, Public Hearing 7. Lurton Park Fencing 8. 2016 Road Maintenance (Hunter and Tamarack) 9. Spring Hill Sanitary Sewer Extension 10. Well No. 4 Design Public Safety Report 11. Disposal of Forfeited Vehicles Planning Department Report – Planning Commission Representative – Kevin Landgraver 12. 15-3786 Mooney Lake Preserve – Lots 1 & 2, Block 1 (Prairie View Lane) Proposal to Delay Road Construction: Conceptual Review 13. 16-3808 – Rick Denman o/b/o Casco Ventures LLC, 3800 Casco Avenue, Variances 14. 16-3818 – Dale Mulfinger (SALA Architects) o/b/o Chris & Leslie Neugent, 710 Big Island 15. 16-3829 – John & Sarah Lindahl, 2465-2485 North Shore Drive Subdivision: Lot Line Rearrangement Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, May 23, 2016, 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 16. Golf Course Donations 17. Corrective Resolution for No. 6567 18. Permits/Licenses* a. Transient Merchant License 19. Claims/Bills * City Attorney's Reports 20. Resolution pertaining to Chapter 344.011 Adjournment Upcoming Events 2016 05-23-16 – Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m. 05-23-16 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 05-30-16 – City Hall Closed in Observance of the Memorial Day Holiday 06-06-16 – Park Commission Work Session, Monday 1:00 p.m. 06-13-16 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 06-20-16 – Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m. (Jim Cornick, Jr. Liaison) 06-27-16 – Council Work Session Prosecuting Attorney Interviews, Monday, 4:00 p.m. 06-27-16 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 07-04-16 – Fourth of July Holiday 07-05-16 – Park Commission Meeting 07-11-16 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 07-18-16 – Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. (Council Liaison –Lizz Levang) 07-25-16 – Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m. 07-25-16 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 08-01-16 – Park Commission Work Session, Monday 1:00 p.m. 8/2–8/16 – Candidate Filing Dates for Orono City Council 08-08-16 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 08-09-16 – Primary Election 7 a.m. – 8 p.m. 08-15-16 – Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. (Council Liaison –Aaron Printup) 08-22-16 – Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m. 08-22-16 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, May 23, 2016, 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 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 9, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 28 ROLL CALL The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Lili Tod McMillan, Council Members James Cornick, Jr., Lizz Levang, Aaron Printup, and Dennis Walsh. Representing Staff were City Administrator Jessica Loftus, Finance Director Ron Olson, Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, Senior Planner Michael Gaffron, Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis, Public Works Director/City Engineer Adam Edwards, City Attorney Soren Mattick, 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 Item Nos. 6, 9, 13, 14, 17, and 18 were added to the Consent Agenda. Item No. 3 was removed from the Consent Agenda. Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF APRIL 25, 2016 Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of April 25, 2016, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 3. ORONO CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION OF APRIL 25, 2016 Walsh requested the work session minutes be corrected to include the following: Item No. 3, Council Member Levang also voiced her opposition to a school subcommittee. Item No. 4, road funding and planning, Walsh mentioned that the City had $25,000 set aside for Old Crystal Bay Road, with the school also putting up $25,000, but that the Mayor wanted to see what the prices were for the Hunter and Tamarack road projects first. Item No. 4, Walsh stated because the City received good bids for the Watertown Road project, the City has an extra $600,000 in the City’s MSA account for 2016, and with the MSA aid for 2017, and Orono can complete the Fox Street project from Willow to Brown. Any excess dollars could be put away for the non-MSA roads, which is Brown to Orchard and Old Crystal Bay to Willow. McMillan suggested next time anyone makes corrections to the minutes that they specifically identify the page and paragraph number to make it easier for the person who is making the corrections. City Administrator Loftus stated if everyone is fine with those corrections, she can add those items. Council Member Levang stated she would like to see the comments in writing prior to approving the minutes. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 9, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 28 3. ORONO CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION OF APRIL 25, 2016 (continued) McMillan concurred the City Council should see this item back at the next Council meeting. McMillan noted under Item No. 2, third paragraph down, second sentence, it should state that the north side of the road belongs to Orono and the south side belongs to Long Lake. On Page 4, the second paragraph, the sentence should read, “the Council could look to add levy funds that result from an increase in property values but did not want to increase the tax rate rather than the levy rate. Levang moved, Printup seconded, to table the minutes from the Orono City Council Work Session of April 25, 2016, with the proposed amendments. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PRESENTATION 4. SENATOR DAVID OSMEK Senator Osmek reported the MN Legislature is in its final two weeks of session, with the session being eight weeks long. Osmek noted this is one of the shortest sessions the MN Legislature has had in recent years. Osmek noted on Thursday the bonding bill failed by one vote in the MN State Senate. Osmek stated there was a Republican alternative for $987,000, which he thought was too high, but if that was added to the bonding from last year, that would have resulted in the state bonding for over a billion dollars. Osmek stated he is committed to obtaining funding for Highway 12 and that it is still a top priority of his. Osmek commented he is optimistic there will be a bonding bill approved prior to the session ending. Osmek noted any bonding bill must originate in the house and that he just heard this afternoon that a supplemental tax bill will be hitting the floor on Wednesday, with some possible amendments being included relating to TIF modifications for the City of Wayzata. Last year there was a $900 million surplus. The Republican minority in the senate proposed to take half of that money and put it into road and bridges, including the MSA account, which would impact the City of Orono. Osmek noted that proposal did not get approved. Osmek stated the problem is that the Governor and the Senate DFL are insisting upon tax increases and that the latest proposal is a 12.5 cent gas tax increase phased in over three years. Osmek stated in his view that will not get approved but there may be an increase in the metropolitan sales tax to support bus transportation services. Osmek reported on former Council Member Kristin Anderson’s bill. Osmek noted Anderson’s son died and the family wanted digital access to his phone. Osmek indicated over the summer he worked with Anderson on the bill but that the problem he was encountering was Federal law. Minnesota is not able to preempt FCC legislation but that there are now steps being taken to allow someone to bequeath their digital assets to their next of kin. Osmek stated while that will not help the Andersons, it may help future parents. Osmek noted the Republicans are the minority this legislative session and that they have not been able to get very many things done. Council Member Printup thanked Senator Osmek for his attention to Highway 12 and his quick response to the citizens. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 9, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 28 4. SENATOR DAVID OSMEK (continued) Osmek stated in his view the Highway 12 portion will make it if there is a bonding bill. Osmek stated one of the issues is concerns that the State cannot put itself into that level of indebtedness. Osmek stated if the $1.8 billion bonding would have passed, it would have increased the State’s debt service by $86 million per year for a number of years. Council Member Walsh thanked Senator Osmek for being available to the citizens and for developing good relations with his constituents. McMillan asked if it is normal for the bonding bill to come out of the House so late in the session. Osmek stated unfortunately it is. Osmek noted last year’s bonding bill was proposed during the special session and that the House held it until the Senate passed the energy and environment bill. Osmek stated in his view the State will have a bonding bill by the end of the week and that there are a lot of good projects included in the $987 million. McMillan commented the citizens get tired of waiting around for legislation to get discussed and then get frustrated when the legislation passes at the last minute without input from the public. McMillan stated it would be nice if the two parties could get together during the off season about how they can improve the process. Osmek stated there is a bill that is being introduced that moves the deadlines around so the Legislature will adjourn on the 23rd but all the bills need to be in two weeks ahead of time so everyone has an opportunity to review it. Osmek stated a number of parties were involved today with the Governor’s Office in an attempt to put together a tax bill, a transportation bill and the bonding bill. 5. WESTERN COMMUNITIES ACTION NETWORK (WeCAN) Christie Larson, Executive Director, stated WeCAN is a supportive service agency located in Mound. WeCAN provides services to empower individuals and families to move down the path to stability and self-sufficiency. WeCAN’s clients consist of individuals at or below 200 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines, which, for a family of four, is $48,600 or less. Last year WeCAN provided over 5,800 services and has four core programs, including emergency assistance, family support, food programs, and an employment program. The emergency assistance program provides financial assistance to families facing an immediate crisis, which tends to be a loss of housing. Qualified clients can receive a one-time payment for rent, mortgage or utilities to help prevent evictions and help keep families stable in the community. Last year WeCAN provided four Orono residents with emergency financial support services to stabilize their crisis situation. The family support programs encompass many different areas, such as a coat drive collection boxes, Ready-to-Learn school supply drive, and a holiday gift program. WeCAN also provides personal care and household products in the office that clients can access once a month to help stretch their budget. Last year 13 Orono residents accessed this service. The food distribution consists of two separate programs: Meals-On-Wheels and the Mobile Market Food Shelf. Meals-on-Wheels is a nutritious food program and personal well check along with friendly visits for homebound and disabled individuals. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 9, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 28 5. WESTERN COMMUNITIES ACTION NETWORK (WeCAN) (continued) Hot meals are made fresh daily and brought directly to the clients by volunteers, which allows people to live independently in their own home and get the nutrition they need. Last year 142 meals were served to Orono residents. The newest offering by WeCAN is the mobile food shelf, which transports healthy food to people facing barriers to accessing traditional food shelves. As part of this program, WeCAN sees a lot of people with disabilities, elderly, chronic health conditions, and children are served meals after school hours or school breaks. Deliveries are made to area low-income apartment complexes as well as sent out with Meals-On- Wheels deliveries. In addition, school bags are delivered to children on school breaks and over the summer since they are missing the meals they would typically receive during the school year. Last year this program distributed over 45,000 pounds of food and 13 Orono residents utilized this service. The fourth and growing program is the employment service. Clients can meet with job counselors to assist them in resume` writing, job searches and interview skills. This provides them with the support and confidence to seek out employment, better paying or more stable job opportunities. Budget classes are also offered to provide financial education. Larson stated WeCAN offers a holistic look at programs to address the many issues associated with poverty and homelessness. It provides a vital service to the City in caring for the people who are disadvantaged. Larson stated she looks to city leadership for their support of the programs and to help keep the residents stable. Levang asked how the global market works. Larson stated the program is approximately two years old and came about because they saw that there was a lack of transportation service for people to be able to get to the food shelf. WeCAN now physically delivers the food to various places, which tends to be the clustered groups of low income families or people with disabilities. Currently WeCAN delivers twice a month to four different apartment complexes. Larson indicated they receive lots of donations from the donation garden here in Orono as well as donations of milk, eggs, margarine, and meat. Larson stated they also send bags of food along with Meals-On-Wheels drivers. Walsh asked if they served 147 families in Orono. Larson indicated it was 142 meals. Walsh asked if any of the children who received backpacks were from Orono. Larson indicated they delivered approximately 500 school bags but that they do not have it broken it down by the school. Larson noted that the majority of Orono does not fall into the Westonka School District but that she can probably obtain that information and provide it to the City. Walsh commented it is important the City supports its citizens as much as possible and that he would like to know the percentages. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 9, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 28 5. WESTERN COMMUNITIES ACTION NETWORK (WeCAN) (continued) Larson noted in the Council packet there is a statistic sheet, with Orono’s numbers being listed towards the bottom. Larson stated Harvest Moon also donates food that is close to expiring once a week. McMillan commented she took a tour of the facility in February and that it is very well run and organized. Larson stated all the Council members are welcome to tour their facility anytime. Walsh asked if monetary donations can be directed towards certain programs. Larson indicated they can be. PUBLIC COMMENTS None PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER REPORT *6. LURTON PARK PARKING LOT EXPANSION Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to accept the quote in the amount of $1,250 from Bituminous Roadways, Inc., for the expansion of the Lurton Park parking lot. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT None PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT 7. #16-3808 RICK DENMAN ON BEHALF OF CASCO VENTURES, LLC, 3800 CASCO AVENUE, VARIANCES City Planner Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a lot area variance as well as rear and front yard setback variances in order to construct a new residence on the property. The plan has been revised slightly since the Planning Commission review to reduce the structural footprint to conform to the 15 percent limitation. The applicant has also rotated the house on the lot and it now encroaches seven feet into the required 30-foot front setback on the south side. The previous plan met the 30-foot setback. At its March meeting, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the lot area and rear setback variances with the condition that the house be revised to conform to the 15 percent limitation for structural coverage. Staff recommends approval of the lot area, rear and front yard setback variances. If the Council finds it appropriate, they should direct Staff to draft an approval resolution for adoption at the May 23 Council meeting. McMillan asked where the 7-foot encroachment is. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 9, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 28 7. #16-3808 RICK DENMAN ON BEHALF OF CASCO VENTURES, LLC, 3800 CASCO AVENUE, VARIANCES (continued) Curtis pointed out the encroachment on the overhead. Curtis stated when the house was rotated more counter-clockwise, it met the 30-foot setback. McMillan asked why the house was rotated. Curtis stated the applicant could probably better address that but that there were some comments at the public hearing regarding the drainage on the property. Previously the applicant had a retaining wall shown along the side and then subsequently rotated the house so it would be a better fit on the property. Rick Denman, Charles Cudd Company, stated the primary reason they rotated the house was to maintain a gentler slope coming up the driveway to the garage. Denman indicated he did not realize the slope of the driveway when they were before the Planning Commission. In addition, the retaining wall has been eliminated. Denman noted he is building a new home just to the west of this piece abutting Lot 10 and that they are developing these two properties together. Denman stated the reason for the variance is there is no good way to put a home on this lot with a decent back yard due to the setbacks. Denman stated in his view this offers the most aesthetically and functional way to do that. If the house were to be rotated and the front yard was the way it was originally proposed, there would have been no back yard and the neighbor would be looking right into the back of the garage. Denman stated this provides a nicer back yard as well as a nice street presentation. Levang stated she had a concern about the orientation of both of the driveways. Curtis displayed the survey on the overhead. Curtis asked where the driveway is in relation to the stop sign. Levang stated it appears the construction driveway is right in front of the stop sign. Denman indicated he is not positive on that and that he would have to double check it. Denman asked if there is a requirement that the driveway be located so far from the stop sign. Walsh commented it appears that the stop sign is located in the middle of the driveway. Levang asked if the driveway that is depicted is where it originally was. Levang noted there appears to be some remnants of a past driveway at 3800. Levang asked whether the new driveway will be in the same spot. Denman stated it is pretty close. Levang commented there is not much room for a back yard. Levang stated she is not sure whether the difference between the two versions is something the Planning Commission should look at. Levang asked if there is an overlay showing the difference between the two. Curtis displayed the original plan. Levang asked if they have changed the angle of the front door. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 9, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 28 7. #16-3808 RICK DENMAN ON BEHALF OF CASCO VENTURES, LLC, 3800 CASCO AVENUE, VARIANCES (continued) Denman indicated it is facing the same direction but is now at an angle. Levang stated she is concerned about the 23 feet versus the 30. McMillan stated the practical difficulty is the driveway slope. Denman stated in their view what they have proposed is a good solution if the Council is in favor of the variance. Walsh moved, Printup seconded, Application No. 16-3808, Rick Denman on behalf of Casco Ventures, LLC, 3800 Casco Avenue, to direct Staff to draft an approval resolution granting lot area, rear and front yard setback variances as presented. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0 8. #16-3818 DALE MULFINGER (SALA ARCHITECTS) ON BEHALF OF CHRIS AND LESLIE NEUGENT, 710 BIG ISLAND, VARIANCES Curtis stated the applicant is requesting lake setback variances as well as a 0-75 foot hardcover variance in order to construct additions to the existing cabin and construct a detached storage building/garage on the east side of the property. All of the projects will be located lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line. Therefore an average lakeshore setback variance is necessary. The Planning Commission reviewed this application and held a public hearing. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 to approve the variances with the recommendation that the construction plans be revised to reflect the type of foundation to be used under the screen porch. The applicant has submitted those revised plans. Staff has provided a draft resolution for Council review. Levang noted the Planning Commission discussed the new porch not becoming a 4-season addition to the house but did not stipulate to that in their recommendations. Levang asked if the City Council is comfortable with not including that in the resolution. Curtis noted it is difficult for Staff to enforce that kind of provision but the City Council can impose that if they would like. Curtis noted the mass and structure would still there with the 3-season porch and will not change if it is a 4-season porch. McMillan asked about the foundation. Curtis stated the applicants are showing construction utilizing those 3’ x 3’ piers. Since the applicants’ verbal plan did not coincide with their plans on paper, it was requested that they provide revised plans showing that the existing footings will be utilized. Those revised plans have been submitted and show they will be utilizing the existing footings. Walsh stated the issue he has is the encroachment into the 0-75 foot zone and that he is not sure why the Council would allow them to encroach simply because those footings exist in that area. Walsh stated it does not matter to him if it is a 3-season porch or a 4-season porch. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 9, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 28 8. #16-3818 DALE MULFINGER (SALA ARCHITECTS) ON BEHALF OF CHRIS AND LESLIE NEUGENT, 710 BIG ISLAND, VARIANCES (continued) Council Member Cornick asked if the 3’ x 3’ footings have been inspected. Curtis indicated the City has not inspected them but the applicant has performed some structural testing by standing on one of the piers. Dale Mulfinger, Sala Architects, stated they have only dug around the edges of the piers and that they are fairly substantial. Mulfinger indicated they have not found any historic record of what the piers were used for but that the previous property owner had installed a sliding glass door to go out to that area but never built out to that area. The new owner purchased the house less than a year ago and is not aware of all the history. The house was built approximately 15 years ago as a replicate of something that used to be there. Mulfinger noted they are extending the roof over the three doors out to the piers for the porch. They are rumble stone footings that appear to be very similar to the foundation of the house. Mulfinger noted the house has a strange floor plan and that the majority of their work is interior in an attempt to realign the floor plan to accommodate a handicap child. Mulfinger stated currently there is no screen porch on the house but instead open porches. Mulfinger indicated they will be enclosing a portion of the southwest corner of the porch in order to make a library out of what is a vast amount of living room. Printup asked whether the piers would be grandfathered in if there were historical records found showing that it was used at one time. Mattick indicated in his opinion it would not be. Mattick stated if anything was there at one time, it has been removed and the right to have it grandfathered in has been lost. Cornick asked how confident the applicant is that the footings will exist in 20 years. Mulfinger stated if they are not totally adequate, they would rebuild them as they currently exist. McMillan asked if he can guarantee that they will use the existing piers as they are today. Mulfinger indicated he cannot guarantee that but that they would look the same if they had to rebuild them. Mulfinger noted a heavy weight structure will not be placed on them either. McMillan stated she is attempting to figure out why they want to go out to the piers. Mulfinger stated it was because they thought it was part of the original structure at one point and that the larger porch is more functional. Walsh noted that is not a practical difficulty and it is a slippery slope if they approve this. Mulfinger stated their initial thought was that it was part of the original structure. Walsh moved, Printup seconded, Application No. 16-3818, Dale Mulfinger, SALA Architects, on behalf of Chris and Leslie Neugent, 710 Big Island, to direct Staff to draft an approval resolution granting variances without the encroachment in the 0-75 foot zone. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 9, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 of 28 *9. #16-3821 RICHARD STORLIEN ON BEHALF OF TIM AND MARY BECKER, 1565 FAIRVIEW COTTAGE LANE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – RESOLUTION NO. 6624 Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6624, a Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit Pursuant to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-328(7) and 78-1437 for the property located at 1565 Fairview Cottage Lane. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 10. #16-3822 LAKEWEST DEVELOPMENT, 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST – PRELIMINARY PLAT/RPUD REZONING/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Curt Fretham and Ben Wickstrom, Lakewest Development, were present. Gaffron noted the City Council reviewed a sketch plan submitted by the applicants within the last year. At this time the applicant is requesting the following approvals for a proposed 27-lot single family residential development: 1. Amendment of the Orono Comprehensive Plan (CMP) to allow development of the property at a density of approximately 5.5 units per develop acre for this property which is guided in the CMP for development at a density of 10-15 units per acre, and to allow single-family dwellings in place of the multi-family dwellings currently guided in the CMP; 2. Preliminary plat approval for a 27-lot single-family residential subdivision; and 3. Rezoning to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). The property is the former Eisenger site and is located on the south side of Wayzata Boulevard, north of the new Highway 12 corridor. The entire site consists of approximately 30 acres. The applicants are proposing at this time to develop only a portion of the site. The area that is not being developed is the former landfill site that was operated back in the 1960s and 1970s. The landfill has been capped and the applicant has spent quite a bit of time determining the boundaries of the landfill. The portion of the site proposed for development at this time is high ground overlooking the wetland and sitting 10 to 15 feet above Wayzata Boulevard. The site is a former homestead and the site contains a number of mature hardwood trees surrounded by areas of low vegetation formerly maintained as lawn. The southwesterly portion of the property used to be a landfill for a number of decades and is currently open space with a number of volunteer tree growth. The existing trees near the south side of the property provide some measure of visual and sound buffering to the Highway 12 freeway. This site is an area of the City that in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan was re-guided for higher density at 10 to 15 units per acre. The City Council agreed to the higher density and put in place a plan that would allow one or two multi-tenant buildings in the area of the property that is not former landfill. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at their April meeting and recommended approval for all components of the application. The Park Commission reviewed this application at their May 2 meeting and recommended that a 10-foot trail easement along the northerly property boundary be granted for potential future trail use. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 9, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 28 10. #16-3822 LAKEWEST DEVELOPMENT, 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST – PRELIMINARY PLAT/RPUD REZONING/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (continued) The Park Commission tabled the question as to whether land for park purposes should be dedicated instead of a park dedication fee pending further review by the individual commissioners of the site and the City’s park needs. Senior Planner Gaffron noted one of the new pieces of information that has recently come in is a letter from Hennepin County that is suggesting there should be only one access and not two. Hennepin County has also indicated that turn lanes would be desired as well as some additional right-of-way. The applicant has indicated that they would like to discuss the proposed layout. Staff has not taken a closer look at the proposal to see whether a different layout or access point would be more desirable. Staff would request the City Council discuss the following seven and provide direction to Staff: 1. Does the amendment further the City’s goals for development of higher density housing? 2. Are there specific aspects of this site that support a reduction of the density from the current guided density? 3. Are there any negative aspects to re-guiding this site for lower density? 4. Aside from numerical density concerns, does the City Council have any concerns about revising the development parameters for this site from multi-family use in one or two buildings to single- family individual homes? 5. The developers have suggested the possibility of developing a multi-family building within the landfill site, which would require extensive mitigation (remove landfill contents in area being developed). That is not part of their current request. Does the City Council find that adding a multi-family building would be desirable if it helps increase density on the property? 6. Are there specific conditions that should be established as part of an approval of the re-guiding? 7. With the proposed amendment, the City’s overall development density is expected to drop below 3.0 units per acre. The City will need to identify more opportunities for higher density housing. Staff expects the Metropolitan Council to request that the City identify other areas for higher density. Gaffron requested the City Council discuss the above items and then provide direction to Staff. McMillan stated the access issue will make this site even more difficult to develop and that the Council should discuss how that should be handled. Walsh stated the language from Hennepin County appears to be pretty passive and that they say they would prefer a single access. Gaffron stated Hennepin County also did not provide any insight into what the sight distance should be or whether the access point should be one of the two proposed or in a different location. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 9, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11 of 28 10. #16-3822 LAKEWEST DEVELOPMENT, 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST – PRELIMINARY PLAT/RPUD REZONING/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (continued) Walsh stated the letter in his view does not say a definite no to the two access points. Walsh asked whether Staff has had conversations where Hennepin County is saying no but making the language softer in the letter. Gaffron stated the discussion he has had with them verbally is that they do not want a second access, and if the developer wants to propose a second access, Hennepin County will place a number of restrictions on it. Gaffron noted Hennepin County will also be redoing this section of the road in 2019. Walsh stated the other question he had relates to the second part of the site. Walsh asked whether that has really been guided for anything. Gaffron stated it has not been considered as developable land. Walsh asked what the density would need to be guided at in order for the City to be at three units per acre. Gaffron stated in his view the City would need to look at it as a single parcel. If there are 27 units on 5.5 acres, that would result in approximately five units per acre. Gaffron stated it would not be easy to get to ten units per acre without having a fair amount of apartments. Walsh stated in his view that number would be helpful to the Council before the City goes looking at other sites. Gaffron indicated Staff can take a look at that. Walsh asked if the City should get a firm answer from the Metropolitan Council on the density prior to the applicant redesigning their plans. Gaffron stated there are two things the City is looking at. The first is how big the building needs to be in order to get to the existing 10 to 15 guided density on the site. If that portion of the site is not developed, the City will need to look at what it takes to get to three units. Gaffron indicated Staff will need to look at that. McMillan stated two of the biggest issues she has had with the two buildings on the site is that it is out in the middle of nowhere and that it is not clear whether the site can be mitigated. McMillan stated in her view having people purchase $600,000 homes on the other parcel and then in five years construct two multi-family homes would result in a number of people being upset. McMillan asked whether Hennepin County would require the developer to pay for the turn lanes as well as construct them. Gaffron stated that is his expectation. McMillan stated she is not sure if there is enough right-of-way to construct the turn lanes but the developer will likely need to pay for those, which will result in additional expenses to the developer. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 9, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 12 of 28 10. #16-3822 LAKEWEST DEVELOPMENT, 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST – PRELIMINARY PLAT/RPUD REZONING/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (continued) McMillan stated if Phase 2 goes in, they would likely want two access points and that there should really be a dedicated outlot for the future road. McMillan stated she is concerned about whether a big building is doable on the site and whether that would be a great selling point for the other portion of the site. McMillan stated she is having some issues with the whole concept and that she wants to be somewhat confident the City knows the direction they would like to proceed prior to approaching the Metropolitan Council. McMillan asked whether Staff could discuss the City’s density with the Metropolitan Council without this specific application in front of them. Gaffron indicated City Staff would need to know how the Metropolitan Council calculated the three units per acre and that he was surprised the Metropolitan Council did not call out the Gonyea site as being the straw that broke the camel’s back. Gaffron stated lower density on this site will push the City under that limit. Gaffron stated it may be possible that the Metropolitan Council is doing some things doing differently from the City and that they might be adding or excluding different properties. Gaffron stated one option is to make the application for this project and the other option is to say the City has a possible project that is guided for this many units and see how they react to it. Walsh stated Hennepin County has also thrown a curve ball at this development. The other issue is having a multi-family building next to some expensive homes, which would look a little strange, and that the City needs to know whether the Metropolitan Council is going to hold the City to the three units per acre. McMillan stated one of the challenging things about the site is that it is unknown whether the landfill site can be mitigated. McMillan stated one of the questions is whether the Council is happy with the proposed density on Phase I. McMillan stated she does not feel confident that Phase II will solve the City’s density problem and that somewhere down the road the City may have to have higher density on another property as well. Levang concurred that the Council should not count on Phase II to get the City to the appropriate density with the Metropolitan Council and that they need to know what the ramifications are of not having the density at what it was originally guided for. Levang stated if Hennepin County limits the access to only one location, it would really limit the number of units that could be constructed. Levang commented she would have liked to have some more guidance from Hennepin County on where they would like to see the road and that she is not sure if this plan is going to work with only one access point, especially given the 55 mile an hour speed limit in the area. Walsh stated the City has to guide the landfill site for something even if there are no guarantees. McMillan noted the City did not guide it for anything because it is a former landfill site. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 9, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 13 of 28 10. #16-3822 LAKEWEST DEVELOPMENT, 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST – PRELIMINARY PLAT/RPUD REZONING/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (continued) McMillan noted the City will be redoing the Comprehensive Plan in 2018 and that Orono guided these properties for higher density in order to make the required density. McMillan stated she cannot say that Phase II will be a solution to the density question. McMillan stated she would like to pencil in a western access in case the landfill site can be mitigated and that perhaps having just one access at this point will work but the plan will need to be redone. McMillan stated the turn lanes will also be expensive to construct. Walsh commented the developer may not want to go ahead with the development given the expense of the turn lanes. Cornick asked if there are any negative impacts on water or sewer going that direction if there is no phase two. Gaffron stated the City will be extending the sewer and water lines to this site for Phase I. Gaffron stated from a capacity standpoint, whether it is 27 units or 47 units, that system will be able to handle them and that it probably is simply a matter of a bigger pump. Gaffron stated the system will probably end at the lower end with a lift station that will pump everything to the east. Ben Wickstrom, Lakewest Development, asked if the density on this site is different from the three units per acre. Gaffron indicated the three units per acre is the density overall for the City, which is different from the density that was guided for this site. Wickstrom stated as it relates to Phase II, if the Council looks at the dimensions of the building footprint to the west of the parking area, the building envelope that would need to be mitigated is almost exactly an acre. If the first phase of the development encompasses 4.9 acres, by adding an acre, it would be pretty simple math to say that 60 units total would be required to get to the six units per acre. Wickstrom stated a 33-unit building would get the City to that density. Wickstrom stated the Comprehensive Plan currently guides the overall piece for two 21-unit buildings for a total of 42 units. Wickstrom noted that area was not initially targeted for higher density since it was believed it was not buildable. Wickstrom indicated they have had environmental engineers who have looked at the site and they believe it can be mitigated. Wickstrom stated in his view the first step is to see if that can be guided and that they are willing to attach whatever number the Council would like to see on that parcel. Wickstrom stated as developers, flexibility in the density number makes it easier to design something that works and that they are proposing 5.5 units per acre in the single-family portion. Wickstrom stated if necessary, they are willing to design something for Phase II. McMillan asked how deep the landfill is in that section. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 9, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 14 of 28 10. #16-3822 LAKEWEST DEVELOPMENT, 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST – PRELIMINARY PLAT/RPUD REZONING/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (continued) Curt Fretham stated they dug approximately40 test holes on the western edge as well as well as 40 other test holes on the other section and it ranged from 12 to over 20 feet in depth. McMillan asked if some of that used to be wetland. Gaffron stated that is correct and that a lot of fill was brought in in the 1980s and 1990s. 1 McMillan asked if they would be willing to construct turn lanes. Fretham indicated they would be open to it. Gaffron asked how the development would be impacted if Hennepin County requests additional right-of- way. Fretham stated in their view Hennepin County will not request additional right-of-way since there already is 50 feet of right-of-way on that side of the road. Marty Campion, Engineer, indicated there is 50 feet of right-of-way from the center line to the south and probably 50 to the north, for a total of 100 feet of existing right-of-way. Campion noted there was a question about access and that they have looked at a single access. Campion indicated they have put together a quick sketch for a single access. Campion stated based on the discussions with the Planning Commission and the possibility of a public street down to Phase II, they chose to place the single access on the west side and provide a T-turnaround on the east side or a cul-de- sac. Campion indicated they both would fit but it would cause the lots to get tight. Campion noted they are not certain that is the place the County was looking at but that they felt it made more sense to have access on the west side. McMillan asked how wide the paved road would be. Campion stated they are showing it at 28 feet but that a typical public street width would be 32 feet. McMillan stated given the amount of housing, it probably would need to be 32 feet. Gaffron asked if they would still have a 40-foot corridor. Campion indicated it would be and that the portion of the road to the east would be private. Campion stated if it is a city street, it would be reconfigured slightly in a more north/south direction with a T coming in from the east. Campion stated they were attempting to demonstrate a single access on the west side and that they tried not to impact the overall layout of the plan. Walsh stated it should be verified that they can build on the landfill site so the City can then guide it for the appropriate density. Campion stated they do not know for sure what Hennepin County would prefer for the access location. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 9, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 15 of 28 10. #16-3822 LAKEWEST DEVELOPMENT, 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST – PRELIMINARY PLAT/RPUD REZONING/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (continued) Gaffron stated in order to get to the ten units per acre overall for the site, based on eight acres, they would need to get to 80 units. Walsh asked what would get the City to three. Gaffron stated Staff does not have an answer to that yet. Walsh stated the bigger question in mind is what will get the City to the three units per acre, which would give the City Council a better idea of what the landfill site should be guided for. McMillan asked how the building would be stabilized. Campion indicated their borings showed more glacial till and suitable soils down at the bottom of the borings and that it was not all soft and organic. Cornick noted there was some discussion by the Mayor about possibly doing Phase II first. Fretham stated they would prefer to do Phase I first and that it does not seem practical to do Phase II first. Campion stated the only reason Phase II is depicted on their plans is that they wanted to have something in writing so the residents of Phase I could not say they never ever saw Phase II. Campion stated it was not their intent at the beginning to build Phase II right away but that they would like to show it as a possibility at some point in the future. McMillan stated Phase II may not be viable and that she does not want to go to the Metropolitan Council with it included. McMillan indicated she would like Phase I to pretty much stand on its own and that she does not want to use Phase II to make Phase I more desirable. Wickstrom stated she is talking about satisfying the Metropolitan Council and not the City of Orono as it relates to the density. Wickstrom stated if the City needs to target a certain density on Phase II, they will not come back and say they want to construct more single-family homes. Wickstrom stated if it is included in the Comprehensive Plan and approved by the Metropolitan Council, which is what it will be targeted at. Wickstrom stated they have found that the site is worth cleaning up if an acceptable density can be reached but that Phase II is a little further down the road since it probably is not feasible to build a multi-unit building on that site currently. McMillan stated she also does not believe a multi-unit building is feasible at the present time and that she would like Phase I to stand on its own. Walsh stated the City still has to guide it even if it is not built for a while. Walsh stated another piece of information the City needs is what it will take to get to the 3.0 units per acre. Walsh stated in his view the City is missing that information before they will know how big the building needs to be. Walsh stated if Phase I has 27 units and 40 are required to meet the density that would throw everything out. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 9, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 16 of 28 10. #16-3822 LAKEWEST DEVELOPMENT, 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST – PRELIMINARY PLAT/RPUD REZONING/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (continued) Wickstrom noted the Mayor was looking at Phase I as a stand-alone property and that the City is looking at dropping below the three units per unit because of the density that is being proposed for this site. Wickstrom asked if they are being lumped into the same parameters as the Orono Preserve property and whether the City is attempting to make up the density on this piece of property. Walsh stated if they propose something that meets the guided density for the property that would be ideal, but that the City needs to find out what it will take to get to the three units per acre. Walsh stated they are not being asked to make up the density for the other property. Wickstrom noted they are proposing to develop 4.9 units per acre currently, and to reach that higher density, the smallest possible building would be 33 units. Walsh asked how that piece of property can be defined as buildable. Gaffron stated it is Staff’s belief the Metropolitan Council will credit the City any acreage that has to be mitigated. If that area is one acre and 33 units can be placed on it, then there will be 10 units per acre over the entire site. Barnhart stated Staff would like to visit with the Metropolitan Council on what that gap is and then come back to the City Council with recommendations on where that higher density would be most appropriate. Barnhart indicated Staff is looking for some direction or authorization to go before the Metropolitan Council with this proposal. Gaffron stated rather than doing it as a formal Comprehensive Plan amendment, the applicant or Staff could speak with the Metropolitan Council via phone and ask them. McMillan suggested they also tell the Metropolitan Council that this is a former landfill site and that it might be difficult to mitigate. Walsh stated if they can mitigate one acre and build a multi-family building that can help make up a lot of ground. McMillan stated as it relates to Phase I, she would like to know if the applicants have thought about constructing any townhomes along with the single-family homes. McMillan stated she does not see single-family homes as being as strong of a market given the price point and the tight lots. Fretham stated it is essentially the same plan the Council has reviewed three times with the exception of the Z-lot. The purpose of the Z-lot was to widen the main floor master bedroom and that they were careful not to block the view of the adjoining home. Fretham noted the separation between the homes is ten feet, which is common in other cities but not commonplace here in Orono. Fretham stated in their view there is a stronger market for the single-family homes for families who do not want all the yard maintenance. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 9, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 17 of 28 10. #16-3822 LAKEWEST DEVELOPMENT, 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST – PRELIMINARY PLAT/RPUD REZONING/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (continued) Walsh stated he likes the wide road, the internal walkway, the views, and the angles. Walsh stated in his view it will be a nice product. Walsh commented he always likes to have wider setbacks but that he can live with the 10-foot separation. Fretham stated they have spent a lot of time making the plan work and preserving the views. Levang asked how many different exterior plans there will be. Fretham stated they are envisioning them to all be custom homes. Fretham stated there will likely be some similar architectural features given the fact that there are 27 homes and that they have submitted some sample floor plans to show that the foundations and building pads will work. Fretham stated they will have some set standards for exterior materials and the front façade. McMillan requested the applicants put together a list of building standards for the homes and then submit that to Staff. McMillan noted the review period on this application expires June 3. Gaffron indicated Staff would ask for an additional 60 days if the application is tabled tonight. Gaffron noted the City is allowed 120 days for the subdivision, which would not expire until August. McMillan stated it sounds like this application will be back in two weeks. McMillan asked if the City should attempt to nail Hennepin County down on the access point. Gaffron stated a meeting between Hennepin County, Staff, and the applicant will need to take place. Campion stated their next step is to try to convince the County why they like this access, and if Hennepin County is not in agreement, they will request they provide some direction on where they would like to have the access. Wickstrom asked if the Council is comfortable with the setback from the buffer. Wickstrom indicated they have the ability to reduce that buffer by a little bit and make it up elsewhere but that they would like to know if the Council is comfortable as it sits right now. Gaffron stated the buildings would need to be set back ten feet from the buffer so there is the ability to mow and walk around the buildings. Gaffron noted the Park Commission has indicated they would like to obtain a 10-foot easement and the Planning Commission did not make a recommendation on the easement. That easement would impact the site to some extent. In addition, in order to create a topography that is five to ten feet lower than the high points and to create flat building pads, it will be necessary to cut down virtually every tree on the site. If Hennepin County takes another ten feet of right- of-way, the question becomes how that will impact the development. The RPUD standards also require 250 feet from the OHWL, which is somewhere between Lots 1 and 2, but Staff and the Planning Commission does not see that as an issue and that some flexibility to the 250 feet will probably need to be given. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 9, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 18 of 28 10. #16-3822 LAKEWEST DEVELOPMENT, 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST – PRELIMINARY PLAT/RPUD REZONING/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (continued) Levang indicated she is okay with the 250. Levang asked how many homes would only have ten feet to the buffer on the south side. Campion stated the steepest one is Lot 11 on the south side. From the back side of that lot, the slope drops to about a 3:1 slope, which is maintainable but not flat. The City’s ordinance requires a 10-foot setback, which is being met. Campion stated their intent with the whole subdivision was not to have back yards where people are out there playing since there are topographical issues and they have to make up grade. Campion stated the choice is either to have a 3:1 slope or construct retaining walls. Gaffron stated based on the topography, some of the homes on the wetland side will not have the right percentage of the basement in the ground and some may end up being counted as stories. Gaffron stated the Council could make that flexibility part of the RPUD. McMillan asked whether they would be able to widen the road to 32 feet rather than 28 feet. Campion stated they are not proposing a sidewalk so the road can be widened. Campion noted the 28 feet is wide enough to accommodate parking on one side. In addition, the driveways will accommodate one car so there should not be a lot of parking on the street. Campion stated they can shrink up the buffer in the back of the units on the south side but that he is not sure what they would be gaining with that since it would be increasing the impervious surface and reducing the buffer. Levang asked if there is another place they can have a parking bay. Campion indicated they have not looked at that since they were providing a two-car garage as well as some parking in the driveway. Walsh asked if there will be a main bank of mailboxes or whether each home will have their own. Campion stated to his knowledge new developments have to have one main bank of boxes. McMillan stated she personally does not see the need for a trail easement going west, especially given the wetland. Walsh commented there is nothing to the west for the trail to go to. Campion stated the trail easement will take away some of the buffering space. Levang stated she would rather see the buffering. Campion stated what the plan does not show is that there is screening from Highway 12 at this time of year. Cornick asked if the fire chief has signed off on the plan. Gaffron indicated he has not. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 9, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 19 of 28 10. #16-3822 LAKEWEST DEVELOPMENT, 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST – PRELIMINARY PLAT/RPUD REZONING/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (continued) McMillan asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this application. Dave Truax, Realtor, stated he sold the property to Lakewest Development and that he is also familiar with the Dumas property. The Dumas’s are not opposed to developing this property or the Orono Preserve property. Gaffron stated the direction he has from the City Council is for Staff to have a discussion with the Metropolitan Council on the density, the developer should set up a meeting with Hennepin County and Staff to gain a better understanding about the access, and to have the fire chief review the plan prior to the next Council meeting. Staff would recommend the application be tabled. Levang moved, Walsh seconded, to table Application No. 16-3822, Lakewest Development, 3245 Wayzata Boulevard West. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (Recess taken from 9:15 p.m. to 9:17 p.m.) 11. #16-3823 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT: CONCEPT PLAN PROCESS Community Development Director Barnhart stated the draft ordinance establishes a process for the conceptual review of policy applications to be made by the Council. Policy applications include comprehensive plan and zoning map amendments and zoning text amendments. The ordinance also removes the requirement that Class III Subdivisions go through the sketch plan process. The Planning Commission reviewed the draft ordinance at their April meeting. Following discussion on which applications are appropriate for concept review, Staff and the Commission felt that concepts focused on policy changes were more appropriate. This would allow interested parties to develop material for the Planning Commission and City Council discussion on items including Comprehensive Plan amendments and zoning amendments. To date, Staff has received no comments either for or against the proposed ordinance. Levang moved, Printup seconded, to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 168, Third Series, an Ordinance Amending the Code of Ordinances Pertaining to Concept and Sketch Plan Review. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 12. #16-3825 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT: HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS IN 0-75’ ZONE Barnhart stated this draft ordinance codifies practice and confirms Council intent. Retaining walls, while not permitted within the lake yard, are to be counted as hardcover within that lake yard, as is all other permitted and grandfathered hardcover. Retaining walls outside of the lake yard are not to be included in the calculation of hardcover. The Planning Commission at its April meeting reviewed the draft ordinance and supported the amendment as drafted. There have been no public comments received to date. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 9, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 20 of 28 12. #16-3825 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT: HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS IN 0-75’ ZONE (continued) Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as drafted. Walsh indicated he is not in agreement with this ordinance and that back in 2012 it was clear that people did not want retaining walls to be counted as hardcover. Retaining walls are typically used to shore up land and help hold the water back. Orono does not allow people to have hardcover within the 0-75 setback for decorative purposes, which is different from a retaining wall that is required to help stabilize the slope. Walsh stated this ordinance would put people who have hills going down to the lake and people who don’t have hills at odds with one another. Walsh stated if the retaining wall is helping to stabilize something, the person should not be penalized. In addition, people with small lots will be penalized even more, which should not occur if they are stabilizing the slope. Barnhart stated that is why Staff wanted to bring it up and that they wanted to make sure they are doing what the Council wants. Barnhart stated there was some discussion about boathouses in the 0-75 foot zone and that Staff wanted to make sure those were counted as well as other improvements in the shoreland area. Walsh stated he is not talking about the boathouses but that he has a concern about retaining walls and why it counts one way and not another way. Walsh stated the ordinance needs to be consistent as well. McMillan stated she remembers wanting it excluded from 75 feet going back towards the street. Printup noted in reviewing the minutes he stated very clearly that he wanted it left as an exclusion. Printup stated he attempted to review the video online but that the video recordings are not kept back that far. Printup indicated he continues to be okay with having retaining walls in the 0-75 foot zone as long as they are there for stability more so than decorative. Barnhart noted the ordinance does not change whether or not they are allowed within the 0-75 foot zone but that the ordinance changes whether they are counted as hardcover. If the Council does not adopt the ordinance, retaining walls would not be counted as hardcover. McMillan stated the City has not reviewed much of the new hardcover ordinance, which she takes that the ordinance is working well. McMillan asked what Staff’s thoughts are about including retaining walls in the hardcover calculations. Barnhart stated he reads the ordinance in very black and white terms and that retaining walls do not count. Other members of Staff do not necessarily agree with that interpretation, which is why he wanted to make sure that Staff is going in the right direction. Barnhart stated it is hard for him to say whether it is necessary. From a hardcover perspective and the goal of the shoreland district, retaining walls are to help stabilize the slope, and that the hardcover impact is relatively minor. Barnhart stated while a vertical retaining wall is relatively minor as it relates to hardcover, it is still visible. McMillan asked if there is a specific reason why Staff brought this forward. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 9, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 21 of 28 12. #16-3825 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT: HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS IN 0-75’ ZONE (continued) Barnhart indicated it was merely for clarification. McMillan stated she wanted to make sure that Staff has not been encountering pr Loftus stated the comments she has heard is that people like the new hardcover ordinance since they are allowed more hardcover without the need for a variance. City Attorney Mattick stated whether to count retaining walls as hardcover would be a policy decision by the Council. Levang noted the City Council would be going against what the Planning Commission recommended. McMillan asked if this ordinance would help to control retaining walls that are more decorative. Barnhart indicated he does not see the ordinance doing that. Printup moved, Walsh seconded, to deny Application No. 16-3825, City of Orono Text Amendment: Hardcover Calculations in 0-75 foot zone, with the clarification that retaining walls are not to be included in the hardcover calculations in the 0-75 foot zone. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Cornick Opposed. *13. PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to appoint John Thiesse as Chair of the Planning Commission and Bruce Lemke as Vice Chair. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *14. NAVARRE PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to authorize Gronberg & Associates to complete a survey for the Navarre parking lot and related parcels with the funds coming from the contingency account. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Levang reported the 2K walk with the Mayor was very successful and that the City had wonderful partnerships with Harvest Moon and Otten Brothers, who donated items to the walkers. Levang indicated she learned a lot from Otten Brothers and that overall it was a very good event. McMillan stated it was nice to kick off the Step-To-It program with the 2K walk. McMillan noted the Drug Take-Back Program was also held that same day and that a number of people dropped off their prescription drugs. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 9, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 22 of 28 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT (continued) Loftus reported the Police Department ended up with nine boxes full, which amounted to 140 pounds of prescription drugs. Loftus stated the Police Department had to have two officers escort all those drugs to Alexandria to be incinerated. McMillan stated the Minnetonka Creek Watershed District had a policy meeting recently to discuss their Comprehensive Plan. The MCWD is trying to reach out to cities and work with them to make it easier for permitting. McMillan stated one of the things the Watershed District learned from Lakeville is the advantage of getting engaged with the developer early in the process rather than later. The MCWD would like to encourage that with other cities. McMillan reported she also attended a meeting of the Highway 12 Safety Coalition last Thursday and that approximately 30 people from the public attended the meeting. McMillan stated the people in attendance would like to see the improvements take place and that she hopes to hear soon about the funding. McMillan noted occasionally she receives requests for proclamations for various things and that Orono has not really done those in the past. McMillan stated she received a request from an Orono resident for a proclamation recognizing National Gun Violence Day on June 2. McMillan stated the City has not really gotten involved in national issues like that in the past and that the policy regarding proclamations has been for issues that are more locally based. McMillan indicated she will forward the e-mail to the rest of the Council. McMillan stated if anyone on the City Council is interested in changing that policy, the Council can discuss that. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 15. RFP FOR PROSECUTING ATTORNEY City Administrator Loftus stated the City received four submittals for the prosecuting attorney Request for Proposals. All four met the minimum requirements and were submitted by the April 29 deadline. The next phase is to review the proposals and to decide who to interview. Loftus stated she did ask Chief Farniok and Sergeant Boris to also look at the proposals. Loftus noted the list of the four firms is public but their actual proposals are not public. Loftus indicated Staff is looking for the Council’s input on whether they would like to interview all four or whether they would like to narrow the candidates down. Loftus noted Mayor McMillan will be gone June 13 and that perhaps the alternate date should be chosen. Staff recommends interviewing Ken Potts and Steve Tallen. Loftus stated the Council could change the start time of their work session on June 27 from 5:00 to 4:00 and then interview the candidates beforehand. Loftus stated the City would continue under their current contract with Ken Potts until the end of the year. It was the consensus of the City Council to schedule the interviews for June 27. Cornick stated since he has worked with Ken Potts for 20-plus years and has become friends with him, he would like to be recused from the interview process. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 9, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 23 of 28 15. RFP FOR PROSECUTING ATTORNEY (continued) Walsh stated he would like to interview Tallen, Spaulding and David Ross. Walsh stated he would like to exclude Ken Potts since in his view he has not done a good job. Walsh stated there is also another issue that occurred last summer. Walsh stated unbeknownst to him, when he received his DWI fifteen years ago, Ken Potts was the prosecuting attorney. Walsh stated because of that, Ken Potts said that if Council Member Walsh keeps pursuing the RFP, he is going to say that Walsh is biased against him. Walsh stated he found that to be inappropriate and stated in his view Ken Potts should recuse himself from the process. Loftus stated her understanding of the conversation was that Ken Potts had noted Council Member Walsh’s DWI and thought there could be a bias, not that he would bring it forward. McMillan stated she personally would like to interview Ken Potts and the others and that she does not want this process to become political. McMillan stated she appreciates Council Member Cornick recusing himself because of his relationship with Mr. Potts. McMillan suggested that Council Member Walsh consider recusing himself as well since he has expressed some bias towards Mr. Potts. Walsh noted that happened last summer. McMillan stated she would like to interview Mr. Potts and that she does not see the same issue as Council Member Walsh. McMillan stated she is starting to become concerned about the political nature of it since Council Member Walsh has projected a bias. Walsh stated he expressed a dissatisfaction last summer with Mr. Potts’ performance in general and that it had nothing to do with anything else. Walsh stated Mr. Potts’ comment about his DWI came out of the blue. Loftus stated Mr. Potts indicated he did not think it was coming out of the blue and that he felt it could be retaliation against him. Printup asked if this is going to create an automatic review process every five years or every three years. Levang noted that is what the Council agreed to. Printup stated that should help make it less uncomfortable in the future. Loftus stated Staff is looking for annual reports along with a 5-year contract so there is some consistency and that it is important for the Council to pick a firm they are comfortable with. Loftus stated once that firm is selected, the Council will need to be mindful and careful about their interactions with the prosecuting attorney after that point. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 9, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 24 of 28 15. RFP FOR PROSECUTING ATTORNEY (continued) Loftus stated it is very important that the prosecuting attorney make impartial decisions about who gets prosecuted and on what since any bias can result in cases be thrown out. Loftus stated as the governing body, it is completely within the Council’s right to decide who services the contract but that it is important to remind themselves that the prosecuting attorney has autonomy and that he should not feel any political pressure from the Council. McMillan stated the Council should pass any complaints about the prosecuting attorney immediately to the city administrator and that individual council members cannot personally get involved in it. Mattick stated the prosecuting attorney should not receive a phone call from a council member telling him not to prosecute someone. Printup moved, Levang seconded, to interview all four candidates for the position of prosecuting attorney for the City of Orono. Walsh noted when the RFP was sent out to the Council for review, he commented right away that currently there is an annual appointment and that it was to be reviewed every five years. Walsh stated he was not looking to bind the City in a straight 5-year contract, with the contract being renewed every five years, and that he requested that be changed. Walsh stated since it was too late to deal with that then, he would like to deal with it now. Walsh stated he is looking for the best firm to do it and not someone who has simply done it for a number of years. Loftus noted the terms of the contract are negotiable and should be discussed at some point. Levang stated she would like some continuity of service and that when people are not sure whether they are going to be hired again for the following year, it makes it difficult on them, especially if they have cases they are going to be prosecuting. Levang stated in her view a 5-year contract helps demonstrate loyalty on behalf of the City and that she has a concern about not being able to extend a contract for more than one year. Loftus noted it is a 3-year contract currently. McMillan indicated she is really only interested in interviewing the first three since the fourth one does not have any experiencing involving Lake Minnetonka, but that she would be willing to interview all four if the rest of the Council would like to. VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Cornick Abstained. Loftus asked if Chief Farniok should be involved. Levang stated she would like him to be there. Levang stated he could just listen and not participate in asking questions but that he should be involved to some extent since the Council is selecting someone the police department has to work with. Loftus stated the police chief would be a resource for determining a good prosecutor. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 9, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 25 of 28 16. FUND TRANSFER Walsh asked if this is an additional $500,000 that the City had not planned on. McMillan stated it is money that it is in the General Fund and the City is required to keep 50 percent in reserves. Walsh noted these are funds that were not planned on being in the Pavement Fund a year ago. Walsh stated when the Council talked about having other funds go into the Pavement Management Fund, this would be over and above that. Walsh asked if this will be dedicated towards the non-MSA streets. McMillan stated the MSA funds stay in the MSA fund. McMillan stated this money is just going into the pavement management fund and will not be earmarked to a specific project. Walsh stated during the work session there was a discussion about having the extra money going towards the non-MSA streets. McMillan stated this is a fund balance transfer and is not being earmarked toward any specific project at this time. Loftus stated this action follows up on the Council’s work session and would allow the City to move forward with the Hunter and Tamarack overlay projects. McMillan stated the City is only supposed to have 45 to 50 percent of the City’s expenditures in the General Fund as reserves. McMillan stated the City Council may want to think about the intersection of County Roads 15 and 19, which would be a larger project, and that they may want some money transferred into the Community Investment Fund at some point. Levang asked where the money would come from for the trail connection. Olson stated that would come out of the Park Fund. Olson stated the City had a $600,000 surplus, and as the budget goes up, the 50 percent will increase as the fund balance goes up. Loftus noted the exact amount of the excess is $544,000 but that the City will only be transferring $500,000 of that into the Pavement Management Fund. Walsh moved, Printup seconded, to approve the transfer of $500,000 from the General Fund to the Pavement Management Fund for use on approved road projects. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *17. HACKBERRY PROPERTY PURCHASE Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the Purchase Agreement between the City of Orono and Lawrence E. and Rosemary C. Gleason for the property located at 140 Hackberry Hill. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 9, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 26 of 28 *18. GOLF COURSE DONATIONS – RESOLUTION NO. 6625 Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6625, a Resolution to Accept Golf Course Donations. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *19. PERMITS/LICENSES Garbage &Refuse Collector Licenses: 1. Baldy Sanitation, Inc. 5906 Henry Street Maple Plain, MN 55359 2. Randy’s Environmental Services 4351 U.S. Highway 12 Southeast Delano, MN 55328 3. Republic Services, Inc. 9813 Flying Cloud Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55347 4. Waste Management 490 Industrial Boulevard Winsted, MN 55395 Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the above-listed licenses. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *20. CLAIMS/BILLS Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT, CONTINUED Loftus stated the City is reviewing its dog license program in conjunction with analyzing the Lurton Park permit fees and staffing. Loftus stated Staff has decided to make up some orange signs to designate any forfeited vehicles that might be sitting in the police department parking lot so people do not get the wrong impression. Loftus reported Community Development Director Barnhart is working on a 6-month customer service survey and that the residents are encouraged to fill out an online survey. To date the City has received 27 responses. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 9, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 27 of 28 21. HAZARDOUS PROPERTY, 3907 CHERRY AVENUE City Attorney Mattick stated this property is located at 3907 Cherry Avenue. Pictures of the property have been included in the Council packet depicting a number of items laying around in the yard, which would be in violation of the City’s regulations. The City first attempted to contact the property owner in 2013 to remedy these issues but a letter sent to the property was returned as undeliverable. Staff has no alternative contact information for the property owner. The home on the property has been boarded up and is currently vacant. The issues existing on the exterior of the property constitute a hazard to public health and safety. The action being requested tonight is seeking permission to file the necessary paperwork to get this action initiated. All costs associated with the cleanup would be assessed to the property. Mattick stated he anticipates personal service will not be obtained in this case and that the City has to publish the notice for six weeks in the City’s legal newspaper, which is required by state statute. Mattick stated to the City’s knowledge the residence is vacant. Jennifer Dunzel, 1545 Maple Place, which is the immediate adjacent property. Dunzel stated she has resided in Orono for four years and the property has continued to deteriorate over the years. Dunzel indicated she has written several letters to the City and County regarding this property. Dunzel questioned why the City is not deeming the home itself to be a hazardous property and address that at this time since this feels like a partial solution. Dunzel noted there are 27 children in the immediate vicinity aged 0 to 10 and that it is a very dangerous situation. Dunzel stated she would like something to be done as soon as possible. Dunzel noted the taxes on the property are delinquent and that the house is mice infested. Dunzel asked whether the City Council can work with the County or other action beyond this to deal with the structure itself. Mattick stated the County is solely responsible for the tax forfeiture portion of it and they can decide to auction it off at any time. In terms of cleaning up the property beyond the exterior, that is something the City can look at, but as a governmental entity, the City cannot just enter that property even if it is presumed to be vacant. Mattick stated some other steps would need to be taken before the City would be able to do that and that there would need to be a report stating that the house is structurally unsound and not that it just looks bad. Levang stated phase one is to clean up the exterior. Levang asked how the City can condemn the building and remove it, which is what the City has done on other properties. Mattick stated the last house the City condemned had sustained some serious fire damage and it was clear that it needed to be torn down. Mattick stated code violations by themselves are not enough to tear down the building, but that in his opinion there is enough there for the City to obtain an administrative search warrant, which would allow them to enter the building to determine whether it is structurally sound. If it is determined to be structurally insufficient, the City can seek an order to tear it down. Mattick indicated he has not taken that step yet, but that in his view an administrative search warrant would be relatively easy to get. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 9, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 28 of 28 21. HAZARDOUS PROPERTY, 3907 CHERRY AVENUE (continued) Loftus asked whether Ms. Dunzel believes there is standing water inside the home for any reason. Dunzel stated she has not been inside the home but through the windows you can see that there are items stacked to the ceiling. Dunzel stated there is also a hose coming out of the house into the front yard. Walsh stated inspecting the house would seem a natural step and that the City might as well get a structural engineer in there at the same time. Mattick stated the City could hold off with the resolution and do it all at once. Mattick stated if the Council is interested, he could take steps to obtain an administrative warrant by the end of the week. Levang and Walsh stated that would be their preference. Loftus noted when there is standing water, an engineer is not required to inspect it. Levang stated she would like to see this completely taken care of at one time rather than doing it in steps. Levang stated given the number of children and new homes in the area, in her view it is a definite hazard. Mattick stated this process will take some time and that they are probably looking at three to four months to get permission to do it from the court, publishing it, and then lining up the contractors. It was the consensus of the City Council to proceed forward with the administrative search warrant. CLOSED MEETING 22. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOR CITY ADMINISTRATOR Printup moved, Levang seconded, to enter into closed session to discuss the performance evaluation for the City Administrator. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (The City Council went into closed session from 10:27 p.m. to 10:54 p.m.) ADJOURNMENT ATTEST: _____________________________________ ______________________________________ Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION April 25, 2016 5:00 o’clock p.m. ___________________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: Mayor Lili Tod McMillan, Council Members Jim Cornick, Jr., Aaron Printup, Lizz Levang, and Denny Walsh. Representing Staff were City Administrator Jessica Loftus, Finance Director Ron Olson, Public Works Director/Engineer Adam Edwards, Senior Planner Michael Gaffron, and City Clerk Diane Tiegs. GUESTS: Hennepin County Assessor, James Atchison; Long Lake Council Member, Lizz Olson; Cemetery Board Members Jim Dillman and Sam Retinger 1. Hennepin County Assessor Contract - Presentation from James Atchison The City of Orono contracts with Hennepin County for assessing services. The current 4-year contract expires on July 31, 2016. Hennepin County Assessor James Atchison provided information to Council which included an “At a Glance” information fact sheet and a PowerPoint presentation reviewing the services offered. Mr. Atchison reviewed the diverse types of properties and their values which include executive homes, lakeshore neighborhoods, and small neighborhoods. Property valuation ranges in Orono are 32 percent $0 – 400,000, 34 percent $400,000 – 800,000, 17 percent $800,000 - 1.2 M and 17 percent are $1.2M and higher. Orono has a culture in which residents call and expect a personal response regarding their concerns. Orono has had the most contacts regarding the valuation notices for a community of its size. The Hennepin County Assessor’s Office provides excellent customer service and education to the community and residents. The Hennepin County Assessor’s office houses two staff appraisers at Orono City Hall, Tom Kunik and Mike Smerdon. Their time at Orono is 80% re-evaluation phone calls and 20% reviewing property. Housing staff and property records at City Hall provides a quicker response to resident requests. Hennepin County is in the process of implementing the e-homestead applications online. This is set for June 2016 County-wide and will create a more efficient process. Risk Management issues are addressed by the Hennepin County Administrators and no extra fees are incurred. Legal advisors from the County Attorney’s office are at the assessor’s disposal. Open Book efficiencies and future improvements may move to the format of region meetings rather than community. This would allow more opportunity for residents to bring forth their valuation concerns as the Open Book times and dates would be for more than one 3 hour session per community. Hennepin County Assessors are qualified to appraise all properties within the county. Item #03 - CC Agenda - 05/23/2016 Approval of Council Work Session Minutes 04-25-16 [Page 1 of 5] 2 The Hennepin County Assessing Division supplies computers, business analysts, legal consulting, and 50 staff which includes 38 certified assessors to address resident concerns. Council Member Printup asked where Orono falls in valuations are after the crash of 2009 as to whether valuations have stabilized. City Administrator Loftus stated that Hennepin County follows the market which means we are re-active and not pro-active. We currently house other community’s property files and City Administrator Loftus suggested compensation for that storage. Mr. Atchison said an $8,000 credit for 2015 and a $5,000 credit for 2014 was reimbursed to the City for not using the full contract amount. In conclusion the assessing contract expires July 31, 2016. Loftus stated this discussion was to review Hennepin County process and provide information to Council. Printup would like to poll other communities to learn how they do their assessing. Mr. Atchison reminded Council that this is a full-time 2 person job not a weekend/evening position. Orono takes a tremendous amount of effort to do the proper valuations. Council Member Levang is not interested in looking at doing it differently due to the excellent job the current assessors are providing the City of Orono. Council Members Walsh and Printup would like more information so Council members can answer resident inquiries. Why do communities choose to go with a private assessor? Mr. Atchison relayed that many communities have moved to county services due to growth and retirement of private assessors. 2. Cemetery Road Parking / Ownership City Planner Mike Gaffron provided historical information for Cemetery Road. Cemetery Road provides access to Union Cemetery. Currently employees of the Birch’s Restaurant use the road for parking. Concerns have risen regarding the road integrity, maintenance along with who actually owns cemetery road. Gaffron reviewed the conclusions of his research. He believes it is a public road, never dedicated but historically it is a public road. Discussion at this meeting centers on the issues of regulating the parking of Birch’s employees, road ownership, and who is responsible for road maintenance. Walsh asked Long Lake Council Member Olson whether Long Lake would want total ownership of the road and she responded no. The road is split, the south side is owned by Wolf Pointe HOA within Long Lake jurisdiction and the north side is owned by the Cemetery within the jurisdiction of Orono. Edwards stated that currently Orono regularly plows the road during the winter and posts weight restrictions in spring. The maintenance should be split 50/50 in the event the road integrity is weakened. Item #03 - CC Agenda - 05/23/2016 Approval of Council Work Session Minutes 04-25-16 [Page 2 of 5] 3 The manager of Birch’s has been working with the cemetery board and agrees to direct his employees to park on the south side which has solved the parking problem. Walsh says it makes sense to plat the road accurately and cost share. Regarding policing the area, police could sweep the parking area after bar hours. Someone needs to communicate with Birch’s what the expectations are when using the south side of cemetery road. Council directed Loftus to meet with Long Lake City Administrator Scott Weske and to discuss road maintenance issues. 3. Sub-Committee with Orono School Loftus relayed that Council discussed whether a subcommittee with Orono Schools should be formalized to regularly meet with Orono Schools staff per a request from Council Member Walsh. She asked Council if this is something they would still like to do and who would be on the sub- committee. Walsh and Printup would like to meet and have dialog with the school staff as a sub- committee. Mayor McMillan is hesitant to get that political with the school. The City has to maintain balance with other school districts within Orono. She would rather invite school staff to a Council Work Session to share information as a group. Council Member Levang agrees that the City should maintain a balance with all the schools in the community. Walsh stated the subcommittee is to just talk with the board to keep a dialog going and keep updated as to what is happening. Printup feels that the Orono School Board is hesitant to get politically involved with the City. Mayor McMillan said that the City must remain neutral especially regarding school issues such as school referendums and does not want to give the impression that one school is receiving preferential treatment over other schools in our community. The City Council receives the meeting minutes and meeting packets via the weekly Information Update which provides updates and board action. An invitation to meet as a group would be appropriate. 4. Road Funding and Planning The current street rebuilding and maintenance required on City roads exceeds the current resources. Public Works Director/City Engineer Adam Edwards reviewed the assumptions and requested initial direction on road funding from Council. There is still much work to be done for a fully developed road funding program. The 2014 Road Management Plan was a start. The plan requires $1,050,000 annually for preventative maintenance and re-construction funds. That Plan has been the source document driving the Pavement Capital Improvement Plan which in turn is used to develop the annual pavement maintenance budget. However due to a lack of funding the most Item #03 - CC Agenda - 05/23/2016 Approval of Council Work Session Minutes 04-25-16 [Page 3 of 5] 4 pavement maintenance projects have been deferred. Although not budgeted or planned for the city has done some maintenance works with previous year’s budget surpluses (averaging $380,000 annually over the last 10 years). Currently the city does not have a sustainable budget. Council’s options for funding sources are to change the levy, assessments, franchise fees, or reallocating resources from other city activities. The 2008 Casco Point Road was repaired using bonds which will be expiring in 2023. Looking at the historical records it appears that a decision was made to use the Cities preventative maintenance funds to pay back the bonds on this project. This has left the city without a reliable budget for road maintenance. Mayor McMillan said Council could look to add levy funds that result from increase property values but did not want to increase the tax rate. Edwards would like direction from Council to move forward because the longer road maintenance is deferred the more expensive to repair. Currently maintenance workers are trying to play catch up with limited funds and staff, with some roads beyond patching. Walsh wants a list of the street reconstruction projects under consideration reviewed. Edwards reviewed the top priority roads, 2016 road maintenance, and current improvement activity in progress. A feasibility study for Fox Street improvements is slated for this summer with projects possible in 2017-2019. Council Members are in agreement that Fox Street needs to be repaired as soon as possible. Fox road complaints are for the length but the worst sections are on the west end. Total street costs are from the Pavement Management Study. A feasibility study will provide more detail to refine the numbers. With the recent road bids coming in low there should be sufficient funds in the MSA account to rebuild the MSA section of Fox in 2017. If a sufficient funding source can be identified it would be wise to also rebuild the western most (city funded) section as well in 2017. In addition to rebuilding our worst roads the city needs to invest in preventative maintenance activities such as mill and overlays and seal coating. Hunter, Tamarack and Casco Circle were all proposed for mill and overlays in 2016 but differed. With the surpluses from 2015 they could be reconsidered. Hunter Roads condition is in decent shape underneath but the top coat is disintegrating. Tamarack is in nearly the same condition. Northern Avenue is at the top of the list but due to the building project in that area repair would be best to wait. There may be a cost savings to group roads together which would better serve residents by limiting disruption. Walsh wants to get the bad roads completed. He would like Hunter and Tamarack set for mill and overlay this year and hold any excess funds for Fox Street. Mayor McMillan is interested in adding more funds to the levy but keeping the tax rate at 17%. Item #03 - CC Agenda - 05/23/2016 Approval of Council Work Session Minutes 04-25-16 [Page 4 of 5] 5 Council Member Levang is fine with increasing the levy and agrees with moving forward on maintenance for Fox, Hunter and Tamarack. Walsh stated in his opinion Hunter is more than a mill and overlay. Walsh suggested setting aside $25,000 for the school road project on Old Crystal Bay and the school will be responsible for the other half of $50,000 project. Mayor McMillan likes that idea but would like to review the bids for Hunter and Tamarac roads before dedicating funds. Printup likes the idea of cost sharing with the schools. Walsh stated that the bids for the Watertown road project were lower than expected so the extra $600,000 in the MSA account plus the MSA funds coming in 2017 could, in his opinion, provide funds to repair Fox Street located from Willow to Brown. Excess funds for non MSA roads could be used for Brown to Orchard and Old Crystal Bay to Willow roads. Walsh would like a feasibility study on Leaf Street for mill and overlay. Edwards said Leaf could be a staggered project as some sections may need to be re-built. He will provide a proposal to redo the roads and re-assessment of the cost at the May work session. ATTEST _________________________________ ____________________________________ Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor Item #03 - CC Agenda - 05/23/2016 Approval of Council Work Session Minutes 04-25-16 [Page 5 of 5] REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: May 23, 2016 ITEM NO: 4 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Jessica Loftus Presentation Title City Administrator JML Item Description: Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) 2017 Budget Gabriel Jabbour, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) representative, will be attending the meeting to provide information to the City Council regarding the draft 2017 LMCD budget. Mr. Jabbour will be available to answer questions on the attached budget and collect your input. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: No action required. April29,2016 TO: FROM: 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD. SUITE 200 . MOUND, MINNESOTA 5s364 . TELEPHONE 952t45-0789 . FAX 9s2i745-9085 LMCD City Administrators LMCD Board Members Jay Green, Chair Chris Jewett, Treasurer Gary Hughes, Board Member Jim Brimeyer, Interim Director SUBJECT: Draft2}l7 LMCD Budget Enclosed is a copy of the draft2ll7 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Budget. The in the LMCD office. By state statute, the allocation of levy to the 14 member cities is based on their percentage of the cumulative net tax capacity, with no city paying greater than2lVo of the overall levy. The LMCD Board performed a detailed review of projected expenses and revenues for 2017, using the 2015 budget for a baseline of operating expenses. The LMCD is proposing a decrease in overall operating expenses for 2017 as less non-levy revenue and grant opportunities is anticipated; however, this will require an increase in the overall levy to balance the budeet. H I of the draft2017 LMCD Budset include the fbl Draft20I7 LMCD Budset Budeet Hishlishts Details Total Exoenditures 5.4%o deqease ($539,392 compared to $570.366 in 2016). Personnel Services 26.6% decrease ($186,940 compared to$254,738 in 2016). Administrative Technician position will not be filled at this time. Contract services will be used to augment staffing requirements. Contract Services Temporarv Staffins $54,689 (compared to $2,500 in2016) Office Lease & Storase 2.3o/o increase ($18,049 compared to $17,609 in 2016). Eurasian Watermilfoil Harvestine Prosram 29.8% decrease ($60,062 compared to $85,500 in2016). Reflects adiusted 2016 proeram after loss of the $30,000 MN DNR srant. Aquatic Invasive Species Prevention $37,562 for watercraft inspections through various partnerships. An $18,781 grant from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is anticipated. Overall Lew 6.3%o increase ($326.343 compared to $306.866 in 2016). Web Page Address: http://www.lmcd.orq " F-mail Address: lmcd@lnrcd,org To protect and preserve Lake Minnetonka. The LMCD values your review and input. Please let Interim Executive Director Jim Brimeyer or your member city representative know if you would like a representative to attend an upcoming city council meeting to discuss the draft 2017 LMCD Budget or to review LMCD activities and projects. Review and approval by the LMCD Board is planned for the June 8tnmeeting.g 307i Post Oonsurner Wasie City 2010 U.S. Census Population Data 2015 Taxable Market Value 2015 Net Tax Capacity % of Total Net Tax Capacity (Note 1) Share of Admin. Levy in 2017 Share of AIS Levy in 2017 Share of Total Levy in 2017 Share of Total Levy in 2016 Increase in Total Levy from 2016 % of Increase from 2016 DEEPHAVEN 3,642 1,141,547,816 12,886,000 5.3%$18,558 $5,160 $23,719 $21,239 $2,480 11.7% EXCELSIOR 2,188 409,363,345 5,120,997 2.1%$7,375 $2,051 $9,426 $8,492 $934 11.0% GREENWOOD 688 298,057,890 3,421,492 1.4%$4,928 $1,370 $6,298 $6,009 $289 4.8% MINNETONKA 49,734 8,228,641,888 103,533,501 42.2%$51,069 $14,200 $65,269 $61,373 $3,896 6.3% MTKA BEACH 539 292,418,268 3,416,139 1.4%$4,920 $1,368 $6,288 $5,969 $319 5.3% MINNETRISTA 6,384 1,315,210,248 13,979,097 5.7%$20,133 $5,598 $25,731 $25,063 $668 2.7% MOUND 9,052 1,025,501,450 10,894,400 4.4%$15,690 $4,363 $20,053 $19,560 $493 2.5% ORONO 7,437 2,531,423,498 28,749,183 11.7%$41,404 $11,513 $52,917 $50,553 $2,364 4.7% SHOREWOOD 7,307 1,517,977,665 16,691,552 6.8%$24,039 $6,684 $30,723 $29,207 $1,516 5.2% SPRING PARK 1,669 227,113,200 2,711,561 1.1%$3,905 $1,086 $4,991 $4,728 $263 5.6% TONKA BAY 1,475 519,003,290 5,899,254 2.4%$8,496 $2,362 $10,858 $10,665 $193 1.8% VICTORIA 7,345 1,253,840,400 13,235,787 5.4%$19,062 $5,300 $24,362 $22,430 $1,932 8.6% WAYZATA 3,688 1,643,114,630 21,501,877 8.8%$30,967 $8,611 $39,577 $35,954 $3,623 10.1% WOODLAND 437 283,977,780 3,330,587 1.4%$4,797 $1,334 $6,130 $5,623 $507 9.0% 101,585 20,687,191,368 245,371,427 100.0%$255,343 $71,000 $326,343 $306,865 $19,478 6.3% Maximum Levy Per MN statute 103B.635 (Total Taxable Market Value * .00242%): $500,630 (Note 1) Per MN statute 103B.631, no city may pay more than 20% of the total levy. The City of Minnetonka would pay a constant 20% of any amounts to be levied. Remaining cities factor for determining levy amounts is computed as: (City Net Tax Capacity / ( Total Net Tax Capacity - Minnetonka Net Tax Capacity ) ) * 80% Total Net Tax Capacity 245,371,427 less Minnetonka Net Tax Capacity (103,533,501) Net Tax Capacity for remaining 13 cities 141,837,926 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 2017 BUDGET AND LEVY (Preliminary Approved) 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 Actual 2017 Footnote # Actual Budget Actual Budget Projected Note Budget See Appendix A 1. a)LMCD Communities Levy 245,990 247,992 247,992 235,866 235,866 255,343 b)Use from Administration Reserve 0 0 0 17,500 64,567 K 8,525 17 c)Court Fines 62,156 55,000 33,974 55,000 47,400 47,400 d)Licenses 114,586 115,000 107,510 115,000 112,000 112,000 e)Other Public Agencies 696 500 696 500 500 500 f)Interest 1,358 2,000 1,352 1,500 1,500 1,500 g)Other Income 1,043 2,000 1,533 2,000 2,000 1,500 425,829 422,492 393,057 427,366 463,833 426,768 2. a)LMCD Communities Levy 94,625 94,500 94,500 71,000 71,000 71,000 b)Other Public Agencies 51,841 30,000 53,304 54,000 18,781 A 18,781 1 c)Use from AIS & Administration Reserves 0 0 0 0 7,343 B 7,343 17 d) Interest 0 500 492 500 500 500 146,466 125,000 148,296 125,500 97,624 97,624 3. a)Transfers from Administration and AIS Reserves 25,000 35,000 35,000 17,500 0 15,000 17 b)Use from Equipment Replacement Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 0 25,000 35,000 35,000 17,500 0 15,000 597,295 582,492 576,353 570,366 561,457 539,392 340,615 342,492 342,492 306,866 306,866 326,343 1. a)Salaries 203,829 204,488 203,296 205,100 166,873 C 149,893 2 b)FICA & Medicare 15,502 15,643 15,538 15,690 12,766 D 11,467 3 c)Employer Benefit Contributions 32,397 34,085 31,562 33,948 26,749 E 25,580 4 d)ED Vacation/Sick Payout (2016 only)0 0 0 0 14,289 F 0 251,728 254,216 250,396 254,738 220,677 186,940 2. a)Office Lease & Storage 16,760 17,180 17,180 17,609 17,609 18,049 5 b)Professional Services 2,054 2,500 18,587 2,500 2,500 2,500 6 18,814 19,680 35,767 20,109 20,109 20,549 SUB-TOTAL ADMINISTRATION SUB-TOTAL AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES SUB-TOTAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT SUB-TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES SUB-TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES TOTAL REVENUES Total Levy DISBURSEMENTS ADMINISTRATION Personnel Services: 2017 BUDGET DETAIL (Preliminary Approved) Administration Aquatic Invasive Species Equipment Replacement REVENUES Contractual Services: 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 Actual 2017 Footnote # Actual Budget Actual Budget Projected Note Budget See Appendix A 2017 BUDGET DETAIL (Preliminary Approved) 3. a)Office, General Supplies 4,077 4,500 3,720 4,500 4,500 4,500 b)Telephone 2,621 2,460 2,627 2,640 2,640 2,640 c)Website, Internet, & E-mail 228 300 421 300 421 450 d)Postage 4,968 5,000 4,249 5,000 5,000 5,000 e)Printing, Publications, Advertising 11,575 11,000 6,076 12,000 8,800 9,000 6 f)Maintenance, Office Equipment 917 1,100 786 1,100 1,100 1,100 g)Subscriptions, Memberships (primarily League of MN Cities)1,677 1,700 1,775 1,768 1,825 1,900 h)Insurance, Bonds 6,591 7,250 7,489 7,250 7,250 7,500 8 i)Public Information, Legal Notices 1,435 1,000 1,183 1,000 1,250 1,250 j)Meeting Expenses 5,786 4,260 4,432 4,500 4,500 4,750 k)Media (Cable & Internet)0 3,300 2,780 3,600 2,400 2,400 9 l)Mileage 1,514 2000 1206 2000 2000 2000 m)Employee Training 50 400 279 400 400 400 41,439 44,270 37,023 46,058 42,086 42,890 4. a)Furniture & Equipment 478 1,500 204 1,500 1,500 1,500 b)Computer Software & Hardware 1,583 2,000 1,004 2,000 2,000 2,000 10 2,061 3,500 1,208 3,500 3,500 3,500 5. a)Legal Services 40,744 32,000 46,582 32,000 53,000 G 54,000 11 b)Prosecution Services 29,738 45,000 42,337 45,000 45,000 45,000 12 c)Hennepin County Room & Board 812 1,000 279 1,000 1,000 1,000 71,294 78,000 89,198 78,000 99,000 100,000 6. a)Audit 7,250 7,486 7,450 7,711 7,711 7,950 b)Information Technology 303 750 0 750 750 750 7,553 8,236 7,450 8,461 8,461 8,700 7.11,940 4,590 2,239 4,500 0 H 0 8.0 0 0 0 0 0 9.25,000 0 0 2,500 0 0 10.3,073 10,000 3,487 12,000 70,000 J 64,189 13 432,902 422,492 426,768 429,866 463,833 426,768 Administration Reserve Fund Equipment Replacement Fund Contingency TOTAL ADMINISTRATION Legal: Contract Services/Studies: Code Enforcement Program SUB-TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY SUB-TOTAL LEGAL SUB-TOTAL CONTRACT SERVICES/STUDIES Office & Administration: Capital Outlay: SUB-TOTAL OFFICE & ADMINISTRATION 2014 2015 2015 2016 2016 Actual 2017 Footnote # Actual Budget Actual Budget Projected Note Budget See Appendix A 2017 BUDGET DETAIL (Preliminary Approved) 1.97,496 95,000 80,718 85,500 60,062 60,062 14 2.0 35,000 35,000 15,000 0 15,000 15 3.0 0 0 0 0 0 4.0 0 0 0 0 0 5.35,492 30,000 37,571 40,000 37,562 37,562 16 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 132,988 160,000 153,289 140,500 97,624 112,624 565,890 582,492 580,057 570,366 561,457 539,392 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND Purchase of New Mechanical Harvester TOTAL AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS Eurasian Watermilfoil (EWM) Harvesting Program AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES (AIS) Equipment Replacement Fund AIS Reserve Fund Herbicide Treatment Program AIS Prevention & Management Programs Other Public Agencies (Note A) The LMCD projects that it will receive a $18,781 grant from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for watercraft inspections. The two grants anticipated from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources ($30,000 for mechanical harvesting and $4,000 for watercraft inspections) will not be funded. Use from AIS & Administration Reserves The $17,500 planned for the Equipment Replacement Fund had been proposed to be reallocated for harvesting and (Note B)watercraft inspections ($2,500 from General Reserve Fund and $15,000 from AIS Reserve Fund) and has been reduced to $7,343 (from AIS Reserves only) in order to balance the AIS program budget* Salaries (Note C) 2016 actual projected Current Executive Director $67,675.49 (January through October) Replacement Executive Director $27,070.20 (September through December) Administrative Technician (vacant)$0.00 Administrative Assistant $55,382.60 (includes 100 hours of overtime) Administrative Clerk (part-time)$16,744.95 (assumes that 1,143 hours to be worked in 2016) Seasonal Code Enforcement (part-time)$0.00 $166,873.24 F.I.C.A. & Medicare (D)2016 actual projected Total Salaries (7.65%)$12,765.80 $12,765.80 Employer Benefit Contributions (Note E)2016 actual projected P.E.R.A. (7.50%)$12,515.49 NCPERS Life Insurance $416.00 Medical & Dental Insurance $13,817.96 $26,749.45 NCPERS Life Insurance Medical & Dental Insurance (*) Current Executive Director $160.00 $5,314.60 Replacement Executive Director $64.00 $2,125.84 Administrative Technician (vacant)$0.00 $0.00 Administrative Assistant $192.00 $6,377.52 Administrative Clerk (part-time)$0.00 $0.00 $416.00 $13,817.96 (*) Monthly premiums for medical & dental insurance was $531.46 ($478 for Blue Cross Blue Shield & $53.46 for Health Partners) ED Vacation/Sick Payout (Note F)Estimated at $14,289 Legal Services (Note G)Includes additional $10,000 as we anticipate more need in 2016. Also includes $11,000 to cover bill from LMC for EOF appeal Code Enforcement Program (Note H)The LMCD Board has suspended this program for the 2016 boating season (enforcement to be done through complaints) $1,255.87 $1,255.87 $12,515.49 $26,749.45 $2,030.27 $4,220.11 $0.00 $0.00 $4,153.70 $10,723.22 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) 2016 Actual Projected Notes P.E.R.A. $5,075.66 Totals $10,550.26 Contingency (Note J) 2016 actual projected Interim Executive Director $40,500.00 (18 weeks, 30 hours per week, $75 per hour) Professional Search Firm $20,000.00 (Replacement of Executive Director position) Temporary Staffing $6,000.00 (Temporary agency staff, where needed) Unanticipated Expenses $3,500.00 $70,000.00 Reserves (Note K)Reserve needed to balance budget (need better explanation) LMC Invoice $11,000.00 ED Vac/Sick Payout $14,289.00 Increased Legal Services $12,000.00 Search Firm $20,000.00 Shortage (Fines and Fees)$7,278.00 $64,567.00 Other Public Agencies (Footnote #1)It is anticipated that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) will fund the LMCD a $18,781 grant for watercraft inspections. Based solely on 2016 projected program costs. Salaries (Footnote #2) estimated 2017 baseline Executive Director $81,210.59 $0.00 Administrative Assistant/Code Enforcement $51,937.60 (*) Administrative Clerk (part-time)$16,744.95 Seasonal Code Enforcement (part-time)$0.00 $149,893.14 (**) (*) Salaries will be grossed up to pay for long-term disability insurance for full-time LMCD employees (**) Salary adjustments & limited overtime (including F.I.C.A., medicare, & P.E.R.A.) are included in Contingency (line-item 10) F.I.C.A. & Medicare (Footnote #3)2016 actual projected Total Salaries (7.65%)$11,466.83 $11,466.83 Employer Benefit Contributions (Footnote #4) P.E.R.A. (7.50%)$11,241.99 NCPERS Life Insurance $384.00 Medical & Dental Insurance (*)$13,953.56 $25,579.55 (*) Medical & dental insurance provided for Executive Director & Administrative Assistant positions- assumes a 10% increase for medical insurance & 4% increase for dental insurance. Office Lease & Storage (Footnote #5)Monthly Rate Months $1,494.78 9 $13,453.02 $1,532.15 3 $4,596.45 $18,049.47 Professional Services (Footnote #6) Contracted Payroll & Taxes $2,000.00 Contracted Bookkeeping Consulting $500.00 $2,500.00 Printing, Publications, & Advertising $9,000 has been budgeted for one LMCD Newsletter, the re-printing of the Summer and Winter Rules brochures, (Footnote #7) Insurance, Bonds (Footnote #8) $7,500 has been budgeted with the League of Minnesota Cities for insurance for the LMCD. Administrative Technician Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) and other LMCD literature. Preliminary Approved 2017 LMCD Budget (*) Appendix A Media (Cable & Internet)$2,400 has been budgeted to contract with a producer and on-line viewing of LMCD Board Meetings (one per month). (Footnote #9) Computer Software & Hardware (Footnote #10) Legal Services (Footnote #11)$54,000 has been budgeted for legal services (taking into consideration changes to the civil attorney and Executive Director positions in 2016). ($12,000 of this was added to begin recodification efforts) Prosecution Services (Footnote #12)$45,000 has been budgeted for prosecution services. These expenses will be offset by projected $45,000 of court fines. EWM Harvesting Program (Footnote #13)A mechanical harvesting program is planned from mid June through mid August to manage EWM on Lake Minnetonka. Harvesting priorities will be based on impediments to public navigation to the open water due to EWM growth (in particular matted areas). All areas that dictate the need for harvesting will be done at least once, with high growth areas being harvested twice (time permitting). Further details of the proposed project (including a more detailed budget) will be provided in the spring of 2017. Equipment Replacement Fund $15,000 has been budgeted for replacement of depreciated EWM Harvesting Program (transfer from the AIS Reserve (Footnote #14)Fund). AIS Prevention & Management Programs (Footnote #15) Contingency (Footnote #16) Projected salary actions/fica/pera $9,500.00 Contracted Temporary Staffing (as needed)$54,689.00 $64,189.00 Reserves (Footnote #17) Admin Reserve $8,525.00 AIS Reserve $7,343.00 $15,868.00 particular the MCWD as a funding partner and the Three Rivers Park District for professional services). $37,562 has been budgeted for unspecified AIS management and prevention programs (most likely watercraft $2,000 has been budgeted for information technology, hardware, and software updates. inspections). Similar to past years, the LMCD will seek partnerships for the implementation of these projects (in RESERVE FUND ANALYSIS:Administration AIS Equipment Replacement Fund 2016 12/31/15 Balance $160,925 $139,346 $102,800 Reserve Fund Contribution $0 $0 $0 Transfer from Reserve Fund ($64,567)($7,343) $0 Transfer to Equip. Repl. Fund $0 $0 $0 Projected 12/31/15 Balance $96,358 $132,003 $102,800 Administration AIS Equipment Replacement Fund 2017 Projected 12/31/16 Balance $96,358 $132,003 $102,800 Reserve Fund Contribution $0 $0 $0 Transfer from Reserve Fund ($8,525)($7,343)$0 Transfer to Equip. Repl. Fund $0 ($15,000)$15,000 Projected 12/31/17 Balance $87,833 $109,660 $117,800 Projected % of 2016 Annual Budget 20.4%78.0% REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: May 23, 2016 ITEM NO: 5 ______________________________________________________________________________ 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: Annual Public Hearing for NPDES Phase II Storm Water Permit ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Background. The City of Orono holds a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program for operation of the City’s stormwater drainage system. The NPDES is a national regulatory program under the jurisdiction of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and is administered at the State level by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 2. Requirement. A requirement of the permit is that an Annual Report be prepared and submitted to the MPCA. Staff has prepared the report, and will submit to the MPCA after this meeting. One component of the report is that the City must hold a Public Meeting. The meeting must provide a summary of the City’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP), the activities of the City for the past calendar year in regards to the permit requirements, and must afford the opportunity for public input and comment. 3. Action. There will be a short presentation as part of the public hearing. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Conduct a public hearing to receive public input and comments regarding the City of Orono’s SWPPP. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: May 23, 2016 ITEM NO: 6 _____________________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Jeremy Barnhart JML Planning Department Report Title Community Development Director _____________________________________________________________________________________ Item Description: 16-3832, City of Orono, Variance, Public Hearing _____________________________________________________________________________________ Purpose. The variance would permit the placement of a 47’’ high, woven wire metal field fence in various locations throughout the park. The following variances are necessary: Variance from the lake yard setback (150 feet required, 30-35 feet proposed) Variance from the wetland separation. (35 feet required, 0 -35 feet proposed) The fence serves as the boundary for the proposed off leash dog park, proposed for the Susan E. Lurton Park. Background. The City is proposing development of a dog park within Susan E. Lurton Park on County Road 112. Improvements to the dog park include 47’’ high field fencing, an expanded parking area, and benches throughout the park. The planned fencing is to be field located to avoid impacts with existing vegetation, incorporate existing trails, and avoid impacts to the wetlands. Fencing is designed to blend into the environment. The expansion of the parking area was approved by the Council on May 9, 2016. Fencing at 47” high in the front yard along County RD 112 is permissible; (Section 78-1405 b 1) allows fences up to 6 feet for lots abutting a lake and a major thoroughfare. The average lakeshore setback for fences (Section 78-1405 b 2) does not apply as the subject property does not have a principal residence. The proposed fence will not impact the view of the lake from any private property. The park has not been surveyed, therefore the exact boundaries of the wetland and the lake have not been determined. The setbacks proposed are estimated based on field inspection, aerial photography, and LIDAR elevation data and assumes the eastern park boundary is the wetland boundary and the OHW of the lake. While not determinant of the lake boundary, the open water of Lake Classen is 190 to 840 feet from the property line. A survey of the park would definitively identify the boundary. The park property is bounded on the west by a wetland, on the south by County Road 112 Right of Way, on the east by Lake Classen, and the north by residential property. The fence on the east side is proposed between 30-45 feet from the property line, based on field inspection, which would put the fence 30-45 feet from the wetland where 35 feet is required, and 30-45 feet from the Lake, where 150 feet is required. A portion of the fence on the east side will replace existing fence within the lake and wetland yard. On the west side, a wetland creates a finger into the property. In this area, the fence is proposed along the wetland, again to avoid vegetation and slopes. The proposed separation is 0-10 feet where a 35 foot buffer is required. The Planning Commission has not reviewed the variance application. The Council, by unanimous action, may waive reference to the Planning Commission (Section 78-122) and hold the public hearing itself. Applicable 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 intent of the ordinance is to maintain a rural, natural character adjacent to the lake. The Council should determine if the proposed fencing, at its location, impedes this goal. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The global intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to maintain a certain character of the City, while establishing minimum standards for health, safety, and general welfare of residents. The fence proposed is consistent in character with minimal lake impact, and accomplishes certain health, safety general welfare goals identified by the City by offering expanded recreational opportunities. 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 property is currently a park. The improvements proposed are consistent with a park, which is a permitted use (publically owned parks and playgrounds). b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The fence location is preferred to avoid invasive work within the tree area. The trees were not planted by the property owner. c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The fence design is intended to blend into the park character which is rural. The fences are designed to blend into the landscape and will be minimally visible from the street and off 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 special conditions include the public use of the property, trying to apply regulations primarily intended for private development. The Council should determine if the special conditions warrant a variance. 5. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The unique conditions do not generally apply to other land or structures in the district. The majority of land developed within the wetland and shoreline districts are single family residential. Approving a variance for public parks improvements would not apply directly to other land uses. 6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The ordinance provisions were drafted primarily to apply to the predominant land use in the city, single family residential. Applied to a park use, the enjoyment of the property is threatened because the ideal park and open space incorporates vegetation, slopes, wetlands, and water features. 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. The fence as proposed will not block views from neighboring properties, and due to its design and distance from the lake, will not be visually impactful from the lake. 8. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Location of the fence at the setback and at the necessary height is not merely a convenience, it is the planned efficient use of city resources to create a desirable experience for park users. The 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. Practical Difficulties Statement Planning and Public works staff developed the practical difficulties responses, outlined above. Staff will be available to address any questions during the meeting. Public Comments To date, staff has received no comments for or against the proposal, though some phone calls have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the City Council find that that the improvement is reasonable manner but not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Council find that the variances, if granted, will 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)? For instance, the Council could support a variance from the lake setback, but require the 35’ wetland separation be met. 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Staff should be directed to draft a resolution to support the Council’s decision. List of Exhibits Exhibit A Practical Difficulties Statement Exhibit B Park Plan Exhibit C GIS Analysis PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM Minnesota State Statutes Section 462.357, Subdivision 6(2) requires that practical difficulties be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. The difficulties must be unique to the property as variances run with the land and not the land owner. Personal and economic situations are not considered valid practical difficulties. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council practical difficulties having merit must be demonstrated. HOW DO I PROVE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if practical difficulties exist and how the variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove practical difficulties, address all the relevant points listed below and answer them as clearly as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is justified. The information the City receives is what is used in determining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave something out it will not be considered. Please address each of the twelve practical difficulties criteria as they relate to the request, if they do not apply, write N/A in the space provided: 1. “The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter.” The use of the park property for a park is reasonable. The fences allows more efficient use of this public property. 2. “The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.” Most properties in the RR-1B, lakeshore, and wetland buffer areas are private homes and businesses. A park is a unique land use with these features. 3. “The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” The fencing is designed to blend into the environment. Outside of the property, the fence will not be visible. The fencing will not impede water drainage. 4. “Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.” The fencing is proposed to be located within the setback and buffer areas to promote the most efficient use of the city park resource. 5. “Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter.” This does not apply. 6. “The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.” This does not apply. This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An application will not be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the City. 7. “The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.” This does not apply 8. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” Properties along the lake are required to meet setbacks, including those adjacent to the lake. In this situation, the special condition is this is public land, for the benefit of the public, rather than for the private enjoyment of individuals. 9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located.” There are no other dog parks planned in the RR-1B zoning districts or elsewhere in the city. 10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” The goal of the park improvement is to expand the benefit to the public, the goal of all parks. 11. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.” The variance will likely not be visible to those outside the park and any impact to the above stated goals would be superficial. 12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.” The variance allows the city to install park fencing at desirable location for the eventual users, while preserving the goals of the buffer and setback requirements. Practical Difficulties Statement Should you feel the practical difficulties cannot fully be described in the above criteria, describe the practical difficulties preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary): The installation of an open wire fence within a heavily wooded area for the betterment of a public park preserves the intent and goals of the ordinance while being efficient with the governments’ resources. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: May 23, 2016 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: Lurton Park Fencing ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval to proceed with the Lurton Park parking lot expansion. 2. Background. At the April 25th, 2016, meeting the Council approved the transition of Lurton Park to an Off Leash Dog Park. Included in the approved plan and project budget was the installation of Fencing and Gates. 3. Project Scope. Construction of a 4,775 ft. perimeter fence, 1,200 ft. of fence around small dog area, 600 ft. of gate area fencing, 3 pedestrian gates and 4 vehicular gates. 4. Quote Summary. The following quotes were received by the City for this project. Contractor Quote Northern Specialties, Inc. $ 72,509.00 Town and Country $ 119,970.00 5. Cost. The lowest quote from a qualified contractor was $ $ 72,509.00 from Northern Specialties, Inc. 6. Funding. This project will be funded from the Park Fund. The estimated cost of the fencing in the plan approved on April 25th was $88,000.00. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to accept the quote in the amount of $ 72,509.00 from Northern Specialties, Inc. for the installation of fencing and gates at Lurton Park. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: May 23, 2016 ITEM NO: 8 _____________________________________________________________________________________ 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: 2016 Road Maintenance (Hunter and Tamarack) ____________________________________________________________________________________ List of Exhibits A. Project Plan Set B. Bolton & Menk Proposal for Engineering / Inspection Services 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain Council authorization for the solicitation of bids for the maintenance project for Hunter and Tamarack Roads. 2. Background At the April 25th Work Session the Council indicated a desire to address maintenance issues on Hunter and Tamarack Roads during the 2016 Construction Season. The 2014 Pavement Management Plan identified Hunter and Tamarack as rated eligible for mill and overlay. Since that time both roads have continued to deteriorate and now requires some additional work to restore the roadways to an acceptable condition. 3. Scope of Work. See Exhibit A a. Tamarack includes reclamation work in the low portion of the road with a new 4” surface. The remainder of the road will be resurfaced with a 2” mill and overlay. b. Hunter Drive will be resurfaced with a 2” mill and overlay. The most distressed portions of the road will be patched before paving. 4. Cost. The engineers estimate for the project is $126,500. These estimates included costs for Bolton & Menk to assist in creating the plans / specification and project inspection. 5. Funding. The project will be funded from the Pavement Fund. Fund Total CIP Estimate Est. Fund Balance Pavement Fund $ 126,500 $ 156,926 $ Total $ 126,500 7. Timing. Solicit Bids ..................................................................................................................... May 2016 Open Bids.................................................................................................................... June 7, 2016 Award………………………………………………………………………..……....June 13, 2016 Construction …………………………………………………………………….…..Summer 2016 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to authorize the solicitation of bids for the project. H U N T E R D R HUNTER PASS KNO L L MAN N O R RD TA N G L E W O O D SPRI N G H I L L R D NO R T H STR E A M R D COUNTY ROAD 6 LONG LAKE LYDIARD LAKE R D W Y N D M E R E R D EA S T L O N G L A K E R D HOLLANDER RD TA M A R A C K D R W I L L O W B R O O K D R CITY OF ORONO CITY OF MEDINA NOTE: EXISTING UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS PLAN HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE UTILITY OWNER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY EXACT LOCATIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW. NOTIFY GOPHER STATE ONE CALL, 1-800-252-1166 OR 651-454-0002. THE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION IN THIS PLAN IS UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL D. THIS UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF CI/ASCE 38-02, ENTITLED "STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA." DATE:LIC. NO. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED DATEISSUED FORREV PROJECT LIMITS HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN CITY OF ORONO MAP LEGEND MAP OF THE MAY 2016 2016 MILL AND OVERLAY CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR CITY OF ORONO PLAN REVISIONS 5/18/201651323 MATTHEW S. BAUMAN © Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2016, All Rights Reserved TITLE SHEET CITY OF ORONO 2016 MILL AND OVERLAY SHEET OF 3 CONTRACTOR: OBSERVER: INFORMATION RECORD DRAWING DATE: 1 SHEET INDEX SHEET NO. GENERAL 1 TITLE SHEET 2 DETAILS 3 CONSTRUCTION PLAN THIS PLAN SET CONTAINS 3 SHEETS. H:\ORNO\C13111839\CAD\C3D\SHEETS\111839_TTL.dwg 5/17/2016 10:48 AM FEETSCALE HORZ. 500 10000 2638 SHADOW LANE, SUITE 200 - CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 Phone: (952)-448-8838 Email: Chaska@bolton-menk.com www.bolton-menk.com PROJECT LOCATION DETAIL SHEET© Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2016, All Rights Reserved CITY OF ORONO 2016 MILL AND OVERLAY SHEET DATELIC. NO. OF 3 DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DPM MSB MSB MATTHEW S. BAUMAN 5/18/201651323 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATEISSUED FORREV 2 H:\ORNO\C13111839\CAD\C3D\SHEETS\111839_DTL.dwg 5/17/2016 10:49 AM 2638 SHADOW LANE, SUITE 200 - CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 Phone: (952)-448-8838 Email: Chaska@bolton-menk.com www.bolton-menk.com ℄ VARIES NOT TO SCALE INSET A, B OR C 12'12' TAMARACK DRIVE & HUNTER DRIVE TYPICAL SECTION R/W STREET SURFACE MAILBOX INSTALLATION NOT TO SCALE 41 " - 4 5 " MIN 6" MAX 8" R/W BACKFILL WITH RECLAIMED AGGREGATE VARIES 4" WHITE STRIPING DOUBLE 4" YELLOW STRIPING 4" WHITE STRIPING 11.5'11.5' INSET B: FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION NOT TO SCALE FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION (2215) 1 INPLACE AGGREGATE BASE (VARIES) INPLACE SUBGRADE 2.0" TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B) (SPWEB240B) (2360) 2.0" TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B) (SPNWB230B) (2360) 2.0" TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B) (SPWEB240B) (2360) 2.0" TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B) (SPNWB230B) (2360) INSET C: BITUMINOUS PATCHES FULL RECONSTRUCTION NOT TO SCALE 9" AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 (2211). MATCH ADJACENT AGGREGATE BASE DEPTH 1 SUBGRADE PREPARATION (2112)RESHAPE/COMPACT RECLAIMED AGGREGATE 2.0" TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B) (SPWEB240B) (2360) INPLACE BITUMINOUS SURFACING INSET A: 2.0" MILL AND OVERLAY NOT TO SCALE INPLACE AGGREGATE BASE INPLACE SUBGRADE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY 3.0" TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B) (SPWEA240B) (2360) RESHAPE/COMPACT BASE MATERIAL NOT TO SCALE NOTE: 1. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY SUBGRADE DEPTH IN FIELD PRIOR TO RECLAIMING. NOTE: 1. RECLIAMED MATERIAL ALLOWED. 9" MINIMUM AGGREGATE BASE DEPTH. TAMARACK DRTAMARACK DR HUNTER DRHUNTER DR © Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2016, All Rights Reserved CITY OF ORONO 2016 MILL AND OVERLAY SHEET DATELIC. NO. OF 3 DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DPM MSB MSB MATTHEW S. BAUMAN 5/18/201651323 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATEISSUED FORREV 3 H:\ORNO\C13111839\CAD\C3D\SHEETS\111839_CONSTRUCTION.dwg 5/17/2016 10:47 AM TAMARACK DRIVE & HUNTER DRIVE CONSTRUCTION PLAN FEETSCALE HORZ. 50 1000 2638 SHADOW LANE, SUITE 200 - CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 Phone: (952)-448-8838 Email: Chaska@bolton-menk.com www.bolton-menk.com LEGEND DESCRIPTION OF WORK ST. ALBANS BAY ROAD 1.2.0" MILL AND OVERLAY. 2.REMOVE PAVEMENT AND BASE AT PATCH LOCATIONS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. 3.PLACE AGGREGATE BASE/RECLAIM IN PATCHES AND 2.0" BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE. 4.PLACE 2.0" BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE PAVEMENT. 5.PAINT 4 INCH DOUBLE YELLOW CENTER LINE STRIPING AND 4 INCH WHITE EDGE STRIPING. RECLAIM & PAVE LIMITS 2.0" MILL & OVERLAY LIMITS HUNTER DRIVE TAMARACK DRIVECO R D 6 CO R D 6 H U N T E R P A S S DESCRIPTION OF WORK TAMARACK DRIVE 1.2.0" MILL AND OVERLAY. 2.RECLAIM BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT FULL DEPTH. 3.RESHAPE AND COMPACT RECLAIMED AGGREGATE. PROVIDE TRANSITION TAPERS AT BOTH ENDS TO MATCH EXISTING BITUMINOUS SURFACE. 4.PLACE 2.0" INCHES BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE AND 2.0" WEAR COURSE PAVEMENT. 5.RECONSTRUCT 6' OF DRIVEWAYS TO MATCH NEW TAMARACK DRIVE SURFACE. 6.PAINT 4 INCH DOUBLE YELLOW CENTER LINE STRIPING AND 4 INCH WHITE EDGE STRIPING. CITY LIMITS CITY LIMITS REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: May 23, 2016 ITEM NO: 9 ______________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Adam Edwards P.E. JML Public Works Director/ Title Public Works Director/City Engineer City Engineer’s Report ______ _______________________________________________________________________ Item Description: Spring Hill Sanitary Sewer Extension ______________________________________________________________________________ List of Exhibits A- Location map showing potential sanitary sewer extension. B- Proposal from Bolton and Menk 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gather Council direction on extending a sewer main to service lake side properties on Spring Hill Road. 2. Background. The homeowner at 1025 Spring Hill Road, Mr. John Bowlsby has requested the City extend the municipal sewer to service his property. In getting to the property the sewer would pass by 2 other properties 1135 and 1125 Spring Hill Road (See Exhibit A). All of these properties are currently served by private septic systems. All three properties are currently included in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The nearest city sewer main is a low pressure forcemain that extends to 1145 Sixth Avenue North. 3. Considerations. Staff recommends the Council should consider the following items when providing direction on this item: a. Environmental impacts. Per the Community Management Plan the city will provide municipal sewer extensions to lakeshore areas within the MUSA when it is determined that municipal sewer is preferable to long term use of on-site sewage treatment systems. (2008 CMP, Page 4C-16). Municipal sewer would be preferable in this situation if the lots had failed septic systems with no alternative sites available. The most economical and physically feasible route to run the sewer line is along the lakeshore. While low pressure systems do have a good performance track record, any line breaks would see effluents released in the immediate proximity of Long Lake. b. Community Support. While the project would provide potential service to three properties with the potential to serve a fourth with another extension, currently only one of the property owners is requesting the service. One owner has expressed a willingness to grant an easement to support the project but may not connect for some time and the third has expressed initial apprehension about granting the necessary easement. c. Cost. The estimated cost for the sewer main extension is shown in the table below. In addition, residents that hook up to this main would likely incur costs around $18,000 for the necessary pumps, service lines and installation to their home. Activity Estimated Cost Engineering and Construction Services $ 9,820 Geotechnical Engineering (Soil Borings) $ 3,500 Legal Support and Staff Time $ 1,000 Sewer Main Installation $ 55,000 (GMH Quote +30%) TOTAL $ 69,320 d. Funding Mechanism. It is City policy that the cost of sewer extensions be primarily borne by the property owners served. Past practices include: (1). Assessing all of the property owners serviced by the sewer improvement normally through a voluntary assessment / payment. In this case that cost would be approximately $23,000 per property. To date only one of the three property owners has indicated a willingness to be assessed for what would be their portion of the project. (2). Assessing those who are connecting at the time of completion and then charging a connection fee to any property owner that connect in the future. In this case the City bears the cost of the installation for those residents not initially connecting. In this case the cost born by the City would be approximately $ 46,000. If and when residents did connect they would pay their share plus interest. (3). The project is completed by a private entity and then accepted by the City upon completion. This is the method normally used for developments where the cost is then passed on as part of the lot purchase price or when the extension will service one additional home. e. Impact on Cities Sewer Density Calculation. Although all of the properties are included in the MUSA Met Council guidelines call for extensions to service area with a minimum of 3 connections per acre. This extension would provide potential service to 3 connections in a 17.4 Acres or 0.17 connection per acre which is well below the standard. 4. Way Forward. If the council approves of the project and authorizes Bolton and Menk to initiate engineering the follow steps would follow: Engineering feasibility and Design (Surveying, Soils Testing) Easement preparation Assessment Process Permit process (MPCA, MCES, MCWD) Solicitation of Bids Award Construction 5. Staff Recommendation. After consideration of the proposed project, it is my recommendation that the City not undertake the sewer extension. If in the future any of the properties in the service area are deemed to have failing septic systems with no alternatives or if all of the properties petitioned the City the project should be reconsidered. At present time the costs of the project appear to outweigh the benefits. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Provide guidance on whether or not pursue the sewer extension. If yes, then Council to consider a motion to authorized Bolton and Menk to begin engineering and design of the project 29 5.8 © Bolton & Menk, Inc - Web GIS 0 Legend Spring Hill Sewer Extension This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This drawing is a compilation of records, information, and data located in various city, county, and state offices, and other sources affecting the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City of Orono is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. Disclaimer: 5/19/2016 8:55 AM 207 Feet Sanitary Manhole Sanitary Lift Station Sanitary Clean Out Sanitary Termination Valve Sanitary Isolation Valve Sanitary Grinder Station Sanitary Gate Valve Sanitary Flushing Valve Sanitary Curbstop Air Release Manhole Sanitary Pipe Sanitary Service Pipe Sanitary Forcemain Railroad City Limits Parcels (2-1-2016) Lakes & Ponds REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: May 23, 2016 ITEM NO: 10 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 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: Well Site No. 4 Design ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ List of Exhibits A- Plan Set B- Cost Estimate 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain Council approval to solicit bids for the Well #4 Project. 2. Background. In 2013, the Council authorized Bolton and Menk to perform a comprehensive review and plan for our municipal water system. Bolton Menk provided the review and a plan in February 2014. Part of the plan recommended the construction of Well #4 which would be the second well for the North or Highway 12 Orono Municipal Water System. The well is needed to provide both firm capacity (redundancy) and increased capacity for future developments. In the fall of 2015 the City completed the purchase of the necessary land upon which to construct the well. In December of 2015 the Council authorized Bolton and Menk to perform the engineering and design of the well and site. 3. Scope of Work. The project consists of drilling and installation of a well, piping, electrical, and site work (access road and new gate). 4. Cost. The estimate cost for this purchase is: Item Cost Remarks Engineering and Design $ 23,250 Approved December 2015 Construction $ 550,000 Construction Management $ 30,000 Proposal to be provided at time of award Total $ 603,250 5. Funding. The project will be funded using the Water Fund. Item Cost Current Balance Water Fund $ 603,250 $ 1,517,814 6. Timeline. What When Advertise/ solicit Bids Thru June 16th Award June 27th Construct Summer/Fall COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to authorize the solicitation of bids for the Municipal Well # 4 Project. ORONO POLICE DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: June 23, 2016 Item No: 11 ______________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name: Correy Farniok JML Public Safety Title: Police Chief ______________________________________________________________________________ Item Description: Disposal of Forfeited Vehicle ______________________________________________________________________________ DISCUSSION: The Police Department has a forfeited vehicles that is being sold. The vehicle was seized and forfeited by the Orono Police Department from a driver that had multiple violations for Driving While Intoxicated. The Police Department would recommend this vehicle be sent to an Auto Auction. 2009 Cadillac Escalade VIN# 1GYFK26259R100784 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: A motion to dispose of a forfeited vehicle. Vehicle to be auctioned through the Auto Auction. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: May 18, 2016 Item No.: 12 ______________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Michael P. Gaffron JML Planning Dept. Title: Senior Planner ______________________________________________________________________________ Item Description: #15-3786 Mooney Lake Preserve – Lots 1 & 2, Block 1 (Prairie View Lane) - Proposal to Delay Road Construction: Conceptual Review ______________________________________________________________________________ List of Exhibits A – Applicant’s Concept Memo (Revised) B – Approved Road Design Plan C – Proposed Interim Road Plan Summary of Request: The property owner directly east of Lot 1, John MacMillan, has purchased Lots 1 and 2 primarily as a buffer to his adjacent homestead in Plymouth, with no plans to develop them with homes at this time. Lots 1 and 2 are ultimately intended to be served by a private access road to be known as Prairie View Lane, which was approved by Orono to be constructed as part of the Mooney Lake Preserve subdivision. MacMillan is proposing to delay construction of the Prairie View Lane cul-de-sac, and has been working with George Stickney and City staff to establish parameters for that to happen. Please review the attached memo from MacMillan’s attorney, Charlie Carpenter. Briefly, the request involves the following elements: 1. Stickney to construct southerly 300 feet of road as well as stormwater pond, per the existing Development Agreement; 2. A single private driveway could be extended from the end of the improved road to serve a house on Lot 1 without the need for further road improvements; 3. If a house is built on Lot 2 (with or without a house existing on Lot 1) the full road must be completed. 4. Owners of Lot 2 required to be responsible for installing full road prior to issuance of a building permit for Lot 2. 5. The obligations for road responsibility to be recorded as covenants in chain of title of Lots 1 and 2. 6. Lots 1 and 2 subject to joint access agreement and joint maintenance. As noted in Carpenter’s memo, there are a number of details to be addressed in order for this concept to work. In general, staff supports the concept of delaying development of the full road and its associated hardcover if no homes are going to be built for some (unknown) period of time. However, there are some concerns associated with such a delay, primarily in ensuring that the future obligations of the owners of Lots 1 and 2 as to how the road gets completed are clear and indisputable. Prairie View Lane May 18, 2016 Page 2 There is currently a Letter of Credit in place to guarantee construction of this road and the other Mooney Lake Preserve improvements. Realistically, neither the developer nor the City should be expected to hold this security, or some other form of security such as an escrow, for an indeterminate amount of time until road completion is triggered by a proposed home on Lot 2. That could be years or decades away. The future scenario that initially concerned staff is fairly straightforward. Consider the situation in which no home has been built on Lot 1, but a purchaser of Lot 2 wants to build a home and is required to complete the entire road. Without the road being completed, the City would not issue a building permit for Lot 2. The initial proposal by Carpenter had the owners of both Lots 1 and 2 responsible for completion of the road. In that scenario, the owner of Lot 1 might balk at paying for half of a road he doesn’t necessarily want or need. The solution to this proposed by Carpenter is to place the future obligation to complete the road entirely on Lot 2, leaving the owner of Lot 1 free of the obligation. If Lot 1 gets built on first with simply a driveway extension, the owner of Lot 1 must be on notice that when Lot 2 is developed, his driveway will become a road at the expense of the owner of Lot 2. Under this scenario, the City remains obligated to deny a permit for a home on Lot 2 unless or until the road is completed. The road completion should occur prior to issuance of the building permit, to the extent that the base and first lift of bituminous are in place, allowing the wear course to be added later. Staff would recommend that no Certificate of Occupancy be issued for a home on Lot 2 until 1) the final wear course is in place, or 2) the owner of Lot 2 has established security with the City (LOC or escrow) to ensure the final wear course is completed. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Review the proposed concept, and if Council finds it acceptable, direct that the developer and proposer provide draft revisions to the Mooney Lake Preserve Development Contract and Covenants for staff review. Once staff finds those revisions acceptable, this will be brought back to Council for final action on the revisions. Date Application Received: 01/20/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 03/03/16 120-Day Review Period Expires: 07/01/16 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 23 May 2016 Item No. 13 Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Melanie Curtis mcc JML Planning Title: Planner Item Description: #16-3808, Rick Denman o/b/o Casco Ventures LLC, 3800 Casco Avenue, Variances Application Summary: This application requesting a lot area variance, rear and front yard setback variances for a new residence was before the Council at the May 9th meeting. Council voted to direct to draft an approval resolution. Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval; a draft resolution reflecting approval is attached. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Council should consider adopting or amending the draft approval resolution. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Draft Resolution Exhibit B. Draft Council Minutes 05/09/16 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 23 May 2016 Item No. 14 Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Melanie Curtis mcc JML Planning Title: Planner Item Description: #16-3818, Dale Mulfinger (SALA Architects) o/b/o Chris & Leslie Neugent, 710 Big Island Application Summary: This application was before the Council at the May 9th meeting. The Council directed staff to amend the drafted resolution to reflect approval of the average lakeshore setback variances for the improvements; and denial of the 0-75’ encroachment and hardcover resulting from the screen porch. Planning Staff Recommendation An amended draft approval resolution has been provided for Council’s consideration. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Council should consider adopting or amending the approval resolution. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Draft Resolution – revised Exhibit B. Draft Council Minutes 05/09/16 Date Application Received: 04/20/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 05/03/16 120-Day Review Period Expires: 07/02/15 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: May 19, 2016 Item No. 15 Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Michael P. Gaffron JML Planning Title: Senior Planner Item Description: #16-3829, John & Sarah Lindahl, 2465-2485 North Shore Drive - Subdivision: Lot Line Rearrangement Zoning District: LR-1A Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2.0 acre/200’ Application Summary: Applicants own both properties. This is a lot line rearrangement resulting in detachment of a 0.29 acre parcel from 2485 North Shore Drive and re-attachment to 2465 North Shore Drive. Dry Buildable Area* Wetland Area* Total Area Existing 2465 North Shore Drive 1.33 ac. 0.00 ac. 1.33 ac. 2485 North Shore Drive 1.63 ac. 0.84 ac. 2.47 ac. Total 2.96 ac. 0.84 ac. 3.80 ac. Proposed 2465 North Shore Drive 1.62 ac 0.00 ac. 1.62 ac. 2485 North Shore Drive 1.34 ac. 0.84 ac. 2.18 ac. Total 2.96 ac. 0.84 ac. 3.80 ac. * Dry/wet areas calculated by staff – scaled from survey List of Exhibits: A - Resolution B - Notice of PC Action C - PC Memo & Exhibits dated 5-12-16 Application Summary: The Lindahls are proposing to relocate the shared lot line between these two developed properties, resulting in a better balance of gross lot area and creating conforming side setbacks for the existing residence and barn on 2465. Please review the Planning Commission memo and exhibits for additional details. Planning Commission Recommendation On May 16, 2016 the Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval. The public hearing was held and there were no public comments. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the lot line rearrangement. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution approving the lot line rearrangement. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: May 23. 2016 ITEM NO: Item No.: 16 ______________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Ron Olson JML City Administrator’s Report Title Finance Director _____________________________________________________________________________ Item Description: Golf Course Donations _____________________________________________________________________________ In an effort to raise funds for the ongoing improvements at the Orono Public Golf Course, a group of citizens recently mailed out a fundraising letter. This fundraising effort is part of their Stay the Course initiative which was created to help maintain and preserve the course. Authority for cities to accept donation is granted by Minnesota Statute 465.03 which authorizes Minnesota cities to “accept or devise of real or personal property and maintain such property for the benefit of its citizens in accordance with the terms prescribed by the donor.” All donations must be accepted by resolution with a 2/3 vote of the Council. The following new donation has been received: Claudia and Doug Whiteley Anna Hill Marsha and Joe Rokke Tim Bubany Jamie and Kelly Lowe Martha Head 550.00 15.00 50.00 100.00 550.00 1,100.00 This year to date, eleven donations totaling $4,038.50 have been received. The donations are being credited to the Orono Golf Course Special Revenue Fund. Amounts in this fund are restricted in use to the maintenance and improvement of the course and its facilities. Upon acceptance of these donations, staff will send each donor a letter thanking them for their support. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to adopt the attached resolution to Accept Golf Course Donations. A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT GOLF COURSE DONATIONS WHEREAS, The City of Orono is generally authorized to accept donations of real and personal property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 465.03 for the benefit of its citizens; and WHEREAS, The following persons have offered to contribute the cash amounts set forth below to the City: Name of Donor Amount Claudia and Doug Whiteley Anna Hill Marsha and Joe Rokke Tim Bubany Tammie and Kelly Lowe Martha Head 550.00 15.00 50.00 100.00 550.00 1,100.00 WHEREAS, All such donations have been contributed for the maintenance and improvement of Orono Public Golf Course, as allowed by law; and WHEREAS, The City Council finds that it is appropriate to accept the donations offered. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of Orono, Minnesota that the City acknowledges and accepts the donations as listed the for the maintenance and improvement of the Orono Public Golf Course. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on May 23, 2016. Attest: Approved: Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili McMillan, Mayor REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: May 23, 2016 ITEM NO: 17 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Diane Tiegs JML City Administrator Title City Clerk Item Description: Corrective Resolution for No. 6567 A corrective resolution for Resolution No. 6567 approved at the December 14, 2015 City Council meeting and recorded January 4, 2016, at Hennepin County inadvertently omitted exhibits A and B. This corrective resolution will add the exhibits to the recorded document. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Council to consider a motion to approve the attached resolution. CITY OF ORONO CORRECTIVE RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _________ THE PURPOSE OF THIS INSTRUMENT IS TO CORRECT RESOLUTION NO. 6567 ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 14, 2015, AND RECORDED JANUARY 4, 2016, AS DOCUMENT NUMBER A10274344 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA, BY ADDING THE INADVERTANTLY OMITTED EXHIBITS A AND B. [A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FROM ORONO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-1279(1); 78-1279(6); 78-1405(6); 78-1680; AND 78-1700(1) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3409 EASTLAKE STREET – FILE NO. 15-3769. WHEREAS, Christopher J. Lappen, single and Kallyn L. Bialowas, single, (hereinafter the “Applicants”) are owners of the property located at 3409 Eastlake Street within the City of Orono (hereinafter the “City”) and legally described as follows: The West 6.00 feet of Lot 1, and the East 50.00 feet of Lot 2, Block 8, BAYSIDE ADDITION TO LAKE MINNETONKA, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “property”); and WHEREAS, on September 2, 2015 the Applicants made application to the City of Orono for variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279(1) to allow construction of a detached garage located 19.5 feet from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where a 75 foot setback is normally required; and a variance to Section 78-1279(6) to allow said garage to encroach lakeward of the defined Average Lakeshore Setback Line where no encroachment is normally allowed; and a variance to Section 78-1405(6) to allow said garage to be located 6 feet from the side lot line where a 10’ side setback is normally required; and a variance to Section 78- 1680 to allow hardcover within 75’ of the OHWL where no hardcover is normally allowed; and a 2 180539 186919v1 variance to Section 78-1700(1) to allow 48.9% hardcover on this Tier 1 property where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed; and WHEREAS, on October 19, 2015, and again on November 16, 2015, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Orono Planning Commission held public hearings, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; WHEREAS, on November 16, 2015, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variances; and WHEREAS, on December 14, 2015, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested variances as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning this property: FINDINGS OF FACT: A1. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. A2. The Property is located within the LR -1A Single Family Lakeshore Residential District which requires a minimum lot area of 2.0 acres and a minimum lot width of 200’. Detached garages are a permitted use in the LR-1A District. A3. The Property is 5,562 s.f. in area and 56.5 feet in defined width. A4. In considering this application for variances, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. A5. The Applicants propose to remove certain items of existing hardcover including paver bricks, concrete borders, an old concrete garage slab, and portions of driveway, resulting in a hardcover decrease from 61% to 48.9%. The proposed hardcover to remain or be reconstructed includes the house, deck, steps, the new garage, a narrowed driveway, and some selected areas of landscaping materials. There are few ways to further reduce hardcover on the site without removing the rear deck or attempting to relocate the garage as an attached structure, which would likely be only 1 stall at best if moved forward, would require remodeling the east side of the house, and would potentially still need a side setback variance. Applicant has provided estimates showing the cost difference between the proposed detached garage and an attached garage. 3 180539 186919v1 A6. The proposed garage will be 19.5 feet from the creek bank and 929.4’ lakeshore contour, approximately 9 feet further from the creek than the detached garage that previously existed on the Property. Photos in City files document an event when the creek had flooded the rear of the prior garage at an elevation around 932’. The new garage will be located with its floor at 933.5’ and would not be expected to flood. A7. The garage is proposed to be located 6 feet from the east side lot line. This is much better than the prior garage which was within a few inches of the lot line. Moving the garage to meet the 10’ side setback would result in an unusable driveway entrance to the garage and require removal of portions of the existing deck. At 20 feet in width, the garage is as narrow as possible while still remaining functional for storage of two vehicles. A8. The Average Lakeshore Setback variance is necessary because each of the adjacent properties abut the 929.4’ OHWL contour for Lake Minnetonka at the creek bank. The average setback line runs approximately east-west about 5 feet north of the north wall of the proposed garage, so the entire garage will be an encroachment. The property to the immediate east at 3407 Eastlake Street will have its lower views of Stubbs Bay encroached upon by the proposed garage. While the new garage will encroach lakeward approximately 9 feet less than the garage that was on the Property until 2011, the new garage as proposed will have a peak height of approximately 13.5 feet, while the old garage had an estimated peak height of 9.5 feet based on photos in City files. The proposed height is a reduction from the Applicants’ original proposal, a direct result of the concerns expressed by the adjacent neighbor regarding views of the lake. ANALYSIS: B1. “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance . . . .” The proposed variances to allow the construction of a detached garage on property zoned for single family use is consistent with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. B2. “Variances shall only be permitted… when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan.” Granting of the proposed variances to construct a detached garage to serve a single family residence is consistent with the residential guiding of this property in the Comprehensive Plan. B3. “Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. ‘Practical difficulties,’ as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that: i.The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls.” ii.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.” iii.The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” 4 180539 186919v1 The property owner is proposing to use the Property in a reasonable manner very similar to how it is currently and has historically been used. The plight of the property owner is due to having a small lot in a developed neighborhood of similarly small lots, and which is physically constrained as to expansion due to required setbacks, conditions not created by the property owner. The Applicants have demonstrated that the lot size and shape; the existence of the creek and its locational relationship to Stubbs Bay; the location of the existing house; and the orientation in relationship to neighboring homes; are all practical difficulties that make it impossible to construct a reasonable sized detached garage meeting all code requirements. All of these circumstances pre-dated the Applicants’ ownership of the property and were not created by the landowner. Further, the proposed garage replaces a previous garage at the same location which existed until 2011, and granting the variances will not result in a garage that is out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. B4. “Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.” Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. B5. “Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78.” This condition is not applicable. B6. “The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.” This condition is not applicable, as the use for a single family residence with accessory buildings is an allowed use in the LR-1A District. B7. “The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.” This condition is not applicable. B8. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” The condition of a small, constrained lakeshore lot is common in Orono, but compared to many others, this lot due to its size and the 2-acre zoning standards applicable to it functionally has no buildable area as compared to other lots which are wider, deeper and have more flexibility. B9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located.” The property is unique in that very few lots in Orono of this size abut a creek that is considered as lakeshore, but this condition does affect other nearby lots along Eastlake Street which are subject to the same regulations. B10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” The ability to have a garage would appear to be necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of any substantial property right. B11. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter.” Granting of the 5 180539 186919v1 proposed variances is not expected to cause any impairment to health, safety, comfort or morals, and will be in keeping with the intent of the Zoning Code. B12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.” Granting the variances in order to have a minimum sized garage is necessary to alleviate a demonstrated practical difficulty. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances from Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279(1) to allow construction of a detached garage located 19.5 feet from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where a 75 foot setback is normally required; and a variance to Section 78-1279(6) to allow said garage to encroach lakeward of the defined Average Lakeshore Setback Line where no encroachment is normally allowed; and a variance to Section 78-1405(6) to allow said garage to be located 6 feet from the side lot line where a 10’ side setback is normally required; and a variance to Section 78-1680 to allow hardcover within 75’ of the OHWL where no hardcover is normally allowed; and a variance to Section 78-1700(1) to allow 48.9% hardcover on this Tier 1 property where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed; subject to the following conditions: 1.Council approval is based on the survey and garage plans submitted by the Owners and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, and the approved hardcover calculation worksheet attached as Exhibit B. Any amendments to the approved survey which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2.The approved hardcover level of 48.9% shall be adhered to. Applicants shall remove all hardcover items as proposed, including reconstruction of driveway to meet the approved hardcover percentage. An as-built survey reflecting conformance to the approved plan and hardcover limitation shall be submitted at the time of final inspection of the garage, and prior to refund/release of the permit escrow. 3.The approved grading and drainage plan shall be carefully implemented to avoid impact to neighboring properties. 4.Owners shall comply with the permitting requirements of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 5.Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Owners, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the project and commencing construction of said project within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variances will expire on that date (December 14, 2016). 6 180539 186919v1 Corrective Resolution Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 23rd day of May, 2016. ATTEST: _______________________________ _______________________________ Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ___________, 2015, by Christopher J. Lappen, a single person and Kallyn L. Bialowas, a single person. ____________________________________ Notary Public REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: May 23, 2016 ITEM NO: 18 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name: Diane Tiegs JML City Administrator Title: City Clerk TRANSIENT MERCHANT LICENSE Applicant: Mark Lazarchic/Renaissance Fireworks Inc. Activity: Sale of Consumer Fireworks Location: 3435 Shoreline Drive Date: June 24 through July 5, 2016 Time: 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Mr. Lazarchich has submitted an application for a transient merchant license to sell fireworks from a tent located in the parking lot at 3435 Shoreline Drive. Orono's code currently allows a transient merchant to be licensed initially for 10 days, with the option for the City Council, at its sole discretion, to grant an extension for up to 50 additional days. In addition, the code limits the hours of activity from 8:00 am to 8:00pm. Mr. Lazarchic has also submitted the attached request for Council approval to allow 2 additional days of activity and an additional 1 hour of evening sales each day. The transient merchant and sale of consumer fireworks applications have been reviewed by staff and the Long Lake Fire Chief with recommendation for approval of the activity as well as the requested additional days and hours of operation; provided no problems are reported. Although Council approval is not required for the Sale of Consumer Fireworks permit, a draft copy is attached for Council review. Council approved a similar transient merchant license for a different company in 2009, 201 0, and 2011 for the sale of consumer fireworks for 10 days at the same location with the hours of operation from 9:00am- 9:00 pm. Council also approved a transient merchant license for Renaissance Fireworks in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 for the sale of consumer fireworks for 7 additional days at the same location with the hours of operation from I 0:00am - 9:00pm. The applicant will monitor the area and sweep when debris is on the sidewalk and shoulder area of the roadway. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Council to consider a motion to approve the above listed license. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: May 23, 2016 Item No. 19 Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Ron Olson – RJO 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 105147 to 105229, totaling $271,053.48. Noteworthy payments include: Boyer Trucks $ 78,586.33 Payment for a new plow truck. Purchase was approved by the Council at the January 25th meeting. Stonebay Builders $ 6,225.00 Payment for work done at the Stonebay development. The funding for this work was from funds received when the developments Letter of Credit was cashed. Chestnut Cambronne PA $ 2,771.50 Payment for prosecution services due to a conflict of interest could not be serviced the City’s regular prosecutor. 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: 5/10/2016 - 5/23/2016 May 18, 2016 11:32AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Advanced Imaging Solutions 05/23/2016 105147 102141 101-42110-401 printer maint contract 5/10 to 6/9 Police Department 96.21 Advanced Imaging Solutions 05/23/2016 105147 102141 101-41900-401 printer maint contract 5/10 to 6/9 Central Services 96.21 Advanced Imaging Solutions 05/23/2016 105147 102141 602-49450-401 printer maint contract 5/10 to 6/9 Sewer 48.10 Total 105147:240.52 ARC 05/23/2016 105148 15015114 101-41900-352 oversized copies Central Services 96.18 Total 105148:96.18 BCA TRAINING & DEVELOPME 05/23/2016 105149 29276 101-42110-437 training Sonnek Police Department 285.00 BCA TRAINING & DEVELOPME 05/23/2016 105149 33879-03151 101-42110-437 training B. Schoenherr Police Department 65.00 Total 105149:350.00 BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF 05/23/2016 105150 50416 101-21706 Health insurance 38,311.50 BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF 05/23/2016 105150 50416 101-42110-135 Disability continuation Police Department 594.00 Total 105150:38,905.50 BOLTON & MENK INC.05/23/2016 105151 189782 602-16500 Sewer improvements 976.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.05/23/2016 105151 189784 101-43280-304 13-3626 Pineview Special Services 608.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.05/23/2016 105151 189785 101-43280-304 15-3774 1700 Shoreline Special Services 76.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.05/23/2016 105151 189786 101-43280-304 2016-00117 470 Orchard Park Rd Special Services 56.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.05/23/2016 105151 189787 101-43280-304 16-3822 3245 Wayzata Blvd Special Services 672.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.05/23/2016 105151 189788 101-43280-304 701 Dickey Lake Dr Special Services 152.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.05/23/2016 105151 189789 602-49450-304 GIS maint Sewer 1,225.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.05/23/2016 105151 189791 601-49400-304 Cingular Wireless Water 925.50 BOLTON & MENK INC.05/23/2016 105151 189792 601-16500 North system well 2,169.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.05/23/2016 105151 189793 602-49450-304 I&I work plan Sewer 690.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.05/23/2016 105151 189794 601-49400-304 AT&T plan review Water 614.15 BOLTON & MENK INC.05/23/2016 105151 189795 602-16500 LS2 improvements 3,076.47 BOLTON & MENK INC.05/23/2016 105151 189796 402-48056-304 Watertown Rd phase 2 Watertown Road 7,987.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.05/23/2016 105151 189801 101-43280-304 15-3723 Lakeview Addn Special Services 2,555.00 Total 105151:21,782.12 BOYER TRUCKS 05/23/2016 105152 17384 405-48500-550 Truck #426 93,586.33 BOYER TRUCKS 05/23/2016 105152 17384 101-39680 trade in old #426 15,000.00- City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 2 Check Issue Dates: 5/10/2016 - 5/23/2016 May 18, 2016 11:32AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105152:78,586.33 BUDGET PRINTING 05/23/2016 105153 1593 101-45210-352 GC price lists Golf Course 6.90 BUDGET PRINTING 05/23/2016 105153 1699 601-49400-322 shipping Water 11.93 Total 105153:18.83 BURWELL, BARBARA 05/23/2016 105154 51616 101-22205 Escrow refund 14-3670 2,500.00 Total 105154:2,500.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/23/2016 105155 2717-0004G 101-42110-307 Police matters Police Department 341.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/23/2016 105155 2717-000G1 602-49450-307 Generator easement Sewer 912.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/23/2016 105155 2717-000G1 101-41600-307 cemetery road matter Law/Legal Services 341.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/23/2016 105155 2717-000G1 101-41600-307 General legal review Law/Legal Services 713.34 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/23/2016 105155 2717-150G5 101-43290-800 litigation Special Projects-Contingencies 117.45 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/23/2016 105155 2717-201G4 101-41600-307 misc recordings Law/Legal Services 964.29 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/23/2016 105155 2717-347G1 225-45200-510 Hackberry Park 393.88 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/23/2016 105155 2717-360G1 601-16500 Well location 108.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/23/2016 105155 2717-398G4 101-41600-307 Van Riemsdyk land registration Law/Legal Services 46.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/23/2016 105155 2717-402G3 101-43280-307 15-3792 2024 Shadywood Special Services 75.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/23/2016 105155 2717-406G3 101-43280-307 16-3803 Stonewood LLC Special Services 100.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/23/2016 105155 2717-411G2 101-43280-307 16-3807 425/595 Old Crystal Bay Rd Special Services 225.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/23/2016 105155 2717-412G1 101-43280-307 16-3811 3438 Lyric Special Services 100.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/23/2016 105155 2717-413G1 101-43280-307 16-3812 925 Brown Special Services 100.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/23/2016 105155 2717-414G1 101-43280-307 16-3813 1180 Loma Linda Special Services 75.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/23/2016 105155 2717-415G1 101-43280-307 16-3814 1700 Bohns Pt Special Services 175.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/23/2016 105155 2717-416G1 406-48706-307 3907 Cherry Ave hazardous bldg 1,119.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/23/2016 105155 2717-800G8 101-42400-307 B&Z staff meetings Building & Zoning 806.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/23/2016 105155 2717-801G8 101-41600-307 Council meetings Law/Legal Services 1,426.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/23/2016 105155 2717-802G8 101-42400-307 B&Z assistance Building & Zoning 651.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/23/2016 105155 2717-803G7 101-41600-307 Ordinances Law/Legal Services 139.50 Total 105155:8,930.46 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 05/23/2016 105156 CF50216 101-42110-402 car wash Police Department 10.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 05/23/2016 105156 CF50316 101-42110-439 lunch (2)-drug dropoff-TN Roadhouse Police Department 38.25 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 05/23/2016 105156 CF50616 101-42110-439 Area 12 meeting-Grizzly's Police Department 18.01 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 05/23/2016 105156 JL050616 101-41300-439 meeting Country Cake Administration 4.02 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 3 Check Issue Dates: 5/10/2016 - 5/23/2016 May 18, 2016 11:32AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount CARDMEMBER SERVICE 05/23/2016 105156 SO50216 101-43000-212 fuel-Holiday Public Works Department 23.20 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 05/23/2016 105156 SO51116 101-45210-223 gutters for GC clubhouse ABC Supply Golf Course 27.63 Total 105156:121.11 CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 05/23/2016 105157 140635 101-41600-306 conflict prosecution Law/Legal Services 2,771.50 Total 105157:2,771.50 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 05/23/2016 105158 13754 101-42110-402 #241 oil change Police Department 42.74 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 05/23/2016 105158 13761 101-42110-402 #240 oil change Police Department 45.79 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 05/23/2016 105158 13765 101-42110-402 #235 oil change Police Department 48.76 Total 105158:137.29 CITY OF MOUND 05/23/2016 105159 42216 101-42110-201 reimb for Heart Safe supplies Police Department 495.42 Total 105159:495.42 CITYVIEW PLUMBING & HEATIN 05/23/2016 105160 44450 101-45210-404 GC bathroom repair Golf Course 173.53 Total 105160:173.53 CLIFTON LARSON ALLEN LLP 05/23/2016 105161 1254648 101-41900-301 2015 Audit services Central Services 20,000.00 CLIFTON LARSON ALLEN LLP 05/23/2016 105161 1254648 601-49400-301 2015 Audit services Water 775.00 Total 105161:20,775.00 COMMERCIAL ASPHALT 05/23/2016 105162 160430 101-43000-224 3596 Shoreline Public Works Department 269.21 Total 105162:269.21 CORREY FARNIOK 05/23/2016 105163 50516 101-42110-439 Henn Cty chiefs lunch Police Department 15.00 Total 105163:15.00 DELANEY, JANIE 05/23/2016 105164 50916 237-45690-322 reimb GC mailing Golf Course Improvement 394.86 Total 105164:394.86 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 4 Check Issue Dates: 5/10/2016 - 5/23/2016 May 18, 2016 11:32AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount ECM PUBLISHERS INC 05/23/2016 105165 342392 101-41900-352 legal ads Central Services 101.32 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 05/23/2016 105165 344814 101-41900-352 legal ads Central Services 53.64 Total 105165:154.96 EULL S MANUFACTURING CO I 05/23/2016 105166 27249 602-49450-406 manhole rings Sewer 220.60 Total 105166:220.60 FERGUSON WATERWORKS #2 05/23/2016 105167 182398 601-49400-227 water meters Water 2,158.80 FERGUSON WATERWORKS #2 05/23/2016 105167 182399 601-49400-227 meter parts Water 543.17 FERGUSON WATERWORKS #2 05/23/2016 105167 189114 601-49400-227 meter parts Water 1,352.96 FERGUSON WATERWORKS #2 05/23/2016 105167 189115 601-49400-227 meter parts Water 426.12 Total 105167:4,481.05 G & K SERVICES 05/23/2016 105168 1006673926 101-41900-404 mat Central Services 14.40 G & K SERVICES 05/23/2016 105168 1006673926 101-43000-221 towels Public Works Department 6.38 G & K SERVICES 05/23/2016 105168 1006673926 101-43000-226 uniform Public Works Department 30.59 G & K SERVICES 05/23/2016 105168 1006673926 601-49400-226 uniform Water 15.30 G & K SERVICES 05/23/2016 105168 1006673926 602-49450-226 uniform Sewer 15.30 G & K SERVICES 05/23/2016 105168 1006685322 101-43000-221 towels Public Works Department 6.38 G & K SERVICES 05/23/2016 105168 1006685322 101-43000-226 uniform Public Works Department 30.59 G & K SERVICES 05/23/2016 105168 1006685322 601-49400-226 uniform Water 15.30 G & K SERVICES 05/23/2016 105168 1006685322 602-49450-226 uniform Sewer 15.30 G & K SERVICES 05/23/2016 105168 1006696760 101-43000-221 towels Public Works Department 6.38 G & K SERVICES 05/23/2016 105168 1006696760 101-43000-226 uniform Public Works Department 30.60 G & K SERVICES 05/23/2016 105168 1006696760 601-49400-226 uniform Water 15.30 G & K SERVICES 05/23/2016 105168 1006696760 602-49450-226 uniform Sewer 15.29 G & K SERVICES 05/23/2016 105168 1006699165 101-41900-404 council chambers mats Central Services 10.80 G & K SERVICES 05/23/2016 105168 1006699166 101-41900-404 city hall mats Central Services 21.92 Total 105168:249.83 GENERAL SERVICE 05/23/2016 105169 50916 101-41900-404 irrigation system start up Central Services 147.50 Total 105169:147.50 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 05/23/2016 105170 315168 101-43000-222 battery Public Works Department 334.70 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 05/23/2016 105170 316777 101-43000-221 supplies Public Works Department 24.97 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 5 Check Issue Dates: 5/10/2016 - 5/23/2016 May 18, 2016 11:32AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 05/23/2016 105170 316788 101-43000-222 repair parts Public Works Department 39.16 Total 105170:398.83 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 05/23/2016 105171 6040620 601-49400-489 locates Water 216.78 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 05/23/2016 105171 6040620 602-49450-489 locates Sewer 216.77 Total 105171:433.55 GOVT FINANCE OFFICERS ASS 05/23/2016 105172 139995-16 101-41500-433 2016 membership R. Olson Finance Department 170.00 Total 105172:170.00 GRANICUS INC.05/23/2016 105173 75974 614-49840-329 web streaming Jun-Aug Cable Franchise 1,647.00 Total 105173:1,647.00 GUSTAFSON, DALE 05/23/2016 105174 51616 101-22205 Escrow refund 15-3742 700.00 Total 105174:700.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TE 05/23/2016 105175 1000076122 101-41900-319 network support Central Services 50.00 Total 105175:50.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TE 05/23/2016 105176 100076383 101-42110-414 radio lease and MDC billing Police Department 1,660.67 Total 105176:1,660.67 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF 05/23/2016 105177 1000076188 101-41600-309 jail charges Law/Legal Services 240.30 Total 105177:240.30 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREAS 05/23/2016 105178 672292 101-45210-441 GC food license Golf Course 258.00 Total 105178:258.00 JR S ADVANCED RECYCLERS 05/23/2016 105179 89167 603-49500-442 Spring citywide clean up 710.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 6 Check Issue Dates: 5/10/2016 - 5/23/2016 May 18, 2016 11:32AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105179:710.00 LEWIN, SPENCER 05/23/2016 105180 51616 101-22205 Escrow refund 2015-01119 2,500.00 Total 105180:2,500.00 LOGIS 05/23/2016 105181 41747 101-41900-401 DNS issue Central Services 110.00 LOGIS 05/23/2016 105181 41778 101-41900-401 GC internet issues Central Services 247.50 LOGIS 05/23/2016 105181 41805 101-42110-310 police records Police Department 6,017.00 LOGIS 05/23/2016 105181 41805 101-41900-329 internet Central Services 194.50 LOGIS 05/23/2016 105181 41805 101-42110-329 internet Police Department 194.50 LOGIS 05/23/2016 105181 41805 101-41900-319 backups Central Services 980.00 Total 105181:7,743.50 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 05/23/2016 105182 B325363 101-45210-223 irrigation parts Golf Course 7.78 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 05/23/2016 105182 B326449 101-43000-224 supplies Public Works Department 29.78 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 05/23/2016 105182 B326504 101-43000-221 repair parts Public Works Department 4.29 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 05/23/2016 105182 B326637 101-43000-240 supplies Public Works Department 27.78 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 05/23/2016 105182 B326689 101-45200-223 picnic table repairs Parks 6.00 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 05/23/2016 105182 B326801 101-45210-201 supplies Golf Course 14.78 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 05/23/2016 105182 B326822 101-45210-223 supplies Golf Course 9.78 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 05/23/2016 105182 B327011 101-43000-221 supplies Public Works Department 2.40 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 05/23/2016 105182 B328392 101-45210-223 supplies Golf Course 18.06 Total 105182:120.65 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 05/23/2016 105183 266471 101-42110-212 Fuel PD Police Department 1,986.81 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 05/23/2016 105183 405513 101-43000-212 Diesel Public Works Department 319.84 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 05/23/2016 105183 405514 101-42110-212 Fuel PD Police Department 2,402.54 Total 105183:4,709.19 MAPLE PLACE LLC 05/23/2016 105184 51616 101-22205 Escrow refund 1565 Maple Place ROW 5,000.00 Total 105184:5,000.00 MATT SILTALA 05/23/2016 105185 31416 101-42110-226 clothing reimb Police Department 48.70 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 7 Check Issue Dates: 5/10/2016 - 5/23/2016 May 18, 2016 11:32AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105185:48.70 MCFOA 05/23/2016 105186 2016 101-41300-433 membership renewal R. Dodge Administration 35.00 MCFOA 05/23/2016 105186 2016 101-41500-433 membership renewal S. Pettit Finance Department 35.00 Total 105186:70.00 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTA 05/23/2016 105187 43016 101-20809 Sac 2,485.00 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTA 05/23/2016 105187 43016 101-39610 SAC credit 24.85- Total 105187:2,460.15 METRO WEST INSPECTIONS S 05/23/2016 105188 51016 101-42400-310 Apr inspection services Building & Zoning 6,267.25 Total 105188:6,267.25 METROPOLITAN FORD 05/23/2016 105189 284645 101-43000-402 repairs Public Works Department 785.38 Total 105189:785.38 MEYERS OUTDOOR SERVICES 05/23/2016 105190 4322 101-45200-404 April lawn service Parks 2,225.00 Total 105190:2,225.00 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLI 05/23/2016 105191 188093114 101-45210-092 beverages Golf Course 552.48 Total 105191:552.48 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMP 05/23/2016 105192 171151242 101-43000-240 oxygen Public Works Department 24.30 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMP 05/23/2016 105192 171151243 101-42110-240 oxygen Police Department 24.30 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMP 05/23/2016 105192 171151244 101-42110-240 oxygen Police Department 21.30 Total 105192:69.90 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 05/23/2016 105193 42865 101-45210-223 supplies Golf Course 18.08 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 05/23/2016 105193 43029 101-43000-221 blades Public Works Department 72.00 Total 105193:90.08 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 8 Check Issue Dates: 5/10/2016 - 5/23/2016 May 18, 2016 11:32AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount MINT ROOFING 05/23/2016 105194 60963 101-41900-404 PW roof repair Central Services 352.68 Total 105194:352.68 MORRIES BODYWORKS 05/23/2016 105195 691537 101-42110-550 decal removal Police Department 140.00 Total 105195:140.00 MTI DIST CO 05/23/2016 105196 1061940-00 101-45210-221 cup puller Golf Course 35.02 Total 105196:35.02 MUNICIPAL CODE CORPORATI 05/23/2016 105197 269771 101-41900-319 code updates Central Services 450.00 Total 105197:450.00 NAVARRE HARDWARE 05/23/2016 105198 293446 601-49400-404 supplies Water 1.29 NAVARRE HARDWARE 05/23/2016 105198 293619 601-49400-405 supplies Water 2.79 NAVARRE HARDWARE 05/23/2016 105198 293633 101-45200-221 shop supplies Parks 37.07 NAVARRE HARDWARE 05/23/2016 105198 293658 101-41900-440 light bulbs Central Services 10.99 NAVARRE HARDWARE 05/23/2016 105198 293731 101-43000-240 shop supplies Public Works Department 19.99 NAVARRE HARDWARE 05/23/2016 105198 293758 101-45200-221 park tools Parks 11.99 NAVARRE HARDWARE 05/23/2016 105198 293759 101-43000-224 speed bump repairs Public Works Department 29.78 Total 105198:113.90 NEWEGG INC 05/23/2016 105199 1201821961 602-16500 AC adapter-Ipads 64.95 Total 105199:64.95 O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 05/23/2016 105200 43016 101-42110-402 car wash Police Department 44.00 Total 105200:44.00 O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 547 05/23/2016 105201 43016 101-42110-402 car washes Police Department 279.60 Total 105201:279.60 OFFICE DEPOT 05/23/2016 105202 8376436090 101-41900-201 office supplies Central Services 112.71 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 9 Check Issue Dates: 5/10/2016 - 5/23/2016 May 18, 2016 11:32AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105202:112.71 OTTEN BROTHERS 05/23/2016 105203 11438468 101-45200-404 top soil Parks 90.00 OTTEN BROTHERS 05/23/2016 105203 11443570 101-45200-404 top soil Parks 60.00 Total 105203:150.00 PARISE, ZACHARY 05/23/2016 105204 51016 999-10015 Utility refund 1,427.67 Total 105204:1,427.67 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR 05/23/2016 105205 16483 101-42110-436 Tow Mini Cooper Police Department 157.00 Total 105205:157.00 REED VENDING 05/23/2016 105206 9205 101-45210-094 concession supplies Golf Course 90.30 Total 105206:90.30 RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON INC 05/23/2016 105207 3414 101-43000-221 #432 repairs Public Works Department 159.22 Total 105207:159.22 SARENPA, ANTHONY 05/23/2016 105208 51616 101-22205 Escrow refund 14-3692 2,500.00 Total 105208:2,500.00 SELECT ACCOUNT 05/23/2016 105209 50416 101-41900-319 participant fee Central Services 90.00 Total 105209:90.00 SELECT ACCOUNT 05/23/2016 105210 51016 101-21719 FLEX 400.00 Total 105210:400.00 SHERWIN WILLIAMS 05/23/2016 105211 56743 101-45200-223 paint for park tables Parks 40.52 SHERWIN WILLIAMS 05/23/2016 105211 6266-7 101-45200-223 paint for park tables Parks 46.20 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 10 Check Issue Dates: 5/10/2016 - 5/23/2016 May 18, 2016 11:32AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105211:86.72 SITARAS, GEORGIA 05/23/2016 105212 51616 101-34410 2015-01396 withdrawn 465.30 SITARAS, GEORGIA 05/23/2016 105212 51616 101-22205 2015-01396 withdrawn 2,500.00 Total 105212:2,965.30 STONEBAY BUILDERS LLC 05/23/2016 105213 11 406-48748-530 correct drainage 669 Sandstone Cir 6,255.00 Total 105213:6,255.00 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 05/23/2016 105214 1203113 101-42110-226 Russeth uniforms Police Department 45.00 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 05/23/2016 105214 1203196 101-42110-226 McCoy uniforms Police Department 144.00 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 05/23/2016 105214 1203567 101-42110-228 ammo Police Department 321.76 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 05/23/2016 105214 1203910 101-42110-226 J. Wittke uniforms Police Department 403.95 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 05/23/2016 105214 1203937 101-42110-226 J. Wittke uniforms Police Department 109.97 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 05/23/2016 105214 1203967 101-42110-226 Dembouski uniforms Police Department 125.00 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 05/23/2016 105214 1204063 101-42110-226 Fischer uniforms Police Department 174.98 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 05/23/2016 105214 1204066 101-42110-226 Beniek uniforms Police Department 1,311.31 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 05/23/2016 105214 1204126 101-42110-226 Sturm uniforms Police Department 222.97 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 05/23/2016 105214 1204144 101-42110-226 Sturm uniforms Police Department 189.98 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 05/23/2016 105214 1204404 101-42110-226 Beck uniforms Police Department 240.00 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 05/23/2016 105214 1204477 101-42110-550 #232 setup Police Department 367.59 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 05/23/2016 105214 1204495 101-42110-226 Battery Police Department 59.98 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 05/23/2016 105214 1205176 101-42110-226 Spencer uniforms Police Department 149.99 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 05/23/2016 105214 1205506 101-42110-226 Needham uniforms Police Department 132.97 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 05/23/2016 105214 1205877 101-42110-226 Spencer uniforms Police Department 329.97 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 05/23/2016 105214 1206723 101-42110-550 #227 teardown Police Department 400.00 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 05/23/2016 105214 CM273199 101-42110-226 credit for return Police Department 13.98- STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 05/23/2016 105214 CM273266 101-42110-226 credit for return Police Department 123.98- Total 105214:4,591.46 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 05/23/2016 105215 51216 101-21710 Life Insurance May 1,160.20 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 05/23/2016 105215 51216 101-21714 STD May 397.21 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 05/23/2016 105215 51216 101-21713 LTD May 1,210.55 Total 105215:2,767.96 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 11 Check Issue Dates: 5/10/2016 - 5/23/2016 May 18, 2016 11:32AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount T W TUPY INC 05/23/2016 105216 4302016 101-43000-224 limestone rip rap Public Works Department 366.80 T W TUPY INC 05/23/2016 105216 4302016 101-45200-223 washed sand Parks 283.06 Total 105216:649.86 TEEMASTER CORPORATION 05/23/2016 105217 201610026 101-45210-340 2016 Service fee Golf Course 500.00 Total 105217:500.00 TESSMAN COMPANY 05/23/2016 105218 230943 101-45210-223 herbicide Golf Course 497.38 Total 105218:497.38 THE HOME DEPOT 05/23/2016 105219 2808000207 101-45210-223 credit for return Golf Course 16.02- THE HOME DEPOT 05/23/2016 105219 2808010319 101-43000-224 sign posts Public Works Department 49.62 THE HOME DEPOT 05/23/2016 105219 2808057017 101-45210-223 GC supplies Golf Course 77.82 THE HOME DEPOT 05/23/2016 105219 2808057139 101-45210-223 GC supplies Golf Course 5.96 Total 105219:117.38 TRI CITY LAB 05/23/2016 105220 43016 601-49400-489 water testing Water 246.50 Total 105220:246.50 TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO 05/23/2016 105221 460283 101-41900-404 PW garage door repair Central Services 766.60 Total 105221:766.60 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED 05/23/2016 105222 19051-2 101-42110-226 Vest-Siltala Police Department 986.00 Total 105222:986.00 UNITED FARMERS COOPERATI 05/23/2016 105223 43016 101-43000-240 supplies Public Works Department 407.52 Total 105223:407.52 WASTE MANAGEMENT RECYC 05/23/2016 105224 18693-2808-603-49500-316 Recycling May 8,783.36 Total 105224:8,783.36 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 12 Check Issue Dates: 5/10/2016 - 5/23/2016 May 18, 2016 11:32AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount WEILANDS ALL SEASONS CLINI 05/23/2016 105225 23547 101-41900-404 AC repair city hall Central Services 667.35 Total 105225:667.35 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE 05/23/2016 105226 766637 101-45200-402 tire repair Parks 20.00 Total 105226:20.00 WILLIAMS TOWING 05/23/2016 105227 141721 101-42110-402 tow squad 240 Police Department 183.50 Total 105227:183.50 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC 05/23/2016 105228 51016 602-49450-381 4/01 to 5/01 Sewer 31.15 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC 05/23/2016 105228 51016 101-43000-381 4/01 to 5/01 Public Works Department 101.67 Total 105228:132.82 XCEL ENERGY 05/23/2016 105229 499562867 101-41900-381 3/22 to 4/20 Central Services 1,774.40 XCEL ENERGY 05/23/2016 105229 499562867 101-42110-381 3/22 to 4/20 Police Department 1,231.08 XCEL ENERGY 05/23/2016 105229 499562867 101-42110-381 3/22 to 4/20 Police Department 33.43 XCEL ENERGY 05/23/2016 105229 499562867 101-43000-381 3/22 to 4/20 Public Works Department 133.06 XCEL ENERGY 05/23/2016 105229 499562867 101-43000-386 3/22 to 4/20 Public Works Department 2,060.46 XCEL ENERGY 05/23/2016 105229 499562867 101-45200-381 3/22 to 4/20 Parks 35.25 XCEL ENERGY 05/23/2016 105229 499562867 601-49400-381 3/22 to 4/20 Water 4,730.81 XCEL ENERGY 05/23/2016 105229 499562867 602-49450-381 3/22 to 4/20 Sewer 2,586.10 XCEL ENERGY 05/23/2016 105229 499562867 101-45210-381 3/22 to 4/20 Golf Course 549.71 XCEL ENERGY 05/23/2016 105229 499562867 601-49400-381 3/22 to 4/20 Water .01- Total 105229:13,134.29 Grand Totals: 271,053.48 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: May 23, 2016 ITEM NO: 20 _____________________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Jeremy Barnhart JML City Attorney’s Report Title Community Development Director _____________________________________________________________________________________ Item Description: Resolution pertaining to Chapter 344.011 _____________________________________________________________________________________ Purpose. Approval of a resolution exemption adjoining property owners from Minnesota Statutes Chapter 344 when their land considered together is under 20 acres. Background. The City Attorney has drafted a resolution exempting the city from the partition fence regulations in Chapter 344.011 of the State Statute when both lots together are less than 20 acres. The state passed a law allowing cities to exempt themselves from the partition fence law, and the requirement to provide fence viewers, in more urban situations, including when both properties are 20 acres or less. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: The Council is asked to adopt the resolution. List of Exhibits Exhibit A Resolution 187179v1 A RESOLUTION EXEMPTING ADJOING PROPERTY OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS FROM MINNESOTA STATUTES CHAPTER 344 WHEN THEIR LAND CONDENSED TOGETHER IS UNDER 20 ACRES WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 344.011 permits statutory city councils to, by resolution, exempt adjoining property owners or occupants from Chapter 344 when their land considered together is less than 20 acres. WHEREAS, the City of Orono regulates fences pursuant to its Zoning Ordinance, Orono City Code, Chapter 78. WHEREAS, fences in residential areas and on lakeshore property are more appropriately regulated by zoning ordinance than by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 344. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby exempts adjoining property owners and occupants from Minnesota Statutes Chapter 344 when their land considered together is less than 20 acres. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this _____day of _________________, 2016. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _____________________________ _____________________________ Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor