Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-13-2016 Council PacketAgenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, June 13, 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 0The 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 23, 2016* 3. Council Work Session of May 23, 2016* Presentation 4. State Farm Safe Driving Grant 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. Public Works Supervisor Appointment 6. 2016 Road Maintenance (Hunter and Tamarack)-Award Public Safety Report Planning Department Report – Planning Commission Representative – Loren Schoenzeit 7. 15-3723 Source Land Capital, Lakeview of Orono – Release Outlot C from Development Agreement 8. 16-3828 City of Medina/Stonegate Farm, Inc., 2940 Sixth Avenue North – CUP & Wetland Rezoning 9. 16-3830 Zehnder Homes, Inc., 1255 Dickenson St. – Variances 10. 16-3827 Rick Denman/Charles Cudd, LLC for owner DDK, LLC, 2525 Kelly Avenue, 2535 and 2545 Shadywood Road, Sketch Plan 11. 16-3826 Stonewood LLC, OBO Chuck and Terri Lahr, 895 Tonkawa Road - ATF CUP – Grading 12. 16-3815 Half Story Definition/Massing Regulation 13. 16-3817 City of Orono, Zoning Code Text Amendment: Define Existing Ground Level and Engineered Grade 14. 16-3824 City of Orono Text Amendment: Subdivision Exception Mayor/Council Report Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, June 13, 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 City Administrator's Report 15. Golf Course Donation 16. Appointment of 2016 Election Judges 17. Licenses & Permits a. Garbage Hauler 18. Claims/Bills * City Attorney's Reports Adjournment Upcoming Events 2016 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. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 23, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 23 ROLL CALL The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Lili Tod McMillan, Council Members 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, Public Works Director/City Engineer Adam Edwards, City Attorney Soren Mattick, Consulting City Engineer David Martini, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor McMillan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item Nos. 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 20 were added to the Consent Agenda. Item 9 was removed from the Agenda at the request of the applicant. Item No. 3 was removed from the Consent Agenda. Printup moved, Levang seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. ORONO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF MAY 9, 2016 Printup moved, Levang seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of May 9, 2016, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 3. ORONO CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION OF APRIL 25, 2016 Council Member Walsh requested the minutes under Item No. 3 reflect Council Member Levang’s statement that she was against having a school subcommittee. City Administrator Loftus stated that was addressed by adding the sentence in the second paragraph, “Council Member Levang agrees that the City should maintain a balance with all the schools in the community.” Council Member Levang stated she has an objection with having work session minutes as detailed as they currently are and that she does not approve of that change since the purpose of a work session is for open discussion between Council Members and it is not to be politicizing what happens during those meetings. Levang indicated she would like to go back to the former process of having minutes that are generic so an open dialogue and open discussion can occur. Levang stated she objects to the changes and to the tone of how the work sessions have been conducted. Walsh stated he disagrees with that and that the reason to have detailed minutes is for transparency. Walsh stated if Council Member Levang is afraid to talk about something, she is probably in the wrong job and that she should not be afraid to say what she believes and what she wants. Levang stated there are many different interpretations of transparency and that the work sessions are published in the paper, notice is provided online and meeting minutes are prepared. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 23, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 23 3. ORONO CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION OF APRIL 25, 2016 (continued) Levang stated Council Member Walsh is confounding what transparency means and she takes objection to Council Member Walsh accusing her of being fearful and not doing her job. Levang stated the citizens of the community would say that she does her job and that she takes issue with Council Member Walsh’s comments. Walsh stated he is not sure what comment of his she is taking issue with. Levang indicated he made an allegation that she was not doing her job and that she is doing her job. McMillan stated since this issue was raised two weeks ago, she has given it some additional thought. McMillan noted the Council changed the way the work session minutes are prepared in 2015 as requested by Council Member Walsh so they would be more detailed. McMillan stated they are now running into the problem where the minutes are not detailed enough. McMillan noted no votes are taken at work sessions and that the Council has more discussion on policy issues. McMillan stated in her view the City Council is going down the wrong path of making work session minutes so detailed. McMillan read the following statement: “Jessica had a good system prior to2015 that touched generally on topics discussed in the work session and reported on what the consensus of the Council determined. In her note-taking, Jessica wrote about the Council as a whole and did not use individual council members by name. Rather than single anyone out, this is done to create a safe environment if there is any differing views. Many of these views are related to policy discussions where the originator is exploring an issue and may or may not end up in supporting it after hearing from their fellow council members. The intention is not to credit/discredit one person as these sessions are really for the ‘team’ to work out issues, ending up with a consensus to give Jessica direction for further possible actions. The minutes were brief as there are not usually any formal votes taken. It should be an environment where ideas can be developed, worked through, and thought out prior to becoming official council items – both for staff and council. This revised system is creating criticism of the note-taking. This will put further pressure on Jessica and Diane to get it ‘right’ according to what we all heard and council members disputing what was recorded. As Mayor, I am trying hard to maintain a safe environment for all of us to think openly. This act of politicizing our work sessions will slowly shut down any creative thought in our organization. I believe we had an adequate and professional process prior to 2015.” McMillan moved, Cornick seconded, to direct the City Administrator to go back to the work session note-taking style that occurred prior to 2015. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 23, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 23 3. ORONO CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION OF APRIL 25, 2016 (continued) Walsh stated he is very surprised that the Mayor decided to put together a volume book speaking engagement about the City’s note-taking process. Walsh stated at the time he came on the Council, there were basically no notes and there were times when, as a council member, if you were not able to attend the meeting, you would not know what was talked about at the meetings. Walsh stated the Mayor wants to be transparent but is afraid about having her opinions documented. McMillan requested Council Member Walsh not say she was afraid and to keep his comments about himself. Walsh stated while the Council does not take formal votes at work sessions, there are a lot of informal comments made about this direction or not this direction. Walsh commented a lot of informal votes get turned into formal votes, and from a transparency standpoint, people need to know how those votes and how those decisions are being made. Walsh stated if anyone is afraid of what they are saying, then they are probably in the wrong job. Walsh stated being a council member is a job where someone is a public servant, they are working for the public, and everything should be transparent. Walsh stated if someone is afraid of what they said, then they should not say it or get a different job. McMillan stated it has nothing to do with being afraid about what is being said but it is about creating an environment where the Council can have a creative process and not turn it into a he said or she said situation. McMillan stated if Council Member Walsh would like a better example of how those comments can be negatively twisted, he should look at the last edition of the “Orono Watch for You.” McMillan stated if it is Council Member Walsh’s intention to get these notes so detailed that they can support something like that very derisive and negative newsletter, he should say that. McMillan stated she is trying to protect this organization and that she is not coming from the view of her personally. McMillan stated the council members and the staff that work for Orono should feel free to speak about things and not be criticized publicly by any organization that wants to take it out of context. McMillan noted the City Council’s work sessions are not taped and have no audio backup or video backup, which makes it very difficult for the note takers to make verbatim minutes. Walsh stated there have been probably two occasions where the Council voted to amend the minutes and that the Mayor wants to go back to the stone ages. Walsh stated she wants to go back to no notes whatsoever. McMillan stated she is going back to two weeks ago when he requested the minutes be amended. Walsh stated no one objected to what he had said at that time. Levang noted she did. McMillan stated she was not sure where Council Member Walsh was going with it. Walsh stated he was stating the facts of what people objected to. Walsh noted the Mayor had a prepared dissertation and apparently has given this a lot of thought prior to coming here tonight since she read off a sheet of paper. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 23, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 23 3. ORONO CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION OF APRIL 25, 2016 (continued) McMillan stated it means a lot to her to run this organization professionally and that is why she put her notes down on paper. Walsh stated transparency means a lot and that they are going backwards. Walsh noted the Mayor also does not want the Planning Commission meetings videotaped either. Levang noted the Planning Commissioners also do not want their meetings videotaped. McMillan stated she is going to end the discussion right now. Council Member Printup stated there was a time before 2015 when there were very few notes made of the work sessions and there was a time before that when there was nothing. Printup noted before that there were very detailed minutes. Printup stated he has been on record before that he would like detailed minutes and a recording. Walsh asked what the Mayor means by going back to before 2015. McMillan stated previous to 2015 the work session minutes covered a lot of the details but did not get into individual comments. McMillan stated the minutes reflected that the Council talked about an idea and if they came to a consensus. McMillan stated a lot of times in policy discussions it is important to be able to have an open dialogue. Walsh stated he is not afraid of what he says or to stand for something but that it appears everybody else has a problem with that. Walsh stated in his view, having a public official in a public meeting not wanting to have people know what was said, he finds that to be spurious. Levang stated she does not have any problem saying what she feels and that she does her homework on items that come before the Council. Levang stated she is not afraid and that Council Member Walsh is trying to say that those council members who vote yes are afraid. Levang stated that is fear mongering and that is not how she feels. Council Member Cornick stated the best evidence that the Council needs to go back to the other system is that right now they are spending time on problems with the Council rather than solutions for the citizens of Orono. Cornick suggested they go back to the old way and try that. Printup asked if that is the old way or the old, old way. Printup noted there were detailed minutes at one time. Cornick stated he is talking about the system used in 2014. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 23, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 23 3. ORONO CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION OF APRIL 25, 2016 (continued) VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 2, Printup and Walsh opposed. Levang requested the April 25 minutes be revised using the 2014 method. Printup commented this has a bad smell to it and that they are talking about detailed notes or detailed minutes and going back to less detailed minutes. McMillan moved, Levang seconded, to approve the minutes of the April 25, 2016, City Council work session as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Walsh opposed. PRESENTATION 4. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT (LMCD) 2017 BUDGET Gabriel Jabbour, LMCD Representative, stated he is here tonight to present the draft 2017 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District budget. Jabbour noted a copy of the budget should have been provided to the City Council. McMillan asked if Mr. Jabbour feels comfortable with what is being proposed. Jabbour stated this is the first time that he has been around the LMCD, which is from 1971, that a handful of the board members took it upon themselves to prepare the budget, look at how things were done previously, and then go through it in detail. Following that process, the committee met with the rest of the board and explained where the LMCD is currently and how they got there with some historical background. Jabbour commented he is hopeful the LMCD is on its way to doing things in a better way and that there was unanimous consensus by the board that they have never understood the budget as much as they do now. Jabbour stated in 2016, the budget that was passed reduced the levy substantially. In 2016, the DNR removed $34,000 worth of grants, which is approximately 10 percent of the levy. This resulted in the LMCD having a substantial reduction in revenue. This year’s budget includes payment to the former executive director as well as the interim director. Jabbour stated as a result, the LMCD is not in as good of financial condition as they should be but adjustments are being made. Jabbour stated the past business model of the LMCD is not sustainable but that they are there to keep the ship floating and that changes to that business model are being implemented. Jabbour stated one of the obstacles is that there are a number of regulations that have been approved over the years that make it difficult for the average citizen to work through. Reviewing the codes and implementing changes will be an additional expense in the coming years. Jabbour stated that is one of the reasons why the LMCD is bringing back a former technician to help the interim director and the LMCD get back on track. Printup noted the legal line went up significantly in the last year. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 23, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 23 4. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT (LMCD) 2017 BUDGET (continued) Jabbour stated the LMCD received less revenue from fines but paid more in legal. A few months ago the LMCD submitted their deductible to the League of MN Cities which has not been done in the past. Part of the reason for the increase in legal fees was that Your Boat Club appealed things over and over again and is the reason for the increase. Jabbour stated five years ago very few people on the LMCD Board had an understanding of all the budget line items, but that they are attempting to educate the Board on the budget. Jabbour noted the new budget for 2017 is lower than what the levy was in 2015. McMillan commented the budget looks good considering all the changes that are coming in the next two years, particularly with the LMCD losing the grant money for milfoil harvesting. Jabbour noted the DNR is short money this year and that they provided the LMCD with limited options. Cornick asked if they are winning the battle of AIS on Lake Minnetonka. Jabbour stated the battle against AIS is a permanent battle and that he has given a lot of his personal attention, money, and effort to bringing experts in, such as research agencies. Jabbour noted a recent meeting was held with the U.S. National Parks, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and three of the biggest manufacturers, which demonstrates how serious the situation is. Jabbour stated some of the research is extremely promising and that Dr. Sorenson at the University of Minnesota has been attempting to gain funding but that he spends approximately 50 percent of his time dealing with red tape. Jabbour stated on Lake Minnetonka there are a number of positive things happening but that some of the cities have no rules or guidelines for AIS. Jabbour displayed a chart depicting the LMCD budgets and levies since 2008 through 2016. Jabbour noted the shortfall is anticipated to come from fees, fines, and grants. Jabbour stated through the years the grants were not reflected in the budget and that the LMCD met their budget because they received the grants. While the LMCD is proposing a decrease in overall operating expenses for 2017, due to less non- levy revenue and grant opportunities being anticipated, the overall levy will need to be increased. Jabbour indicated court fine revenue is also going down. Levang asked why the license permit fee revenue is going down. Jabbour stated the lake is pretty much developed, which has resulted in the decrease. Jabbour indicated the LMCD will also only be utilizing two milfoil harvesters rather than three, with the third being on standby in the event one of the other harvesters breaks down. Jabbour noted as a condition of receiving the DNR grant, the LMCD was required to harvest so many acres. Jabbour stated other changes to the LMCD include elimination of all subcommittees except for the AIS subcommittee, going to one board meeting every second Wednesday of the month, with the fourth Wednesday of the month being a work session. Jabbour indicated the changes are an attempt to make the LMCD more efficient. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 23, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 23 4. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT (LMCD) 2017 BUDGET (continued) Walsh noted the transfer from the reserve fund was $64,000, which is approximately 40 percent of the fund. Walsh asked what that money got used for. Jabbour stated the revenue did not come in as anticipated so a transfer was required. Jay Green, Interim LMCD Director, stated last year when the budget was completed they were short $17,000 out of reserves to meet expenses. The amount above that is the salary for the interim director and $11,000 from the Lake of Cities Fund that was not budgeted for. Green indicated they had to cover those expenses in this budget. With the 2016 proposed budget, even with the 6.7 percent levy increase, the LMCD will still have to take money out of reserves for next year. Green stated they are looking at how to get back to not using the reserves and not depending on grants. Jabbour stated the LMCD ended up receiving less revenue and incurring more expenses than anticipated and that they overshot the budget by approximately $37,000. Jabbour stated in the past the grants covered the shortfall, and that his suggestion is when the grants come in, the LMCD should put them in next year’s budget. McMillan stated she appreciates the fresh perspective that Jay Green and Gabriel Jabbour have given to the LMCD Board and that in her view it is a positive, new direction. McMillan stated the LMCD has to be managed differently since things have changed through the years. The City Council took no formal action on this item. PUBLIC COMMENTS Gabriel Jabbour, 985 Tonkawa Road, stated he is embarrassed by the City Council. Jabbour commented Orono is a City that was acting as the regional agency and Three Rivers Park is wondering whether the City is going to compete with them. Jabbour stated Orono was a City that people looked up to and that this Council is riding on the City’s past successes and years and years of hard work, which is why people want to live in the City. Jabbour stated he would like to see more pride in the City and less bickering among the Council Members. Jabbour stated he would really like to see Council Member Walsh wait until the election starts before he starts running for Mayor. Jabbour stated diminishing the standing of the Mayor is not a good thing for the City since she speaks for the City, lives in the City, and works her tail off for the City. Jabbour stated the bickering is making it very unattractive and difficult for people to want to serve the City and that he would beg Council Member Walsh to knock it off. Jabbour stated he does not want to see his e-mails, letters, or the brochure that comes out and that he would beg him to knock it off. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 23, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 23 PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER REPORT 5. ANNUAL PUBLIC HEARING FOR NPDES PHASE II STORM WATER PERMIT Public Works Director and City Engineer Edwards stated the City of Orono has an MS4 permit which requires a public hearing on the City’s storm water permit. The purpose of the public hearing is to educate interested citizens, meet a requirement of the permit, and to receive comments from the public on the City’s storm water pollution prevention program. Under the MS4 permit, the City is under guidance and direction from the Federal Government as well as the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The MS4 permit falls under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program for operation of the City’s storm water drainage system. The NPDES is a national regulator program under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and is administered at the state level by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, who then issues the City a permit called the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. The City also follows the guidelines and regulations of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, which acts as the Local Government Unit regulating impacts to wetlands. Improper storm water drainage impacts aquatic biodiversity, results in habitat loss, increased flooding, poor aesthetics, and declines in human health and drinking water quality. Some of the basic requirements of the permit are for the City to have a storm water pollution prevention program, submit annual reports, undertake ordinance development addressing storm water issues, and create mapping of the City’s storm water system. In addition, the permit requires public education and outreach, public participation and involvement, monitor illicit discharge and take steps to eliminate it, regulate how construction sites deal with erosion, and have proper procedures in place to deal with the City’s storm water system. Typical pollutant sources come from direct discharge or dumping of chemicals into the storm water system by individuals and/or companies. Solutions start with the individual homeowner’s decisions, which is the education component of the permit. In addition, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District also attempt to educate the residents. As far as the City’s activities concerning compliance goes in 2015, that included articles in newsletters and on the City’s website, stormwater information on the City’s website, continuation of the City’s grass and leaf disposal programs, construction debris collection, erosion control inspections, street sweeping, culvert repairs, and the anticipated publication of an illicit discharge program and manual. In 2016, the City will be focusing on refining more of the mapping, with stormwater inspections taking place each year on 20 percent of the storm system, incorporation of asset management for the storm water system, improving the Public Works maintenance operations, and commencement of a storm water management plan update in conjunction with the City’s Comprehensive Plan for 2018. Edwards stated the next step in the process is to submit an annual report to the MPCA. Mayor McMillan opened the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this item. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 23, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 of 23 5. ANNUAL PUBLIC HEARING FOR NPDES PHASE II STORM WATER PERMIT (continued) Mayor McMillan closed the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. Levang noted on the City’s home page, there is a drinking water report available to the residents. Levang asked whether that report is part of this permit. Edwards indicated it is part of a separate program but it is an annual report that the City makes available to the residents. McMillan commented the Public Works has been very prompt and regular in their street sweeping efforts. Edwards noted the City just took delivery of their new street sweeper. Levang moved, Printup seconded, to adopt the NPDES Phase II storm water permit. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 6. 16-3832 CITY OF ORONO, VARIANCE, PUBLIC HEARING Barnhart stated the Parks Commission is in the process of developing an off-leash dog park within the Lurton Park. The plan includes a 47-inch high fence, an expansion of the parking lot, as well as picnic tables and benches. Since some of the fencing is located within the wetland and lakeshore setback, a variance is required. The Planning Commission has not reviewed the variance application. The Council, by unanimous vote, may waive reference of the application to the Planning Commission and hold the public hearing. Barnhart stated this application was not brought before the Planning Commission since the City wanted to move forward on the park as quickly as possible. If the decision to waive the review by the Planning Commission is not unanimous by the Council, the application will be discussed at the June meeting of the Planning Commission. Levang moved to waive the review by the Planning Commission. McMillan noted the City Council will hear public comments tonight if anyone in the audience would like to speak to this application. McMillan asked if the City Council has the ability to send something back to the Planning Commission if the Council discusses it tonight. Barnhart stated what the Council would be doing tonight is voting on whether to waive the requirement for the Planning Commission to review this item and that they do not have to vote on the variance if they choose not to. Barnhart noted Staff did notice a public hearing for tonight on this matter but that the Council does have the option to send it back to Planning Commission. In Staff’s view, there has been proper notice for the Council to hold the public hearing. McMillan stated the thought is to hold the public hearing tonight but that the City Council has to first waive the review by the Planning Commission MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 23, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 23 6. 16-3832 CITY OF ORONO, VARIANCE, PUBLIC HEARING (continued) Walsh asked if the residents in the audience would be willing to have the City Council hold the public hearing tonight. McMillan stated a waiver of the review by the Planning Commission does not necessarily mean that the variance will be approved tonight and that the City Council is voting to waive the review by the Planning Commission. Mattick stated there is no statutory requirement regarding a public hearing on variances, but under the Orono City Code, it says that normally the Planning Commission will hold the public hearings. Mattick stated in this situation the City has said they are still going to hold the public hearing but not at the Planning Commission level. Mattick noted the Planning Commission serves as an advisory body to the City Council and that the public hearing will be held directly before the City Council tonight. Following that public hearing, the Council will still have to vote on the variance. The City Council will not be waiving the public hearing and the City Council will get to hear the public comments directly. Printup stated he would like to hear from the public regardless if it is a formal public hearing or not. Levang stated the City Council will still need to decide whether to have the Planning Commission review the application even if the public hearing is held. Levang stated she would prefer to get started on the application as soon as possible. Cornick seconded the motion. Levang asked if the City Council could table the application and send it back to the Planning Commission if the Council decides they cannot make a decision tonight. Barnhart indicated that is correct. McMillan stated she would like to get some public comment and then perhaps send it back to the Planning Commission. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Walsh opposed. Mattick noted a unanimous vote of the Council is necessary in order to waive review by the Planning Commission. McMillan stated this application will need to be sent to the Planning Commission. Barnhart stated he will provide a short presentation for the public on what is being planned for the park. Barnhart indicated the blue line on the overhead represents the fence. The parking lot is proposed to be expanded, with the City Council approving that two weeks ago. Also planned are the addition of some benches and picnic tables. The fencing requires a variance on the east and west side. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 23, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11 of 23 6. 16-3832 CITY OF ORONO, VARIANCE, PUBLIC HEARING (continued) The property has not been surveyed and Staff is assuming that the property line is the edge of the wetland and the edge of the lake, based on aerial photography and on site inspection. The fence would need to be 35 feet back from the wetland and 150 feet back from the lake, which would put the fence well into the park. On the west side, the wetland extends like a finger into the park property. The fence is proposed to be located almost adjacent to the wetland. The intent behind locating the fencing this way is to accommodate the trails throughout the park as well as minimize visual impact of the park from the lake and wetland. The fence is proposed to be located along the north and south property lines. Those two sections of the fence do not require a variance. The fence is proposed to contain the usable portion of the park for the park user while also maintaining the goal of the ordinance, which is to preserve views into the property from the wetlands and from the lake. Another goal is to maintain the existing vegetation. Barnhart stated two variances are necessary. One variance is required for the lake yard setback and the other variance is from the setback to the wetland. The proposed fence is a woven wire, 47-inches in height. The fence is intended to blend into the environment so it is not highly visible. Levang stated she would also like to have Chair Meyers provide any comments he feels appropriate. Rick Meyers, Park Chair, stated the Park Commission has been talking about this dog park for months and that this is the plan that has been developed because it utilizes the land the best way for a dog park. Meyers stated dog parks are a beneficial thing and that the Lurton family approached the City and requested it become a dog park because they wanted to see more use of that park. Meyers indicated the City is attempting to accommodate the Lurton family’s wishes. Meyers indicated the Park Commission held some meetings with the family and they requested the City go forward with the dog park. The dog park has also been discussed at the Park Commission meetings as well as at the City Council level. Meyers stated there either appears to be some objection against the whole idea of a dog park or else regarding the location of the fence. Meyers stated the City Council will hear the residents’ comments and go from there. Meyers stated this item can go to the Planning Commission and the residents can have the discussion with them and then it will come back to the City Council. Meyers noted the Park Commission is also an advisory board, and that as a Park Commission, they decided there was a need for a dog park. Meyers commented this is a great piece of property and that having a park by someone’s house raises the adjoining properties’ value by $5,000 apiece. Meyers stated dog parks are very popular and are an amenity that many surrounding communities are currently doing. The Park Commission felt it was a good idea, the right property, and the right time to move forward. Meyers stated the City Council concurred with the need for a dog park and are ready to move forward with it. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 23, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 12 of 23 6. 16-3832 CITY OF ORONO, VARIANCE, PUBLIC HEARING McMillan stated she walked the park on Sunday, and asked whether the Park Commission considered having the small dog area to the right of the storm water pond. McMillan stated by relocating the small dog area, it would eliminate the need to have a fence within another fence. Meyers stated it might also take less fencing. McMillan stated then it would not look like a fence inside of a fence. Meyers stated the plan can be tinkered with but that the Park Commission would have to go back and view the property. Meyers stated it is nice for the dogs to have a woodland experience as well as the open area. Levang stated that area might also have some shade. Meyers stated the intent with the small dog park was to help preserve the prairie land. Edwards stated the subject before the City Council now is the variance request for the fence and that moving the small dog fence could be done if it is determined to be appropriate. Edwards indicated the feedback he received from the Council, the Park Commission, and the Lurton family was to preserve some of the prairie area. Edwards stated if that is not a concern, they can certainly redesign the fence. McMillan stated in her view it would be more attractive to have the small dog section off to the right. Meyers stated the Park Commission also formed a subcommittee prior to the Lurtons approaching the City and that they researched dog parks in a number of the surrounding areas. The committee’s research found that there is not excessive barking or other problems associated with a dog park. For people who wish to visit the park, they will need to go through a permitting process and pay a fee. Meyers noted Orono has 24 parks and that this park is underutilized. McMillan stated she would like to hear from the public and then send this application to the Planning Commission. Loftus stated she can provide the agreement the City has with the Lurtons amending the uses of the park, which was signed by someone representing the Lurton family and the Land Trust. Dianna Milianta, 3515 Sixth Avenue North, stated she would like to read some excerpts from an article that appeared in the Lakeshore Weekly News published on October 31, 2011. The article talked about how, as an avid animal lover, Susan Lurton enjoyed seeing them in their natural element. The following is a quote from Phil Lurton, her husband: “We could see the property from our place and Sue did not want development over there on that property because it was beautiful and she looked across the lake at it all the time.” Another quote from the article states that: “Sue’s main thing was love for animal, said Bill. That was part of the reason why she didn’t want to see development, because of the animals who lived in those areas, like deer and fox and whatever else we used to see. Milianta stated just five years ago the Lurton family was talking about how this park was made for the animals as Sue intended, but then the City decided to make a change and fence in the whole thing. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 23, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 13 of 23 6. 16-3832 CITY OF ORONO, VARIANCE, PUBLIC HEARING (continued) As a result, the wildlife will not have a place to live and will not have a path to travel through the area. Milianta stated it is not just the deer and the fox but that she sees deer, fox, squirrels, bunnies, turkeys, raccoons, and all kinds of birds. In the winter there are coyotes that travel across the lake and through that property. Milianta stated if that area is fenced in, those animals will not be able to get through there. Milianta stated Sue’s main thing was love for animals, which is why she did not want to see development, and that she wanted a place for the wildlife to live. Milianta stated by erecting the fence, the animals will be routed down along the road and there will be a lot more dead animals. Milianta stated a dog park is totally against the original intent of the property by erecting the fence and that the original covenants say the property shall be preserved and used only as natural paths of an environmental park. The City shall create a plan for the park that reflects the passive character of the park and the City shall provide improvements as set out in the Park Plan, which included a picnic table, property hiking, trails, and the parking lot. Milianta stated fencing this area in and allowing dogs to run through there goes against hat Susan Lurton’s original intent was, and that she is curious to know why the family wanted to make that change. Milianta stated that park is used even though you may not see a lot of cars there. Milianta stated it is a different kind of park than the other parks in the area. It is a place where people can go and meet in the open area by the picnic table, but when you step into the woods, it is immediately peaceful and quiet. Milianta stated one or two people will walk at a time but that there are not big groups of people camping and being loud. The park is mainly used in the spring and fall. Milianta stated she lives behind the park and sees people using it and that she is not sure how the Park Commission researched it or how they determined it was underutilized. Milianta stated she is very much against the variances. Laurel MacLachlan, 3565 Sixth Avenue North, asked what impact studies the City has done regarding the wildlife and other items. MacLachlan stated it is her understanding that Orono has approved some higher density properties in the area, so the likelihood of that park getting used more is high. MacLachlan noted a lot of the Orono properties consist of two to five acres. MacLachlan stated she has dogs herself and that she would not specifically take them to that dog park because they can run all they want on her own property. MacLachlan stated that is why she is wondering who the City is targeting and whether they are truly targeting the citizens of Orono. MacLachlan questioned whether the City is doing this in an attempt to raise money by attracting dog owners from other areas to use the park. MacLachlan stated if the City wants to put dogs in the park, they can use a smaller area so other people can enjoy the paths and the picnic tables without being in the middle of a dog park. MacLachlan asked if Orono truly has a need for the largest dog park in the area given the fact that there are other dog parks in some of the nearby cities. MacLachlan stated she does not see that the citizens of Orono have a need for this large of a dog park. MacLachlan noted this park has not been there that long and that it takes people a while before they become aware that it is a park. MacLachlan stated people currently use the park and that it is a peaceful area. If it is turned into a dog park, it will no longer be peaceful. MacLachlan noted large dogs will be able to jump that 4-foot fence. MacLachlan questioned what impact studies have been done and what the City’s plan is for all the animals. MacLachlan stated the fence will limit access by the wildlife and that some of the animals will be scared off or hunted by the dogs. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 23, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 14 of 23 6. 16-3832 CITY OF ORONO, VARIANCE, PUBLIC HEARING (continued) MacLachlan indicated they just recently heard about this and that they did not receive a letter saying the City was looking at changing the intent of the park, which also goes against Sue Lurton’s original intent for the park. MacLachlan stated she would like the City to reconsider. MacLachlan indicated she is not completely opposed to a dog park but that she is opposed to fencing in the entire park and making it for dogs only. MacLachlan stated in the Orono community, unless there is a study that shows that lots of Orono residents are going to be using it, then the City is going to be creating this dog park for somebody else and not the Orono residents. MacLachlan indicated she would like to see answers to that before the City goes ahead and requires people to purchase permits, which is one way the City is looking to make money off the park. McMillan stated it is not anyone’s intent to make money off of this park and that it is to provide an amenity. McMillan stated the permit fees would go towards maintaining the park. Walsh commented the City’s intent was well intentioned and that they are proposing to put in more fencing than the City will receive in income. Walsh noted this is the first time the City has had a public hearing on this but that public input is important. MacLachlan stated if they knew earlier, they would have appeared at the meetings and commented on it. MacLachlan noted the residents did not receive a letter. MacLachlan stated perhaps a fence is not considered a building project, but when they do a project, they have to pull all the appropriate permits and provide notice to all the neighbors. Walsh stated there might be other people that could be affected and that it is important to attend the Planning Commission meeting in June. Levang noted the Lurton family approached the City and asked for a change to the park, which was a strong motivation for the City to move forward on it. Walsh stated the City also needs to listen to the neighbors since this is a community park and will have impacts on the neighbors. Walsh stated he does not believe the City has completed an impact study but that Staff could provide answers to some of the other questions. McMillan recommended the residents put their concerns in an e-mail to the Council as well as the Planning Commission. McMillan stated the dogs are supposed to be under control and the owner is supposed to be with the dog. McMillan stated she would encourage the neighbors to e-mail their concerns to the City and that this item will be on the agenda for the June 20 Planning Commission meeting. Meyers stated if the residents have a lot of concerns, what the Park Commission used for a reference was Three Rivers and how they run their dog parks. Meyers indicated he has visited 10 to 15 different dog parks to see how they operate and that the questions that are being raised are questions that have been asked every time a dog park is proposed. Meyers stated the deer can easily get over a 4-foot fence and that erecting a fence is not going to eliminate the wildlife. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 23, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 15 of 23 6. 16-3832 CITY OF ORONO, VARIANCE, PUBLIC HEARING (continued) Meyers commented the fence may change the environment a little bit but that there are a lot of natural areas in Orono, such as French Creek and Lowry Woods. Meyers stated whenever there is a change, it can be disturbing to the neighbors, and that he went from having total privacy to having 450,000 people going by his house every year. Milianta asked if the City did a market study to determine the interest. Meyers stated at the intergenerational forum last winter they talked about something that all age groups and all backgrounds could do and bring people together. Meyers stated dog parks are a good communal place. The City already has softball fields and other recreational parks. Meyers stated as far as environmental impact studies, the City does not complete environmental impact studies for natural parks. Milianta commented she is very disappointed and that the amount of work and forethought that went into the decision is very poor. Milianta stated it seems like the City just made a decision to spend $100,000 of taxpayers’ money to erect a fence and that she is very disappointed. Meyers noted park dedication fees would be used to fund it. McMillan closed the public hearing at 8:33 p.m. McMillan noted this item will be before the Planning Commission at its June 20 meeting. The City Council took no formal action on this item. 7. LURTON PARK FENCING McMillan stated the City will need to delay this item until after the Planning Commission meeting. Edwards stated the City has received two quotes and that Staff is recommending the low bid. Edwards stated Staff can simply go back to the contractors and resolicit the bids at a later time. Levang stated if the bids are good for 90 days, she would prefer to table the matter so Staff does not have to spend time obtaining new bids. Edwards noted even if it was tabled, he would still need to contact the contractors to see if their bids are still good after the 90 days and that it would be just as easy to solicit new bids. Walsh moved, Printup seconded, to deny the bid for the Lurton Park Fencing. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Walsh left the meeting to address residents outside the Council Chambers at approximately 8:30 p.m. and returned at 8:38 p.m. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 23, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 16 of 23 *8. 2016 ROAD MAINTENANCE (HUNTER AND TAMARACK) Printup moved, Levang seconded, to authorize the solicitation of bids for the Hunter and Tamarack road projects. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 9. SPRING HILL SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION This item was removed from the agenda at the request of the applicant. *10. WELL NO. 4 DESIGN Printup moved, Levang seconded, to authorize the solicitation of bids for the Municipal Well No. 4 project. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER REPORT Edwards reported on the following activities by the Public Works Department: - Completed pothole filling on Fox and Watertown - Performed culvert repair on the Old Crystal Bay Road trail - Completed right of way mowing - Installed speed bumps - Hydrant flushing has been completed - Completed a number of utility locates - Routine maintenance at the different parks Edwards reported he has been working with the Community Education Department who will be sponsoring a junior golf program out at the Orono Golf Course. Edwards noted that program was active a number of years ago, discontinued, and is now being reinstated. Edwards stated Girl Scout Troop 16214 has planted a pollinator garden at Livingston Park and that the Orono Thunder Soccer U13 and U4 teams came out to Lurton Park and Navarre Park and placed wood chips on the trails. PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT *11. DISPOSAL OF FORFEITED VEHICLES Printup moved, Levang seconded, to approve the disposal of a 2009 Cadillac Escalade, VIN#1GYFK26259R100784, through the Auto Auction. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT – Planning Commission Representative Kevin Landgraver MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 23, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 17 of 23 12. #15-3786 MOONEY LAKE PRESERVE – LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1 (PRAIRIE VIEW LANE), PROPOSAL TO DELAY ROAD CONSTRUCTION: CONCEPTUAL REVIEW Senior Planner Gaffron stated the property owner directly east of Mooney Lake Preserve, Mr. MacMillan, has purchased the two lots adjacent to this property. Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, are adjacent to Mr. MacMillan’s property and would be served by a private access road that comes up to a cul-de-sac, with a private driveway to Lot 2. This road was approved by Orono to be constructed as part of the Mooney Lake Preserve subdivision. Mr. MacMillan is proposing to delay construction of the Prairie View Lane cul-de-sac and has been working with the developer and City Staff to establish parameters for that to happen. Also being proposed at this point is to only construct the storm water pond in the northwest corner and the first 300 feet of road. The proposal specifically includes some conditions about when the rest of the road will be built. One of Staff’s main concerns with the initial proposal was Lot 1 being built with a house only requiring a driveway and Lot 2 not getting built. There is currently a letter of credit in place to guarantee construction of this road and the other Mooney Lake Preserve improvements. The City should not be expected to hold this security, or some other form of security, for an indeterminate amount of time until road completion is triggered by a proposed home on Lot 2. The solution to this proposal is to place the future obligation to complete the road entirely on Lot 2, which leaves 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. The road completion should occur prior to issuance of the building permit. The road should be completed to the extent that the base and first lift of bituminous are in place. Staff would also recommend that no Certificate of Occupancy be issued for a home on Lot 2 until, one, the final wear course is in place or, two, the owner of Lot 2 has established security with the City to ensure the final wear course is completed. The request involves the following elements: 1. The developer, George Stickney, is to construct the 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, the full road must be completed. 4. Owners of Lot 2 are required to be responsible for installing the full road prior to issuance of a building permit for Lot 2. 5. The obligations for road responsibility to be recorded as covenants in the chain of title of Lots 1 and 2. 6. Lots 1 and 2 will be subject to a joint access agreement and joint maintenance. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 23, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 18 of 23 12. #15-3786 MOONEY LAKE PRESERVE – LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1 (PRAIRIE VIEW LANE), PROPOSAL TO DELAY ROAD CONSTRUCTION: CONCEPTUAL REVIEW If the Council finds this arrangement acceptable, they should direct the developer and the property owner to provide draft revisions to the Mooney Lake Preserve Development Contract and Covenants for Staff review. Once Staff finds those revisions acceptable, this item will be brought back to the City Council for final action on the revisions. McMillan asked why only 300 feet of the road would be built. Gaffron stated part of it has to do with a natural drainage break and that they are proposing to only build the road up to the point where it drains to the south. The road could probably be 400 to 500 feet long but Mr. MacMillan’s intent is to avoid having pavement all the way up to those lots. The road will also be jogged so it would have less impact on the trees. Walsh asked who was going to pay for the road originally. Gaffron indicated it would be Mr. Stickney and that the City has a letter of credit from him. The road going to Lot 2 would be a private drive and does not need to be built until the lot is developed. Walsh asked how much that piece of road would cost. Gaffron stated it would likely cost between $20,000 to $40,000. George Stickney, BPS Properties, stated the reason that Mr. MacMillan purchased Lot 2 as well as Lot 1 is that a driveway was going to be put into the outlot and that he did not want to see that happen. An extensive amount of grading would also be needed to construct the cul-de-sac as currently proposed and Mr. MacMillan did not want to see that happen as well as the center island with landscaping. Stickney indicated they agreed in staff meetings that as the developer they should construct the road, landscape it properly, and then build the pond so that if someone ever has to extend the road, it could be done with a hammerhead since it will only service two properties. Stickney stated the possibilities of getting one house built there are not very great and cannot be counted upon. Stickney stated as part of the agreement they wanted to make sure the pond got constructed along with the first 300 feet of the road to ensure the water drains properly. Walsh asked how much it would cost to finish the cu-de-sac. Stickney indicated approximately $50,000. Walsh stated he would like to see the $50,000 put into a trust account of the City which could sunset after ten years or so. Stickney stated he will be out of the picture so it makes no sense for him to do that. Stickney stated the idea behind this arrangement is conservation, and had this proposal been in front of him earlier, he would not have suggested constructing the cul-de-sac or the road. Stickney stated the driveway extending to Lot 2 would cost approximately $15,000 and could be handled by the next owner of the property. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 23, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 19 of 23 12. #15-3786 MOONEY LAKE PRESERVE – LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1 (PRAIRIE VIEW LANE), PROPOSAL TO DELAY ROAD CONSTRUCTION: CONCEPTUAL REVIEW (continued) The most expensive thing is building the pond, which would get done. Stickney indicated he has discussed this with the City Attorney and the family’s attorney and they have everything covered. Steve Hornig, 2830 Breezy Heights Road, Woodland, Minnesota, stated the property owner of these two lots lives in the house to the east. Mr. MacMillan was concerned about his privacy and has no intention to do anything with the two lots that he has just purchased. When the lots were acquired, Mr. MacMillan was mainly focused on his privacy but then later on started looking at the building of the cul-de-sac, the amount of grading that would be necessary, and the retaining wall. Since those items would alter the natural lay of the land, Mr. MacMillan suggested those items not be built. Discussions were then had with the developer and Mr. Stickney has indicated he is comfortable with it. The financial consequences of this will rest on either Mr. MacMillan or the future owner of Lot 2. Hornig indicated the real estate attorneys who put together the covenants have worked with Mr. MacMillan’s attorney as well as the City Attorney to make sure there are no loopholes to leave the burden on the City. Walsh asked if the City Attorney is comfortable with that. Mattick stated he normally does not like putting off obligations to the future, but given the length of time the lots may be held, the value of the lots, and the fact that they would not get a building permit until the road is built, he is comfortable with it. Walsh stated having the pond constructed probably mitigates the rest of the issues. McMillan stated in her view it is a win/win since it leaves the land undeveloped and creates less hardcover. McMillan noted if a road is constructed, people can drive on it, which can raise security issues. McMillan stated she also likes the idea of constructing the stormwater pond up front. Stickney stated the MN Land Trust is very excited about not having the cul-de-sac and the road built. Levang asked why it needed to be a cul-de-sac when it would only serve two homes. Gaffron stated the lots become back lots and a driveway can only serve one back lot, which resulted in the need for it to become a road. The length of the road suggested it needed to be a cul-de-sac, but in recent discussions with the fire chief, he has indicated he is open to using T’s instead of cul-de-sacs. Levang stated she would like to see the need for a cul-de-sac go away but that decision does not need to be made now. McMillan asked if the covenants should be changed to reflect no cul-de-sac. Gaffron indicated Staff has not vetted that at all and it would require further review. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 23, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 20 of 23 12. #15-3786 MOONEY LAKE PRESERVE – LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1 (PRAIRIE VIEW LANE), PROPOSAL TO DELAY ROAD CONSTRUCTION: CONCEPTUAL REVIEW Printup moved, Cornick seconded, to direct the applicants to provide draft revisions to the Mooney Lake Preserve Development Contract and covenants for Staff review. Once Staff finds those revisions acceptable, this item should be brought back before the City Council for final action. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *13. #16-3808 RICK DENMAN ON BEHALF OF CASCO VENTURES, LLC, 3800 CASCO AVENUE, VARIANCES – RESOLUTION NO. 6626 Printup moved, Levang seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6626, a Resolution Approving Variances from Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-350, for the property located at 3800 Casco Avenue. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *14. #16-3818 DALE MULFINGER (SALA ARCHITECTS) ON BEHALF OF CHRIS AND LESLIE NEUGENT, 710 BIG ISLAND – RESOLUTION NO. 6627 Printup moved, Levang seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6627, a Resolution Approving Variances from Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-1279 and 78-1680 and Denying Variances from Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-1279 and 78-1680, for the property located at 710 Big Island. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *15. #16-3829 JOHN AND SARAH LINDAHL, 2465-2485 NORTH SHORE DRIVE SUBDIVISION: LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT – RESOLUTION NO. 6628 Printup moved, Levang seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6628, a Resolution Approving a Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement at 2465-2485 North Shore Drive. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Walsh reported he attended the last Planning Commission meeting and that the new chair did a good job running the meeting. Cornick stated he was going to comment about certain letters that came out this month but that someone else said it better than he could earlier in the meeting. Levang stated as Public Works Director Edwards indicated, the Girl Scouts did plant a butterfly garden at Livingston Tower Park. Levang stated Park Commissioner Bryce Johnson, Adam Edwards, Mayor McMillan, and herself were there to oversee the planting. Levang stated she has already received a number of positive comments by people who have passed by. In addition, the local newspaper will be doing a story on it. Levang reported the City also had 25 girls from the Orono Thunder help place wood chips on the trails at Lurton and French Creek. Levang commented Lurton Park is a very beautiful, peaceful place, and that she is grateful the Lurton family donated that land to the City. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 23, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 21 of 23 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT (continued) Levang stated work is starting on the donation garden and that she would like thank Jim Cox and Jim Gilman for donating four truckloads of horse manure that was then spread as well as some other fertilizer. Levang stated she would also like to thank Jane Delaney and Sue Schwaba for donating some fencing and the City of Long Lake for hooking up the water. Levang indicated the vegetables will soon be planted and that she has already been receiving calls from the agencies that they donate produce to. Printup stated it was frustrating that the funding for Highway 12 got political but that he is thankful to State Representatives Hertzog and Osmek for fighting hard for the funding. Printup stated the other side of the aisle played some political maneuvering and the funding was lost. Printup stated in his view it would be worthy for the City to send a letter to the governor asking for a special session. Printup stated the City Council has an opportunity tonight to make a motion directing Staff to re-send the letter from Chief Farniok as well as send a letter to the media and the governor stating that the City of Orono would like him to call a special session to discuss the matter. Printup stated this is a good opportunity for the City of Orono to take the lead on this matter. Levang indicated she would be supportive of the letter since that stretch of the highway is unsafe and a lot of the people she has talked to have had near misses or are now starting to avoid using the corridor. Levang stated a letter would be something the City could easily do. Walsh stated he would also be supportive of it. Walsh noted his neighbor’s niece was killed on Highway 12 last year and that the funding is important to improve the safety along that stretch of road. McMillan asked if Orono should attempt to get a coalition together with some of the other cities. Printup stated the Chief of Maple Plain has also suggested that but timing is of essence. McMillan stated a special session can happen at any time. Printup stated the governor has stated he would think about a special session, which is why it is important to move forward on this matter as quickly as possible. Printed recommended the City Council direct Staff to write a letter stating Orono’s position on the Highway 12 funding to be sent to the governor’s office as well as the media. Printup stated the funding all along was a bipartisan effort and that the political maneuverings that went on has led to disheartening people about the way government functions. Levang stated it got put in the omnibus, which was the problem. Printup stated the City has the opportunity tonight to draft a letter or resolution. Loftus stated Staff can draft a letter and send it tomorrow but that the City Council would need to approve a resolution. McMillan noted the next Highway 12 Coalition meeting is June 3, which would a chance to find out what the group would like to do. McMillan noted she received a few e-mails about it and that people were not happy about the outcome. McMillan stated the upcoming meeting would be a chance to discuss whether it would be better to do a cooperative effort. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 23, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 22 of 23 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT (continued) Printup stated he would like to direct Staff to write the letter, and then as a coalition something else can go out. Printup stated he does not believe redundancy would hurt. Printup stated there have already been comments in the media by the Maple Plain Police Chief, and that if Orono does not act tonight, they will be losing an opportunity to do something. Printup moved, Walsh seconded, to direct Staff to write a letter requesting Governor Dayton call a special session regarding funding for Highway 12. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. McMillan noted the City has received some good donations for benches for the golf course and that the golf course will look very nice this year. McMillan stated she also noticed on County Road 15 there are now lighted signs marking the pedestrian crosswalk at Tanager and that she is assuming Hennepin County put those in. McMillan stated she is happy to see those and that they will help alert motorists to the crosswalk. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT *16. GOLF COURSE DONATIONS – RESOLUTION NO. 6629 Printup moved, Levang seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6629, a Resolution to Accept Golf Course Donations. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *17. CORRECTIVE RESOLUTION FOR NO. 6567 – RESOLUTION NO.6630 Printup moved, Levang seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6630, a Corrective Resolution of the City Council to correct Resolution No. 6567. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *18. PERMITS/LICENSES 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. Printup moved, Levang seconded, to approve the above listed license. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *19. CLAIMS/BILLS Printup moved, Levang seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 23, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 23 of 23 CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT *20. RESOLUTION PERTAINING TO CHAPTER 344.01 – RESOLUTION NO. 6631 Printup moved, Levang seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6631, a Resolution Exempting Adjoining Property Owners and Occupants from Minnesota Statutes Chapter 344 When Their Land Condensed Together is Under 20 Acres. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT Levang moved, Printup seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 9:10 p.m. ATTEST: ____________________________________ _______________________________________ Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION May 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, Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, and City Clerk Diane Tiegs. Council discussed the Hennepin County Assessing Contract renewal. Staff’s recommendation is to stay with Hennepin County Assessing services. Council discussed private sector services versus what Hennepin County offers. Loftus will bring the contract to Council for review at the June 27th meeting. City Administrator Loftus provided Council with an organizational update and a preview of information on upcoming issues. Finance Director Olson provided 2017 Budget information to Council along with updates on the current budget status, health insurance cost for 2017, and the need to find a long term funding solution for road maintenance. Council discussed possible funding priorities including the Navarre Trail, repair of the golf course bathroom facilities, dedicated roads for repair in 2017, increasing the equipment fund, technology upgrades and customer service training. Public Works/City Engineer Edwards reviewed road funding and planning for the next budget cycle. Staff would like direction for the 2017 budget process and what Council would like to address along with where the funding will come from. Council discussed resident concerns regarding the current condition of the city roads. Some Council Members feel it is time to allocate funding to adequately address our road issues. Budget discussion will begin in June and road funding will be reviewed during that process. Community Development Director Barnhart discussed the size of the planning packet information provided to Council. Council discussed the packet and the consensus was they would prefer an executive summary of the conservation design report and include the Planning Commission meeting memo for that agenda item as it has a more detailed summary. The Planning Department is changing the requirement for submitting floor plans with an application due to security of the proposed building. Barnhart relayed to Council that all suggestions are welcome to improve the process. Barnhart updated Council on the recent legislation that allows temporary family care dwellings (drop houses) to care for a family member. An ordinance will be drafted for Council review in June. The meeting closed at 6:40 p.m. ATTEST: _________________________________ _____________________________________ Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor ORONO POLICE DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: June 13, 2016 Item No: 4 ______________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name: Correy Farniok JML Presentation Title: Police Chief ______________________________________________________________________________ Item Description: State Farm Safe Driving Grant ______________________________________________________________________________ DISCUSSION: In May the Orono Police Department was approached by Collin Carlson, a local State Farm representative informing us of a grant opportunity with State Farm. The Orono Police Department applied for the grant with State Farm to assist with the cost of a mobile radar speed trailer and scrolling message board. The grant would focus efforts on preventing teen crashes, reducing injuries and saving lives. The grant requested funds to purchase a mobile radar speed trailer with a scrolling message board. This speed trailer will be used near the Orono School District for awareness and education as well as enhanced enforcement. The grant also partnered with the Hwy 12 Coalition. Cities and police departments along the Hwy 12 corridor will have access to the speed trailer. The funding request was for $16,666. On June 1, 2016 the Orono Police Department was informed that a grant in the amount of $16,666 had been awarded to the Orono Police department for the mobile radar speed trailer with scrolling message board. Representatives from State Farm will present the grant check to the City of Orono. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: No action required REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June 06, 2016 ITEM NO: 5 ______________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Adam T. Edwards JML Public Works Director/ Title Public Works Director/City Engineer City Engineer’s Report ______ ______________________________________________________________________________ Item Description: Public Works Supervisor Appointment _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Purpose. The purpose of the agenda item is to gain Council approval to appoint a new Supervisor within Public Works. 2. Background. The Public Works Department has two supervisor positions. The Public Works Supervisor positions are critical to meet current service needs and is essential to city operations. In May, Supervisor Tim Amundsen left the city. 3. Recruitment. The selection process for the Public Works Supervisor position has been completed. The process involved application screening, two interview panels and reference checking. 4. Recommended Candidate. The top candidate is Mr. David (DJ) Goman. DJ has been employed full time with the City of Spring Park for the past 15 years, most recently as their Public Works Superintendent. Prior to that he worked for Spring Park as part time and seasonal employee for 15 years. DJ is already familiar with our systems and process and brings a combination of customer service focus and technical skills necessar y to excel in the position. 5. Recommended Compensation. I recommended that Mr. Goman be appointed to the position of Public Works Supervisor effective June 29th, 2016. a. Salary: Starting salary of $31.29/hr. (Grade 10, Step 5) b. Vacation: Starting vacation to be earned at a rate of 15 days (120 hours) per year. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to appoint Mr. David Goman as Public Works Supervisor. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June 13, 2016 ITEM NO: 6 _____________________________________________________________________________________ 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)-Award ____________________________________________________________________________________ List of Exhibits A. Bid Summary 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain council approval for award of the maintenance project for Hunter and Tamarack Drives. 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. At the May 23rd council meeting the council approved the design and authorized the solicitation of Bids. 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 patched before paving. 4. Cost. The low bid is for $109,756.06 from Oman Brothers. In addition to the construction cost, Bolton and Menk provided an estimate for construction oversight. (Exhibit B) Who Work Cost Status Bolton &Menk, Inc. Design and Bid Engineering Construction Oversight $ 16,500 Not to exceed Oman Brothers Reclamation and resurfacing of Hunter Drive and Tamarack Drive $ 109,756.06 Pending award TOTAL $ 126,256.06 5. Funding. The project will be funded from the Pavement Fund. Fund Total CIP Estimate Est. End of Year Fund Balance Pavement Fund $ $ 126,256.06 $ 156,926 $357,896 Total $ $ 126,256.06 7. Timing. Construction- summer 2016. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Move to award the maintenance project for Hunter and Tamarack Drives to Omann Brothers in the amount of $109,756.06. Exhibit A. Bid Tabulation REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: June 7, 2016 Item No.: 7 ______________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Michael P. Gaffron JML Planning Dept. Title: Senior Planner ______________________________________________________________________________ Item Description: #15-3723 Source Land Capital, Lakeview of Orono - Release Outlot C from Development Contract – Authorize Agreement ______________________________________________________________________________ List of Exhibits A – Proposed Release Agreement B – Development contract, Section 24H C – Plat Drawing D – Air photo Outlot C of Lakeview of Orono is a parcel of approximately 2.0 acres that was part of the overall development property but was intended for re-transfer to Grant Wenkstern, whose homestead is on the adjacent property to the south at 710 North Shore Drive West. Outlot C contains a former golf course maintenance and storage building. The Outlot was not intended as a Lakeview of Orono building site. It was not tested for on-site sewage treatment, was not provided with access to any of the private roads, does not contain any preservation easement areas, was not charged a park fee, and is simply intended as adjacent land to Wenkstern’s homestead. As such, the only part of the Development Contract pertinent to Outlot C is Section 24H (attached) which requires that it be re-platted as a Lot (rather than as an Outlot) if at some future time it is planned to be used as a residential building site. The Developer has requested that Outlot C be released from all aspects of the development Contract save for Section 24H. Staff concurs. The attached Agreement accomplishes that release. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Consider a motion to authorize Mayor and City Administrator to execute the attached Agreement releasing Outlot C of Lakeview of Orono from all provisions of the Development Contract except for the first two sentences of Section 24H. Date Application Received: 4/20/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 4/20/16 60-Day Review Period Expires: 6/19/16 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: June 8, 2016 Item No.: 8 ______________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Michael P. Gaffron JML Planning Dept. Title: Senior Planner ______________________________________________________________________________ Item Description: 16-3828 City of Medina/Stonegate Farm, Inc., 2940 Sixth Avenue North - CUP – Resolution - Wetland Rezoning – Ordinance Adoption ______________________________________________________________________________ List of Exhibits A – Draft CUP Resolution B – Draft Wetland Rezoning Ordinance and Summary Ordinance C – Notice of Planning Commission Action 5/24/16 D – Draft Planning Commission Minutes 5/16/16 E – PC Memo & Exhibits Dated 5/12/16 Background The owner of the property at 2940 Sixth Ave. N. in Orono, Stonegate Farm, Inc. (Susan Seeland) is developing adjacent land in Medina that will be accessed via a new public road to be built through the Orono property. The City of Medina is technically the applicant since the road is being constructed as a Chapter 429 (Assessment) project. The road section in Orono is being built within an easement granted by the owner, rather than via a platted road corridor, which process was found acceptable by the Medina and Orono City Attorneys. The road is being constructed as a public road to be maintained by the City of Medina. This will be memorialized in the resolution approving the CUP. The location of the access to Homestead Trail requires crossing of a narrow wetland corridor which serves as the outlet to the 9-acre wetland on the Orono property. This crossing is Application Summary: Requested are conditional use permits for land alteration and wetland filling, and a rezoning to remove the portions of wetland to be filled from the Wetland Overlay District, in order to construct a public road to serve a 40-unit single family development in Medina to be known as Deer Hill Preserve. Planning Commission Recommendation: At its May 16 meeting the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the request. On a vote of 6-0, Planning Commission recommended approval of the application per the conditions enumerated in the staff recommendation. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval subject to conditions as noted in the PC memo and as included within the attached CUP resolution and wetland rezoning ordinance. #16-3828 June 8, 2016 Page 2 of 2 unavoidable in order to make the access feasible, and requires filling in a portion of the wetland. This wetland fill is being mitigated within the development area at a 2:1 ratio by restoring the hydrology and native vegetation of a portion of “Wetland G3” (see Exhibit D-1 of PC Memo) which is in the same Painter’s Creek subwatershed as the Orono wetland being filled. Orono code Section 78-1609(b) requires that mitigation for wetland fill must occur within Orono unless approved by City Council. It is staff’s opinion that the mitigation proposed within the overall project site should be acceptable to Orono, and staff recommends Council approval. The filled portion of wetland will be removed from the Wetland Overlay District via the rezoning ordinance attached. For additional detail, please review the PC memo, exhibits and minutes. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval per the following conditions which have been incorporated into the CUP approval resolution attached: 1. Applicant to provide Orono with a copy of the executed road easement document. 2. Resolution of CUP approval shall memorialize the intent and expectation of future road maintenance to be by City of Medina. 3. Approval of the 24’ paved width rather than 32’ required by Orono Code for a public street. 4. Future spur road connection to be reconsidered at the time the Orono property is developed for residential use, with a goal of minimizing additional wetland impacts. 5. Acceptance of wetland fill mitigation per the proposed plans, including wetland improvements to ‘Wetland G3’ within the development site in Medina. 6. Expectation that the road will be platted at the future time the Orono property is developed for residential use. 7. Subject to applicant addressing how visual impacts of headlights to the property on the west side of Homestead Trail will be mitigated. 8. Subject to appropriate agency permits, erosion controls, temporary easements, and road marking & signage. 9. Subject to submittal to Orono of as-built drawings for the Orono segment of the project. 10. Concurrent with final CUP approval by Orono City Council, the portion of wetland being filled in Orono to be rezoned so as to be not within the Wetland Overlay District. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED 1. Motion to adopt the attached resolution entitled A Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit Pursuant to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-966/967/968 and 78-1608 through 78-1610 - File No. 16-3828. 2. Motion to adopt the attached ordinance entitled An Ordinance Amending the Official City Wetland Map per Municipal Code Section 78-1609 - File #16-3828. 3. Motion to approve the attached Summary Ordinance for publication. Date Application Received: 4/20/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 5/6/16 60-Day Review Period Expires: 7/5/16 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: June 3, 2016 Item No.: 9 ______________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Michael P. Gaffron JML Planning Dept. Title: Senior Planner ______________________________________________________________________________ Item Description: #16-3830, Zehnder Homes, Inc., 1255 Dickenson St. - Variances ______________________________________________________________________________ Zoning District: RR-1B, One Family Rural Residential District, 2.0 acres/200’ min. width Lot Area/ Width: 13,533 s.f. (0.31 acre) / 100’ defined width List of Exhibits A – Planning Commission Memo and Exhibits dated 5/12/16 B – Notice of PC Action 5/18/16 C – Draft PC Minutes of 5/16/16 D – Pre-demolition Site Photos (2011) E – 1961 Survey and Current Proposed Site Plan Application Summary: The applicant requests variances for lot area, lot width, front setback, side setback, side street setback and structural coverage for construction of a new residence on the property. Please review the attached Planning Commission memo, exhibits and draft minutes. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission reviewed this application and held a public hearing at its May 16 meeting, and voted 5-1 on a motion to recommend approval of the area, width, setback and structural coverage variances. The minority vote was apparently due to that commissioner’s position that a structural coverage variance was not justified for new construction, while other commissioners felt that there were practical difficulties supporting that variance. Please review the PC minutes. Discussion Proposed is structural coverage of 16.6% where only 15.0% is allowed. Staff finds it difficult to support the structural coverage variance based on this being new construction on a lot that has been vacant for the past five years. In general, staff has supported structural coverage variances in situations where a clear practical difficulty exists, such as a request for a garage for an existing house where no garage exists, or for adding a small covered entry porch where none exists over the main entry door. The structural coverage variance in this case is a direct result of the proposed deck with the top of the railings exceeding 6 feet in height above existing grade, thus making the deck calculable structural coverage. The majority of the Planning Commissioners #16-3830 June 3, 2016 Page 2 suggested that the lot coverage variance in this case may be justifiable based on a number of potential findings, including the following: - The proposed deck will be minimally visible from Dickenson Street due to the topography of the site, and hidden from view from Keene Avenue and the southerly neighbor by virtue of its location relative to the house; - There was likely more structural coverage on this site in 2008 than is proposed today; (Staff note: Exhibit E illustrates that prior to removal of the accessory building on the property in 2008, the site had 2,970 s.f. of structural coverage or 21.9%, vs. the 16.6% currently proposed) - While the deck could be built lower, that would require an immediate step down of approximately two feet from the door accessing the deck, which should be avoided from a safety and practicality standpoint, and may be a practical difficulty. From staff’s perspective, there is no practical difficulty, and there are a number of potential design solutions for avoiding the lot coverage variance, such as reducing the size of the house; or reducing from a 3-stall to a 2-stall garage; or changing the deck into a grade-level patio. This could be accomplished by filling in the area of the proposed deck and adding a retaining wall extending from the foundation, avoiding the need for the railing which drives the lot coverage variance. Staff would also note that the revised grading plan does not match the originally proposed house plans, which show basement windows 2’ above the basement floor along the west façade where the proposed grade outside the foundation wall is 4’-6’ above the basement floor. This can be solved by use of window wells or (again) a retaining wall. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the area, width and setback variances. Staff does not recommend approval of the structural lot coverage variance. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Direct staff to draft a resolution reflecting Council’s conclusions with regard to the requested variances, for adoption at the June 27 meeting. Date Application Received: 4/20/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 5/6/16 60-Day Review Period Expires: 7/5/16 To: Chair Theisse and Planning Commission Members Jessica Loftus, City Administrator From: Mike Gaffron, Senior Planner Date: May 12, 2016 Subject: #16-3830, Zehnder Homes, Inc., 1220 Dickenson St. - Variances ‐ Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-1B, One Family Rural Residential, 2.0 acre/200’ min. width Lot Area/ Width: 13,533 s.f. (0.31 acre) / 100’ defined width List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Description of Request Exhibit C. Survey/Site Plan and Enlarged Survey/Site Plan Exhibit D. Proposed Building Plans Exhibit E. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit F. Hardcover Worksheets Exhibit G. Adjacent Owners Acknowledgements Exhibit H. Plat Map Exhibit I. Property Owners List Exhibit J. Neighborhood & Site Airphotos Exhibit K. Sketch: Setbacks Per RR-1B District Background The applicant Zehnder Homes is planning to construct a new home on this vacant lot. The property previously contained a home which was demolished in 2011. The lot is just under 1/3 acre in the RR-1B 2-acre zone, and is a corner lot with the Keene Avenue frontage defined as front (applicant has the option to have the future home on the site addressed as Keene Avenue). The property has sewer available and there is an existing well on the site which is anticipated to be reused. Applicant is requesting a number of variances, as the buildable envelope under RR-1B setback standards is approximately 35’ x 20’ (see Exhibit K). Developed lots in the Minnetonka Bluffs neighborhood range from approximately 1/10 acre to just over 1 acre in area. Applicant is requesting variances for lot area and width; front setback; side setback; and side street setback. The property is in Hardcover Tier 3 which would allow Application Summary: The applicant requests variances for lot area, lot width, front setback, side setback, side street setback and structural lot coverage for construction of a new residence on the property. Staff Recommendation: If Planning Commission determines that the practical difficulties test is met and the variances are justified, then a recommendation for approval may be in order. Item #6 Item #06 - PC Agenda - 05/16/2016 File #16-3830 [Total Pages 24] FILE #16-3814 March 15, 2016 Page 2 of 5 35% hardcover; applicant proposes to construct the home to meet the hardcover limit. However, the applicant’s surveyor failed to account for the deck in his structural coverage calculation. Because the top of the deck railing is more than 6 feet above existing grade, the deck counts toward structural coverage, yielding 16.6% where only 15% is allowed. This results in the need for an additional variance or redesign to avoid the variance. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET (Variances noted in bold type) RR-1B Zoning District Required/Allowed Proposed Lot Area 2.00 ac. minimum 0.31 ac existing Lot Width 200’ minimum 100’ existing Proposed New Residence Front Street Setback 50’ 30’ (North) Side Street Setback 50’ 20’ (South) Side Setback 30’ 13.9’ Rear 50’ 53’ Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 13,533 s.f.+ (0.31 acre) Allowed: 15.0% (2,030 s.f.) Proposed: 16.6% (2,240 s.f.) Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Tier Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 3 13,533 s.f. 4,736 s.f. (35 %) 0 s.f. (0.0 %) 3,249 s.f. (24.0 %) APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 78-420: RR-1B Lot Standards & Setback Regulations. Governing Regulations: Variance (Sec. 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 (staff commentary in bold type): Item #06 - PC Agenda - 05/16/2016 File #16-3830 [Total Pages 24] FILE #16-3814 March 15, 2016 Page 3 of 5 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. Single family homes and the associated amenities are permitted uses in the RR- 1B district. The area, width and setback variance if granted would allow construction of a single family home on the property. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed new residence structure is consistent with the comprehensive plan guiding of this and surrounding properties for residential use. 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 owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner but the specific location and size aspects of the request are not permitted by the Zoning Code. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. With respect to lot area and width, the substandard lot in single separate ownership is a circumstance inherent to the lot and not created by the landowner. Until 2011, a single family residence existed on the property. The setback variances are a function of the RR-1B District setbacks being appropriate for the standard 2-acre RR-1B lot, but extremely limiting when applied to smaller existing lots of record; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. There are both smaller and larger developed lots in the immediate neighborhood. The character of the neighborhood is not likely to be significantly altered by construction of the proposed home. 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 substandard lot area and width are common in the Minnetonka Bluffs neighborhood, where many existing homes do not meet the RR-1B District setback standards. This is not the case throughout much of the RR-1B District, but Minnetonka Bluffs is a neighborhood created long before the RR-1B zoning standards were in effect. 5. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The standards applicable to this property apply to all other property in the RR-1B District; however, the Minnetonka Bluffs neighborhood contains many homes which do not meet the RR-1B standards due to the existing lot sizes. 6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. In the opinion of staff, granting of the lot area and width setback variances is necessary to preserve the property rights of the owner to build a new residence on the property. Similarly, in order to construct a residence consistent with the size and quality of other new homes in the neighborhood, setback variances are necessary. Granting of a structural coverage variance is not necessary, as the plans can be redesigned to eliminate the need for that variance. Item #06 - PC Agenda - 05/16/2016 File #16-3830 [Total Pages 24] FILE #16-3814 March 15, 2016 Page 4 of 5 7. The granting of the proposed variances will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. In the opinion of staff, granting of the area, width and setback variances would not impair health, safety, comfort or morals and would be in keeping with the intent of the zoning code. 8. The granting of such variances will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. In the opinion of staff, granting of the area and width variance is necessary to solve an obvious practical difficulty. Granting of some magnitude of setback variances is also necessary in order to allow construction of a home that is commensurate with the surrounding neighborhood, which contains a wide variety of homes in terms of size, shape, etc. The magnitude of the setback variances requested is a function of the lot shape, topography, and desired home style and orientation. The Commission may recommend and 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. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Analysis – Lot Area and Width Variances Within the Minnetonka Bluffs neighborhood, bounded by Orono Orchard Road, Dickenson Street, Russell Avenue and The Dakota Trail, there are 23 developed lots. The breakdown in lot sizes is: 13 lots at 0-0.5 acres: 8 lots at 0.51-1.0 ac; and 2 lots larger than 1.0 acre. While only 3 developed lots are smaller than applicant’s lot, the fact that it contained a residence, was assessed for and connected to sewer, and is proposed to meet the hardcover and lot coverage standards, all suggest that the lot should be considered buildable. The developed lot to the immediate south at 1.02 acres is one of the largest in the neighborhood, while the lot to the immediate west is the same size as applicant’s lot. Analysis - Setback Variances Absent setback variances, the allowable building envelope for this lot is 20’ wide and 35’ long, which would likely result in a narrow, tall, boxy residence of 700 s.f. footprint with a detached garage (possibly larger than the house) tucked into the southwest corner of the site – see Exhibit K. Applicant is proposing to meet the required 50’ rear yard setback. The proposed 30’ stoop/35’ house front setback is consistent with the street setbacks of the newer homes directly to the south and across Keene Avenue. The 14’ setback from the south side lot line is more typical of a setback that would be found in a neighborhood of similar-sized 1/3-1/2 acre lots. Note that the proposed house plans (Exhibit D) depict a walkout design along the south side lot line; the applicant will be revising that to a lookout design in order to establish the lowest level as a basement and avoid a variance for the house being defined as three stories where only 2-1/2 stories are allowed. Analysis – Structural Lot Coverage Variance The proposed 14’x15’ deck extending from the main floor has a railing height of approximately 6.5-7.5 feet above existing grade and therefore counts toward the lot coverage limit of 15%. With the deck, lot coverage is proposed at 2240 s.f or 16.6%. Without the deck included, the lot coverage is right at the 15% mark. Options to avoid a Item #06 - PC Agenda - 05/16/2016 File #16-3830 [Total Pages 24] FILE #16-3814 March 15, 2016 Page 5 of 5 variance are to remove the deck, or have it step down approximately 1.5 feet (3 steps) immediately at the porch door. Staff does not recommend granting a variance for lot coverage for a new home where there are opportunities for an alternate design. Additional Notes Driveways are required to be located at least 100 feet from an intersection per Code Section 18-136(e). The proposed driveway is located approximately 40 feet south of the Dickenson/Keene intersection. Given that there are only 3 other homes on Keene Avenue and no possible way for that to become a through road or add more homes, this is likely not a significant concern, subject to review by the Public Works Director. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit E, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Neighbor Acknowledgements Applicant has provided acknowledgements from the adjacent property owner to the south and the property owner to the east across Keene Avenue, indicating they have seen the proposed plans. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the lot area and width variances, as well as the setback variances, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does Planning Commission find justification for granting a structural lot coverage variance for this new construction? 4. If the Planning Commission concludes that the variances as requested or in some other manner or configuration are justified, does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the variances? 5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation If Planning Commission determines that the practical difficulties test is met and the variances are justified, then a recommendation for approval may be in order. If Planning Commission finds that the practical difficulties test is not met for one or more of the requested variances, a recommendation for denial, partial denial, or tabling for revisions, may be appropriate. Options for action include: 1) Recommend approval (with or without specific conditions). 2) Recommend partial approval (specify) 3) Recommend denial, stating reasons. 4) Table for further information or revisions – specify what information or changes are desired. 5) Other. Item #06 - PC Agenda - 05/16/2016 File #16-3830 [Total Pages 24] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 05/16/2016 File #16-3830 [Total Pages 24] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 05/16/2016 File #16-3830 [Total Pages 24] I t e m # 0 6 - P C A g e n d a - 0 5 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 3 0 [ T o t a l P a g e s 2 4 ] I t e m # 0 6 - P C A g e n d a - 0 5 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 3 0 [ T o t a l P a g e s 2 4 ] I t e m # 0 6 - P C A g e n d a - 0 5 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 3 0 [ T o t a l P a g e s 2 4 ] I t e m # 0 6 - P C A g e n d a - 0 5 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 3 0 [ T o t a l P a g e s 2 4 ] I t e m # 0 6 - P C A g e n d a - 0 5 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 3 0 [ T o t a l P a g e s 2 4 ] I t e m # 0 6 - P C A g e n d a - 0 5 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 3 0 [ T o t a l P a g e s 2 4 ] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 05/16/2016 File #16-3830 [Total Pages 24] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 05/16/2016 File #16-3830 [Total Pages 24] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 05/16/2016 File #16-3830 [Total Pages 24] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 05/16/2016 File #16-3830 [Total Pages 24] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 05/16/2016 File #16-3830 [Total Pages 24] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 05/16/2016 File #16-3830 [Total Pages 24] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 05/16/2016 File #16-3830 [Total Pages 24] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 05/16/2016 File #16-3830 [Total Pages 24] I t e m # 0 6 - P C A g e n d a - 0 5 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 3 0 [ T o t a l P a g e s 2 4 ] I t e m # 0 6 - P C A g e n d a - 0 5 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 3 0 [ T o t a l P a g e s 2 4 ] Item #06 - PC Agenda - 05/16/2016 File #16-3830 [Total Pages 24] REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June 13, 2016 ITEM NO: 10 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Jeremy Barnhart JML Planning Title Community Development Director Item Description: #16-3827, Rick Denman/ Charles Cudd, LLC for owner DDK, LLC, 2525 Kelly Avenue, 2535 and 2545 Shadywood Road, Sketch Plan Application Summary The applicant seeks non-binding feedback on the proposed subdivision of three separate parcels into 7 building lots and two outlots. The project will ultimately require preliminary and final plat, Comprehensive Plan and zoning map amendments. The project includes 7 single family home sites ranging in size from .16 acres to .39 acres. Access for all lots will be via a new road off of Shadywood Rd, lining up with a future access for the Freshwater parcel on the east side of Shadywood. The existing wetland on the lot fronting Kelly Avenue will not be impacted. The homes will be served by city water and sanitary sewer. Storm water will meet city requirements, including storm water will not leave the site at a greater volume or rate than current conditions. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment is necessary because the proposed density is lower than guided. The Comp plan guides the property for mixed use/ residential, with a density of 4 units/ acre. (The project proposes 2.99 units per acre, the final density is expected to increase above 3.00 units when the wetland and buffer boundaries are better defined.) The property is zoned B-4 Office/ Professional which does not allow residential uses. The zoning map amendment will be necessary to rezone the property from Commercial to residential uses. Given the uniqueness of the subdivision design, some version of a RPUD will likely be utilized. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission reviewed the sketch plan on May 16th. The Commission discussed whether the proposed density was high enough, given the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan for mixed use 4 units an acre. It was noted that attached units are likely necessary to achieve the 4 units per acre. It was also noted that the proposed project will not satisfy affordable housing goals of the city. Members of the public were in attendance, though no person stood to speak during the meeting. Written comments, including the applicant’s narrative, are included in Exhibit D. Planning Staff Recommendation The proposed development of this site introduces small lot single family residential to this section of Shadywood Road. The Council should discuss whether single family residential is appropriate on this site. If the Council determines that residential at a density of 4 units an acre or more is not appropriate at this site, Staff should be directed to amend the Comprehensive Plan accordingly. Action Requested: Feedback on the proposed development would be beneficial to both the applicant and staff in moving forward with the subject parcel. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Plat drawings Exhibit B. Conceptual building designs Exhibit C. PC Staff Report Exhibit D. Written correspondence Exhibit E. Draft PC Minutes dated May 16, 2016 Date Application Received: 20 April 2016 Date Application Considered as Complete: 22 April, 2016 60-Day Review Period Expires: 22 June, 2016 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Jessica Loftus, City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: May 16, 2016 Subject: #16-3827, Rick Denman/ Charles Cudd, LLC for owner DDK, LLC; 2525 Kelly Avenue, 2535 and 2545 Shadywood Road, Sketch Plan. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Location Map Exhibit B. Proposed layout Exhibit C. Applicants narrative Exhibit D. Floor Plan Exhibit E. Elevation renderings Exhibit F. Comprehensive Plan map Background The property currently consists of three lots, two fronting Shadywood Road and one fronting Kelly Avenue. The characteristics of the property include an upper flat area near Shadywood sloping down to a large wetland adjacent to Kelly Avenue. The upper area was clear cut of trees some years ago, though volunteer vegetation has reestablished itself. The slope above the wetland is heavily wooded. The property was the subject of a senior housing development proposal in 2010; the proposed developer is not affiliated with that project. Proposal The project provides home sites for 7 single family homes, with access provided by a new cul de sac off of County Road 19 (Shadywood Rd). The project will be served by municipal water and sewer. The road and cul de sac is expected to be public. The project will incorporate the three existing lots, re-platting them into 7 buildable lots and two outlots. The lots range in size from 0.16 acres (Lot 7) to 0.39 acres (Lot 5). Outlot A is shown protecting the wetland, and outlot B is the cul-de-sac street. The configuration of the outlots will likely change as part of the preliminary plat. Historically, the Council has desired wetlands to be part of owned lots, protected by appropriate drainage/ utility, and perhaps conservation easements. This will increase the size of the lots and remove outlot A. Application Summary: The applicant is requesting Planning Commission feedback of a proposed sketch plan for a 7 unit single family residential development. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission provide non-binding feedback on the project. Council Exhibit C #16-3827 May 16, 2016 Page 2 of 3 Access The street is shown in the northern most corner of the property. As this segment of Shadywood develops/ redevelops, the accesses for the church, the subject property, and the former Freshwater parcels will be consolidated and coordinated. Hennepin County supports this coordination. The proposed access closely lines up with a future shared access for the Freshwater properties. Further review will be necessary, and may highlight the need for turn lanes and other improvements. Proposed building The developer proposes one story, single family homes with main floor living and a finished basement. Floors plans suggested to date include three bedroom, two bath in approximately 3000 sq ft. The developer has provided two separate elevation drawings to provide variety to the street. The elevations are not the final design. The developer’s target market are those residents looking to downsize their homes, or those desiring single level living. The attached narrative describes the project in the developer’s terms. Utilities The project will be served by city water and sewer. A sewer line runs along the southern property line. Analysis Conformity with 2010 - 2030 Orono Community Management Plan Zoning Comprehensive Plan Shadywood lots B-4 n/a Mixed Use Residential 4-15 u/a Kelly Avenue lot LR-1B E: MUR 4-15 u/a W: Low Density Res. 2-3 u/a Currently zoned for business uses, the Comprehensive plan contemplates higher density residential and commercial uses in the form of mixed use along Shadywood Road, with a density range of 4- 15 units per acre. The Comp plan also shows Low-Medium Density residential along Kelly Avenue, primarily within the wetland. To facilitate the project, the property will need to be re-guided and rezoned. The project proposes 2.99 units per net acre. Net acre reflects the effective buildable area, excluding the wetland as shown on the survey. The proposed development is not consistent with the Comprehensive plan’s guidance for the property because the density is too low. Only by introducing attached family units is the density expected to rise above 4 units per acre. The proposed units would likely not qualify as ‘affordable’ housing. The change from mixed use to medium density lowers overall density 0.01, 3.08 to 3.07 units per acre. There is no zoning district that allows density consistent with the Comprehensive plan for the subject property. These processes would occur concurrently with preliminary plat review. The project will likely be developed as a RPUD, though several variances may be required, including variances for size (5 acre minimum), individual lot size, lot width, and setbacks. Further review of the final zoning classification will occur as the preliminary plat is developed. #16-3827 May 16, 2016 Page 3 of 3 Relationship to Surrounding Development The property to the north is a church, the properties to the south have been developed as single family residential. It is suggested that the vegetation in the slope between the to-be-built areas and the wetland, and the vegetation along the south property line be preserved, to serve as both screening and a retention of the character of the neighborhood. This preservation would be consistent with the RPUD process. Public Comments There is no public hearing for a sketch plan; no comments for or against the project have been received, though staff has fielded some questions triggered by the posting of the notification sign. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that the proposed density is appropriate for the area? 2. Are the housing styles appropriate for the neighborhood? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 16, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 5 3. #16-3827 RICK DENMAN ON BEHALF OF DDK, LLC, 2525, 2535, AND 2545 SHADYWOOD ROAD, SKETCH PLAN, 6:38 P.M. – 7:12 P.M. Rick Denman, Applicant, was present. Barnhart stated this is a sketch plan for a seven unit single-family residential development, with access provided by a new cul-de-sac off of County Road 19. The site currently consists of three lots. The proposed lots range in size from 0.16 acres to 0.39 acres. Outlot B is the cul-de-sac street, which will be eliminated, and Outlot A is shown protecting the wetland that is on the southern half of the lot facing Kelly Avenue. The property is currently zoned for business use. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this property, or at least the property adjacent to Shadywood, as mixed use, with a density range of 4-15 units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan also shows low-medium density residential along Kelly Avenue, primarily within the wetland. To allow this project, the property would need to be re-guided and rezoned. The proposed development is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s guidance for the property because the density is too low. The rezoning process would occur concurrently with preliminary plat review. The project will likely be developed as an RPUD, with several variances likely being required. The applicant is proposing single-family residential with a full basement and floor layouts are included in the Planning Commission’s packets. One of the things Staff and the applicant are looking for is feedback on the concept plan. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Rick Denman, Charles Cudd Company, indicated he would be able to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Schoenzeit asked what the price range of the homes will be. Denman indicated the homes would range between $650,000 and $750,000. Council Exhibit E MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 16, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 5 Schoenzeit asked if there is a demand for this type of housing in Orono since it is not located on the lake. Schoenzeit noted there are a substantial number of homes in the same price range being built not far from this area. Denman stated they currently have a villa neighborhood that they are constructing in Medina and that he would welcome the Planning Commissioners to take a look at it. The design for this parcel is similar and is targeting the empty nester, which has a strong demand. Thiesse requested Staff discuss the Comprehensive Plan and the recommended changes to it. Barnhart stated the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is a long-range vision for the area to look for appropriate projects that fit with those goals. The property currently is zoned business. The Navarre plan identified a potential for mixed use on this site in order to meet some density goals of the City. The idea was that these areas had the potential for redevelopment, which would call for mixed use. Barnhart stated the challenge is that mixed use generally requires higher density to accommodate the expense of acquisition, clearing of the land, and the different developments. This project does not have those expenses. There are currently 27 or so acres in the Navarre mixed use area identified for 10 units per acre. Barnhart stated this proposal would not be meeting the City’s goals based on the current plans but that he is comfortable the City can make up the three acres somewhere else. The question for the Planning Commission is whether this is an appropriate use for the property. Landgraver asked if the mixed use is specific to a certain portion of the site. Barnhart stated the City has identified a potential for redevelopment when it is listed as mixed use and that it could be commercial or something else. Leskinen noted a few years ago a memory care facility was discussed for this site, which was fitting for this location. Leskinen stated in her view seven homes crammed into a few acres does not meet the City’s density goals and that she is not sure about changing the zoning for this particular property given the fact that there is a church next to this property and a couple of grocery stores nearby. Leskinen noted this area also has a substantial amount of traffic. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 16, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 5 Schoenzeit asked if this project is far enough along to ask Hennepin County about the access. Barnhart stated it is not but that Staff has been meeting with them on a couple of other projects and that they have informally indicated they would not be opposed to it. Thiesse stated the guided use is greater than what is being proposed and that he would be surprised if Hennepin County would be opposed to it. Barnhart stated as this segment of Shadywood develops or redevelops, the accesses for the church, the subject property, and the former Freshwater parcels will be consolidated and coordinated, which will help to reduce the turning movements in that stretch of roadway. Hennepin County is supportive of that coordination. The proposed access also closely lines up with a future shared access for the Freshwater properties. Landgraver asked if the applicant has considered increasing the density, such as having a townhome or two. Denman stated from an economic standpoint, the risk goes up when the homes are attached. Denman stated from a marketing and financial standpoint, it is easier to construct single-family homes. Thiesse asked how the stormwater would be treated before reaching the wetland. Denman indicated there would likely be a stormwater pond in the corner but that the engineering has not been completed at this point. Thiesse asked what zoning would apply if the lots are combined. Barnhart stated as part of the process, the platting, rezoning, and Comprehensive Plan amendment would all be done at the same time. Leskinen asked if this proposal would require approval by the Metropolitan Council. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 16, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 5 Barnhart indicated it is Staff’s belief that it will. Barnhart stated the Metropolitan Council recognizes the market demands and that they just want to make sure the City provides the opportunity for higher density. Staff will be looking for other areas of the City that could be developed at a higher density. Schoenzeit asked if there is any opportunity to include any of the neighboring property to avoid the orphaned sections. Denman stated the church is next door, with single-family residential next to that and does not connect due to the wetland. Denman stated he is not sure what property he could combine with it. Thiesse stated what he likes about this is the fact that there is residential to the south, with no entrances or exits on Kelly. Thiesse stated it seems to be a relatively good start to a compromised transition zone for this area. Schwingler indicated he is in agreement with that. Schwingler stated the issue of density has to be taken into account along with the traffic. Schwingler stated not hitting the density goal is a good thing in a way. Schwingler asked if finding the other three acres elsewhere in the City would be difficult. Barnhart stated in his view Staff would be able to find three acres elsewhere. Thiesse asked whether the applicant would like direction on any specific items. Denman stated they would like to construct a berm with fencing along County Road 19. Denman stated they do want to create a buffer zone along County Road 19 with landscaping and a fence. Leskinen asked if Charles Cudd would be the sole builder of the property. Denman stated that is their intention currently. Barnhart stated Staff would like to see some buffering to separate the living space from County Road 19. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 16, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 Denman stated this is a good location for the product. Denman stated if the Planning Commission has any concerns about small homes on small lots, he would encourage them to visit some of their other sites that they have developed. Denman stated on the west side of the Medina Country Club there are two model homes that are both villas that are on 55-foot lots. These are 50-foot lots but the setbacks are the same, with 14 feet between the buildings at a minimum. Thiesse noted since this is a sketch plan, a public hearing is not required. Barnhart noted the City did receive a comment that has been distributed to the Planning Commissioners. The first concern related to the wetland and the other concern related to the wildlife areas that will be impacted. At the time of preliminary plat, there will be a public hearing. Barnhart stated he expects an application in August, with the public hearing likely occurring in September. As part of that application there will be a rezoning request. Landgraver noted these units would likely not qualify for affordable housing. Landgraver asked whether the Planning Commission should discuss affordable housing. Barnhart indicated affordable housing is a goal of the Comprehensive Plan and that these homes would not be considered affordable homes. Barnhart stated if affordable housing is a goal of the Planning Commission, this would be the time to discuss that. Schoenzeit stated in his view whenever residents come to a meeting, they should have a chance to speak even if a public hearing is not required. Thiesse asked whether anyone from the public would like to comment on this item. No public comments were received. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. Date Application Received: 04/06/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 04/29/16 60-Day Review Period Expires: 06/28/16 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: June 13, 2016 Item No. 11 Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Melanie Curtis mcc JML Planning Title: Planner Item Description: #16-3826, Stonewood LLC o/b/o Chuck and Terri Lahr, 895 Tonkawa Road – ATF CUP – Grading – Resolution Application Summary: The proposed project involves import of approximately 3,000 cubic yards of material on the property for the purpose of altering the existing grade. The subject property (895 Tonkawa Road) and the adjacent property at 875 Tonkawa Road are owned by the Lahrs. Their new home is under construction on 875 Tonkawa Rd. Fill material resulting from the excavation of the new home was distributed over 895 Tonkawa Road with the intent of creating berms to capture and hold the water runoff from the property, to allow infiltration on the 895 property, and to keep water from spilling on to the property to the south at 915 Tonkawa Road. Another berm is proposed along Tonkawa Road to provide privacy and sound screening. The soil is currently stockpiled and rough graded, awaiting final grading. To complete the landscaping portion of the projects on both properties additional material will be trucked to the site. Exhibit C details the remaining loads of material. Planning Commission Recommendation On May 16, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the application including the evidence submitted. The Planning Commission staff memo and exhibits dated 05/11/06 is incorporated herein by reference. Following the public hearing the Commission voted 6 to 0 in favor of a motion to approve the after-the-fact CUP with the following conditions: 1. Applicant must comply with the City engineer’s recommendations; 2. Applicant must protect the existing mature trees on the property beyond the scope of the grading; 3. Applicant must protect the integrity of the bluff and bluff vegetation; and 4. An as-built grading plan shall be submitted in order to record the new existing grade elevation. Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval. A 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 Exhibit B. Proposed Survey Exhibit C. Summary of Remaining Landscaping Materials Exhibit D. Draft PC Minutes REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: June 13, 2016 Item No. 12 Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Melanie Curtis mcc JML Planning Title: Planner Item Description: #16-3815, Half Story Definition / Massing Regulation Application Summary: During the Council and Planning Commission’s 2015 code amendment prioritization meeting, clarification and simplification of the half-story definition had the highest priority. The half-story regulation is one piece to the City’s massing regulations. At work sessions in March and April, staff asked the Planning Commission to explore different options for regulating massing, including the possibility of establishing a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limitation. Staff suggested setting a FAR for properties under 2.0 acres and removal of the half-story definition and limitation. FAR combined with setbacks, maximum defined height, and hardcover regulations may accomplish the City’s goals and provide a more user-friendly regulation. FAR is determined by dividing the gross floor area (GFA) of a building by the total area of the lot. FAR = Gross Floor Area of a Building Total Area of the Lot Orono’s current 2 ½ story height limit and 15% structural coverage limit result in the functional equivalent of a FAR of 0.39. If the Council’s goal is to increase flexibility for design and eliminate the cumbersome half story calculation staff suggested the establishment of a FAR of 0.39 for lots 10,000 square feet in area up to 2.0 acres. The Planning Commission reviewed both options (below) at the May meeting and ultimately felt that Option 1 met the City’s goals, including those related to clarifying the permitting process, the minutes from the April and May meetings are attached as Exhibit B and Exhibit C, respectively. Option 1: • Remove the number of stories limitation. • Keep height limitation as it is currently calculated at 30’. • Keep 15% structural footprint maximum (for lots under 2.0 acres). Option 2: • Remove the number of stories limitation. • Keep height limitation as it is currently calculated at 30’. • Remove 15% structural footprint maximum. • Establish a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) limit for principal buildings. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission held public hearings on April 18th and May 16th. Following the May public hearing the Commission voted 6 to 0 on a motion to recommend Option 1 to the City Council for consideration. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Council should consider directing staff to draft an Ordinance reflecting Council’s decision on massing regulation. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. PC Staff Report dated May 11, 2016 Exhibit B. PC Exhibits dated May 11, 2016 Exhibit C. Draft PC Minutes dated May 16, 2016 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June 13, 2016 ITEM NO: 13 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Jeremy Barnhart JML Planning Title Community Development Director Item Description: #16-3817, City of Orono Text Amendment: Define Existing Ground Level and Engineered Grade Application Summary The draft ordinance amends the definition of Existing Ground Level, adds new definitions of “Engineered Grade” and “Natural Grade”, and amends different sections of the ordinance to maintain consistency in terms. The issue of “Existing Grade” was the 4th highest priority of ordinances to review last fall. The City Code currently uses several terms interchangeably, including grade, ground level, and ground. This adds to confusion in the code. The proposed ordinance clarifies the terms. Also, the height of buildings is based on the existing ground level. In situations where a house site is based on a recently approved final plat or a grading Conditional Use Permit, the existing ground level hasn’t yet been established. The proposed ordinance adds an Engineered Grade definition to address those situations (allowing us to review permits before the grading work has been completed. Lastly, the Ordinance adds a definition of “Natural Grade” which is used in the Alternative energy system section of the code. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission held the second of two public hearings on May 16th. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the ordinance as drafted. No public comments have been received for or against the proposed ordinance. Action Requested: By motion, approve the ordinance as drafted. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Draft Ordinance Exhibit B. Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 16, 2016 Exhibit C. Draft PC Minutes 1 ORDINANCE NO. ___, THIRD SERIES 1 2 CITY OF ORONO 3 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 4 5 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE 6 DEFINITION OF EXISTING GROUND LEVEL 7 8 9 THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS: 10 11 SECTION 1. Section 78-1 Definitions is hereby amended to read as follows: 12 13 Basement means that portion of a building that is partly or completely below the Existing Ground 14 Level. A basement shall be considered as a story for purposes of determining the number of stories 15 in a building, when the finished surface of the floor above the basement is more than six feet 16 above the existing ground level for more than 50 percent of the basement's perimeter. The 17 perimeter of the basement does not include portions of the house or garage that do not have a 18 lower level but are merely "unexcavated". Artificially raising the grade adjacent to the foundation 19 of a structure (by filling or by a combination of filling and retaining walls) above the surrounding 20 natural terrain shall not be allowed as a method for converting a defined story to a defined 21 basement, regardless of any other benefits to the property of such action. Finished grade that 22 increases more than one foot from Eexisting Gground Llevel shall be considered as artificially 23 raising the grade. However, artificially raising the grade when such action merely restores a 24 previously excavated site to its original natural Natural Grade may used as a method for 25 converting a defined story to a defined basement. 26 27 Building height means the vertical distance between the highest Existing Ground Level adjoining 28 ground level at the building or ten feet above the lowest ground level, whichever is lower, and the 29 top of the cornice of a flat roof, or the deck line of a mansard roof, or the uppermost point on a 30 round or other arch-type roof, or the median height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped 31 roof. Topographic changes which elevate the adjoining ground level above the existing terrain 32 shall not be considered in determining building height. For a pitched or hipped roof situation, 33 regardless whether the highest living space in a building is a half-story or full story, if the highest 34 living space contains windows (excluding skylights) the upper measuring point for defining 35 building height shall be the median height of the top of the highest window and the highest peak of 36 the roof. 37 38 Existing Ground Level means the elevation of the grade at the base of an existing structure, 39 measured at points abutting the foundation wall, or the Existing Natural Grade of a vacant lot or 40 the Engineered Grade established by an approved grading plan at the time of final platting or 41 Conditional Use Permit. 42 43 Engineered Grade means the elevation of the ground, or any paving or sidewalk built upon it, 44 which has been established on the basis of an engineered grading and drainage plan for the 45 property that has been reviewed and approved by the city for the p roperty. 46 47 Natural Grade means the elevation of the ground surface in its natural state, prior to excavation or 48 Council Exhibit A June 16 2016 2 filling. [used for 78-1379 Alternative energy systems] 49 50 SECTION 2. Section 78-1403 Lot Coverage and Massing Standards is hereby amended 51 to read as follows: 52 Sec. 78- 1403. - Lot coverage and massing standards. 53 In all zoning districts other than the I—Industrial district, all lots that have a gross acreage of 54 less than two acres shall comply with the following massing standards for structures: 55 (a) Maximum total footprints allowed. 56 (1) On lots equal to or greater than 10,000 square feet in area, the total combined 57 footprints of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15 percent of the 58 gross lot area. 59 (2) On lots of less than 10,000 square feet in area, the total combined footprints of all 60 principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 1,500 square feet. 61 (b) Calculation of massing. The following shall be included in the calculation of the total 62 combined footprints by structures: 63 64 (1) All roofed structures more than six feet above grade level Existing Ground Level. 65 66 (2) Tennis courts, patios, decks, and all similar open structures when partially or fully 67 enclosed by fences, railings or walls which extend more than six feet above grade 68 level Existing Ground Level (if any portion of such structures extends more than six 69 feet above grade level, the entire structure shall count toward lot coverage). 70 71 SECTION 3. Section 78-1405 (a) (5.1) Non-encroachments is hereby amended to read as 72 follows: 73 74 (5.1) Retaining walls, subject to the following provisions: 75 a. Retaining walls may be located in all required yards when all of the following 76 conditions are met: 77 1. The structure is located at least ten feet from the edge of the traveled roadway; 78 2. The structure is not located within a drainage, utility, or other easement, 79 except upon approval in writing for an encroachment agreement by the city; or 80 similar approval from another regulatory and/or utility agency; 81 3. The structure creates no impacts to drainage direction, rate or volume for 82 adjacent properties. 83 b. Retaining walls which do not exceed two feet in height above existing grade 84 Existing Ground Level, which are located within the property and at least five feet 85 from any property line, and for which the amount of imported fill associated with the 86 structure does not exceed 20 cubic yards, do not require a building or land alteration 87 permit. 88 c. Retaining walls exceeding two feet in height above Existing Ground Level grade or 89 for which the amount of imported fill associated with the structure exceeds 20 cubic 90 3 yards or which are located less than five feet from a property line, shall require a land 91 alteration permit and upon recommendation of the building inspector may require city 92 council review or a conditional use permit per the provisions of section 78-967. 93 d. Retaining walls exceeding the allowed height of a fence in a given required yard 94 shall be located so as to meet the required accessory structure setbacks established for 95 that yard. 96 97 SECTION 4. Section 78-1405 a (8) Non-encroachments is hereby amended to read as 98 follows: 99 100 Fence height. The measurement from the top of any part of the fence, including posts or other 101 structural supports, lattice, ornate top design elements, and so forth measured to the Existing 102 Ground Level existing grade below the fence, as measured perpendicular to the slope (see 103 Drawing). Exception: Post finials extending above the top of the fence shall not be deemed as 104 part of the fence for height determination purposes as long as they do not exceed ten inches in 105 width per finial and do not extend above the top of the fence by more than ten percent of the 106 allowed maximum fence height at that location. 107 Nonlakeshore lots. 108 1. Fences and walls within a required front yard or side street yard shall not 109 exceed a height of 42 inches above Existing Ground Level original grade. 110 2. Fences and walls within a required rear or side yard shall not exceed a height 111 of six feet above Existing Ground Level original grade. 112 b. Lakeshore lots. 113 1. Fences within the required street (rear) yard or side street yard of a lakeshore 114 lot shall not exceed 42 inches above Existing Ground Level original grade. 115 Exception: A fence not exceeding six feet in height may be located along the 116 street lot line of a lake frontage lot which abuts a major thoroughfare. A major 117 thoroughfare for purposes of this section means any county road or state 118 highway. If such fence involves fill or berming, the total combined height of 119 both fence and fill shall not exceed six feet above the height of the crown of the 120 major thoroughfare. 121 2. Fences within the required side yard of a lakeshore lot shall not exceed six feet 122 in height, and shall not exceed 42 inches in height for any portion located 123 lakeward of a line drawn between the most lakeward projection of the fence 124 owner's principal residence structure and the most lakeward projection of the 125 principal residence structure on the adjacent property abutting the side yard in 126 which the fence is located. 127 3. Fences shall not be constructed within the defined lakeshore yard of a 128 lakeshore lot, i.e., shall not be located within 75 feet of the shoreline for general 129 development lakes, 100 feet for recreational lakes, or 150 feet for natural 130 environment lakes. 131 4. When the building site of a lakeshore lot is separated from the lakeshore by a 132 public or private road, the following definitions will apply for fence location 133 purposes subject to the provisions of section 78-1405(a)(8)a.2: When the yard on 134 the opposite side of the building site from the lake does not abut a street, such 135 4 yard shall be considered as a standard rear yard. The yard between the building 136 site and the street shall be considered as a standard front yard. 137 c. Special provisions. Split rail fences of no more than three rails within a required 138 front, street or side street yard may have a maximum top rail height of 48 inches 139 above Existing Ground Level original grade. Board rail fences within a front, street 140 or side street yard for the specific purpose of enclosing permitted domestic animals 141 may have a top rail height of 60 inches and shall be no more than 50 percent opaque. 142 143 144 SECTION 5. Section 78-1685 Massing standards [within stormwater quality overlay 145 district] is hereby amended to read as follows: 146 147 (1) Non-industrial zoning districts. Except for parcels zoned industrial, all lots in the stormwater 148 quality overlay district that have a gross acreage of less than two acres shall comply with the 149 following massing standards for structures. 150 a. Maximum total footprints allowed. 151 1. On lots equal to or greater than 10,000 square feet in area, the total combined 152 footprints of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15 percent of the 153 gross lot area. 154 2. On lots of less than 10,000 square feet in area, the total combined footprints of all 155 principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 1,500 square feet. 156 b. Calculation of massing. The following shall be included in the calculation of the total 157 combined footprints by structures: 158 1. All roofed structures more than six feet above Existing Ground Level grade level. 159 2. Tennis courts, patios, decks, and all similar open structures when partially or fully 160 enclosed by fences, railings or walls which extend more than six feet above Existing 161 Ground Level grade level (if any portion of such structures extends more than six feet 162 above grade level, the entire structure shall count toward lot coverage). 163 164 165 SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its 166 passage and publication. 167 ADOPTED this _____ day of _____, 2016 on a vote of __ ayes and __ nays by the 168 City Council of Orono, Minnesota. 169 ATTEST: 170 171 172 ______________________________ _____________________________ 173 Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor 174 175 176 Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of ________, 2016. 177 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Jessica Loftus, City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: May 16, 2016 Subject: #16-3817, City of Orono Text Amendment: define Existing Ground Level and Engineered Grade Public Hearing List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Draft Ordinance Background “Existing grade” is an important term in the application of the zoning ordinance, as the height of buildings and structures (fences, support poles, etc.) are based on grade. Grade is also used to determine if the lowest floor is a basement or a floor, impacting the 2 ½ story determination. When issuing building permits for homes before a new final grade (usually in new subdivisions) has been established, or as part of a conditional use permit, the city uses an engineered grade. The draft ordinance amends the definition of Existing Ground Level. It also amends the definition of “Basement” and “Building Height” to consistently use “Existing Ground Level”, and adds new definitions “Engineered Grade” and “Natural Grade”, as these terms are used in the Ordinance. In addition to the definition changes, sections referencing “grade” are amended to reflect consistency. These sections are 78-1403, 78-1405, and 78-1685. The draft ordinance is not to change policy or practice, rather, it is intended to establish consistently and codify practice. Previously, staff introduced the draft ordinance, and suggested action be tabled pending resolution of the half story discussion. That discussion has largely concluded, and further modifications to Existing Ground Level are not recommended. Application Summary: Ordinance amendment related to Existing Ground Level, and adding new definitions related to Grade. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as drafted. Council Exhibit B MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 16, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 2 8. #16-3817 CITY OF ORONO, ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT DEFINING EXISTING GROUND LEVEL AND ENGINEERED GRADE, 8:03 P.M. – 8:10 P.M. Barnhart stated the draft ordinance is intended to clarify the definition of existing grade. The City currently uses different terms for grade throughout the current ordinance and this proposed ordinance helps to clean that up. The draft ordinance also amends the definition of existing ground grade and the definition of basement and building height to consistently use “existing ground level.” Existing grade is an important term in the application of the zoning ordinance, as the height of buildings and structures are based on grade. Grade is also used to determine if the lowest floor is a basement or a floor, impacting the 2-1/2 story determination. The draft ordinance also adds new definitions for “engineered grade” and “natural grade” as these terms are used in the ordinance. Barnhart stated the draft ordinance is not intended to change policy or practice but is intended to establish consistency and codify practice. Landgraver asked if there are standard industrial or business terms that are used by builders and whether the draft ordinance conforms with those terms. Barnhart stated there are a lot of different definitions for the same thing throughout the country. Staff looked at what is out there, which is where the engineered grade and natural grade come from. Landgraver asked if a builder who works in the metro area would be familiar with these terms. Barnhart indicated they should be. Barnhart stated the ordinance just talks about the grade level and that Staff is not recommending any other changes. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. Council Exhibit C MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 16, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 2 There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. Leskinen commented the draft ordinance is pretty clean and straight forward. Thiesse noted at Line 25, the word be should be inserted. Schoenzeit moved, Leskinen seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3817, City of Orono, Zoning Code Amendment Defining Existing Ground Level and Engineered Grade. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June 13, 2016 ITEM NO: 14 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Jeremy Barnhart JML Planning Title Community Development Director Item Description: #16-3824, City of Orono Text Amendment: Subdivision Exception Application Summary By definition in either City Code or the State Statute, the adjustment of a lot line by relocation of a common boundary is not a subdivision, though we process these in a manner similar to a subdivision (Planning Commission, Council meeting, approval by resolution). This issue was number 6 in priority from last fall’s review of the city code. To be consistent to City Ordinance and State Statute, Staff will process lot line arrangements internally, if both lots meet the size and area requirements, and no non-conforming situation is created. The proposed ordinance established that process. Where one or both resulting lots do not meet the requirements, or other non-conformities are created a variance (for lot area/ width, setback, or hardcover, e.g.) would need to be processed prior to staff certifying the lot line arrangement. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 16th. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the ordinance as drafted. No public comments have been received for or against the proposed ordinance. Action Requested: By motion, approve the ordinance as drafted. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Draft Ordinance Exhibit B. Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 16, 2016 Exhibit C. Draft PC Minutes 1 ORDINANCE NO. ___, THIRD SERIES CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Article III of Chapter 82 Subdivision Regulations shall be amended by adding the following text to read as follows: Division 5 Exception Sec. 82-200. - Exception. (1) The following land subdivisions are excepted from Divisions 1 through 4 of this Article. Upon request, the Community Development Director shall, within ten days, certify that a proposed subdivision is excepted because: a. all the resulting parcels, tracts, lots or interests will be 20 acres or larger in size and 500 feet in width for residential uses and five acres or larger in size for commercial and industrial uses, or b. will create cemetery lots, or c. is court ordered, or d. is an adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of a common boundary as long as each of the two resulting lots meets the requirements of Chapter 78 and no new non-conformities are created. 1. Adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of a common boundary when one or both resulting lots do not meet the requirements, or other non- conformities are created may be certified following approval of a variance. (2) Procedure for exempted subdivisions. The owners of such lots to be certified shall file with the zoning administrator a certificate of survey of the lots to be divided, and pay the required fee. Such certificate of survey shall show the dimensions of the lots, as measured upon the recorded plan, the area of the lots, all corner elevations, all existing structures, including dimensions to existing and proposed property lines, all visible encroachments, all easements of record, and their proposed division. A written description of the separately described tracts which will result from the proposed division shall be included on the survey. If the proposed certification complies with all of the requirements of this section, it will be approved by the Community Development Director and forwarded to the county for filing. Council Exhibit A June 16, 2016 2 SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED this _____ day of _____, 2016 on a vote of __ ayes and __ nays by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota. ATTEST: ______________________________ _____________________________ Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of ________, 2016. To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Jessica Loftus, City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: May 16, 2016 Subject: #16-3824, City of Orono, Text Amendment: Subdivision Exception Public Hearing List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Draft Ordinance Exhibit B. State Statute Exhibit C. City Code Background The consideration of boundary line adjustments and similar land actions were the 6th highest priority item when the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed the city ordinances last fall. By definition, the following actions are excepted as a subdivision in City Code and State Statute: City Code, Section 82-2 Definitions: Subdivision means the separation of an area, parcel or tract of land under single ownership into two or more parcels, tracts, lots or long-term leasehold interests, where the creation of the leasehold interest necessitates the creation of streets, roads or alleys, for residential, commercial, industrial or other use or any combination of such uses, except those separations: (1) In which all the resulting parcels, tracts, lots or interests will be 20 acres or larger in size and 500 feet in width for residential uses and five acres or larger in size for commercial and industrial uses. (2) Creating cemetery lots. Application Summary: The proposed ordinance establishes a process to accept subdivision exceptions, and a process to respond to certain applications that don’t meet the Zoning Ordinance. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as drafted. Council Exhibit B FILE #16-3824 May 16, 2016 Page 2 of 2 (3) Resulting from court orders, or the adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of a common boundary as long as each of the two resulting lots meets the requirements of chapter 78. State Law reference— Similar provisions, Minn. Stat. § 462.352, subd. 13. State Statute: 462.352 Subd. 12.Subdivision. "Subdivision" means the separation of an area, parcel, or tract of land under single ownership into two or more parcels, tracts, lots, or long-term leasehold interests where the creation of the leasehold interest necessitates the creation of streets, roads, or alleys, for residential, commercial, industrial, or other use or any combination thereof, except those separations: (1) where all the resulting parcels, tracts, lots, or interests will be 20 acres or larger in size and 500 feet in width for residential uses and five acres or larger in size for commercial and industrial uses; (2) creating cemetery lots; (3) resulting from court orders, or the adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of a common boundary. The City reviews several lot line rearrangements a year, using a process entitled Lot Line Rearrangement. The code does not prescribe a provision for the review of a lot line rearrangement. To be consistent with city code and state statute, the proposed ordinance establishes a process where staff verifies that a proposal falls within these criteria, excepting the action from the subdivision code. If both lots meet minimum size and width requirements and all improvements remain conforming, a document will be created for recording. If one or both lots don’t meet the requirements, or if new non-conformities are created (hardcover, setbacks, etc.), a variance will need to be granted. For example, if the boundary line adjustment results in one lot being smaller, and therefor existing structural hardcover is over the 15% limit, a variance for structural cover would be processed. If approved, the boundary line adjustment would then be certified. Staff approval of boundary line adjustments will save applicant, staff, and Council time and be consistent with State Statute and City Ordinance. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as drafted. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 16, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 1 9. #16-3824 CITY OF ORONO, ZONING CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING PROCESS TO REVIEW SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS, 8:08 P.M. – 8:12 P.M. Barnhart stated the proposed ordinance establishes a process to accept subdivision exceptions and a process to respond to certain applications that do not meet the Zoning Ordinance. To be consistent with city code and state statute, the proposed ordinance establishes a process where Staff verifies that a proposal falls within these criteria, excepting the action from the subdivision code. If both lots meet minimum size and width requirements and all improvements remain conforming, a document will be created for recording. If one or both lots do not meet the requirements, or if new non- conformities are created, such as hardcover, setbacks, etc., a variance will need to be granted. Barnhart stated the ordinance would also allow the City to be consistent with state statute and city ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as drafted. Schoenzeit stated one practical difficulty could be how long the building has existed. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Leskinen moved, Schoenzeit seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3824, City of Orono, Zoning Code Amendment regarding process to review subdivision exemptions, as drafted. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Council Exhibit C REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June 13, 2016 ITEM NO: 15 ______________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Ron Olson RJO JML City Administrator’s Report Title Finance Director _____________________________________________________________________________ Item Description: Golf Course Donation _____________________________________________________________________________ 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: ZiLi Deng 350.00 This year to date, twelve donations totaling $4,588.50 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 person has offered to contribute the cash amount set forth below to the city: Name of Donor Amount ZiLi Deng $ 350.00 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 June 13, 2016. Attest: Approved: Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili McMillan, Mayor REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June 13, 2016 ITEM NO: 16 Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Diane Tiegs JML City Administrator's Report Title City Clerk Item Description: Appointment of 2016 Election Judges Background State Statute 204B.21, Subd. 2 states that election judges for precincts in a municipality must be appointed by the governing body of the municipality at least 25 days before an election. Staff Recommendation It is staff’s recommendation that Council adopt the attached resolution listing the names of the qualified persons who have indicated their willingness to serve as election judges at the Primary Election on August 9, 2016, and the General Election on November 8, 2016, with the understanding that amendments may be necessary to the appointments in order to fill vacancies and meet party splits. In addition, the appointed Election Judges shall be paid $9.50 per hour and Head Judges shall be paid $10.00 per hour, to carry out their duties at the polling place and to attend required training. In addition, Head Judges shall be compensated for mileage to pick up election supplies or deliver election returns at a rated allowed by the IRS (currently $.56 per mile) per State Statue 204B.31 and reimbursed $10.00 for the use of their cell phone on Election Day. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to adopt the attached resolution appointing Election Judges. A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE 2016 PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTIONS TO BE HELD AUGUST 9, 2016 AND NOVEMBER 8, 2016 BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to Minnesota Election Laws 204B.21, Subd.2, the following persons are appointed as election judges for the Primary Election to be held on August 9, 2016 and the General Election to be held on November 8, 2016. Barbara Argabright Denise Aasen Susan Spaeth-Adams Mary J. Bakken Mary Ellen Bennett Nancy M. Brantingham Barbara Burwell John G. Bendt Sandie H. Berger Marianne Batina Thomas Cady Judy Carlson Wendy Danky Darlene Durkin Nancy Danielson Laureen Darling Mary Lou Doherty Cheryl Goulet Doshan Nancy Edwards Jennifer Eastman Linda Kelley Freivalds Lindsay Freeman Eleanor Ferril Lisa Ferris Kevin Gwash Norma Greene Marilyn Kay Gehrman Ruth Garlock Pam Gregory Karlton Gempler Mona Harmann Ann Hommeyer Charles Hommeyer Heidi Hedberg Helen Healy Sandra Keegan Donald Kielley Kevin Krolczyk Bonnie Kaster Paula Lindberg Sandra Lindgren Jennifer Larson Barbara Longe Sandie Larson Kati Mohammad-Zadeh Sheila McSherry Lila Moberg Emily Metcalf Allan Nettles Anne Nettles Janet Obrigewitsch Lorrie Peterson Jennifer Robertson Judy Rogosheske Holly Rocca Daryl Patricia Seifert Jacqueline Sherman Patricia Spilseth Penny Saiki Suelly Tritz Whitney Tucker Janette Weaver Patricia Welty John J. Will Jocelyn Will Linda Wotipka Todd Ziesmer Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on June 13, 2016. ATTEST: ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June 13, 2016 ITEM NO: 17 ______________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Diane Tiegs JML City Administrator’s Report/ Title City Clerk Licenses & Permits ______________________________________________________________________________ Item Description: Licenses & Permits ______________________________________________________________________________ The following completed application for a Garbage & Refuse Collector License is attached: 1. Blackowiak Disposal, Inc. 1195 Sunnyfield Rd N Mound, MN 55364 Blackowiak Disposal serves approximately seven hundred (700) customers in Orono. Staff is recommending approval of the above listed license based on the applicant meeting the licensing requirements and having a history of compliance with no complaints in recent years. A notice of spring road restrictions was provided to each hauler. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to approve the above listed license. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: June 13, 2016 Item No. 18 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 105239 to 105351, totaling $877,260.28. Noteworthy payments include: Land Title Inc $ 281,586.00 Payment for the purchase of additional land for Hackberry Park. Purchase was approved by the Council on 5/9/16. MacQueen Equipment $ 220,870.00 Payment for the new Street Sweeper that was approved by the Council on 1/26/16. Dodge of Burnsville $ 51,969.00 Payment for the purchase of two of the four squads approved by the Council on 12/14/16. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Consider a motion to approve payment of the claims list as presented. City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 1 Check Issue Dates: 5/24/2016 - 6/13/2016 Jun 09, 2016 10:12AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Advanced Imaging Solutions 06/13/2016 105239 103643 101-41900-413 toner shipping Central Services 10.57 Total 105239:10.57 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 06/13/2016 105240 305613028 101-41900-413 copier lease 5/20 to 6/20 Central Services 1,319.00 Total 105240:1,319.00 AMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTOR 06/13/2016 105241 75365497 101-42110-402 #240 tires Police Department 506.36 Total 105241:506.36 APPRIZE TECHNOLOGY SOLUT 06/02/2016 105234 12119 101-41900-319 insurance enrollment online admin fee Central Services 200.00 APPRIZE TECHNOLOGY SOLUT 06/02/2016 105234 12248 101-41900-319 insurance enrollment online admin fee Central Services 450.00 Total 105234:650.00 APPRIZE TECHNOLOGY SOLUT 06/13/2016 105242 12621 101-41900-319 insurance enrollment online admin fee Central Services 450.00 Total 105242:450.00 ARC 06/13/2016 105243 15016033 101-41900-352 oversized copies Central Services 81.93 Total 105243:81.93 BCA TRAINING & DEVELOPME 06/13/2016 105244 35706-03151 101-42110-437 training Datwyler Police Department 65.00 Total 105244:65.00 BERTELSON ONE SOURCE 06/13/2016 105245 204888-1 101-41900-201 paper Central Services 272.82 Total 105245:272.82 BIFFS INC 06/13/2016 105246 597566 101-45200-415 Bederwood park Parks 160.00 BIFFS INC 06/13/2016 105246 597567 101-45200-415 Summit beach Parks 160.00 BIFFS INC 06/13/2016 105246 597571 101-45200-415 Navarre Playground Parks 160.00 BIFFS INC 06/13/2016 105246 597572 101-45200-415 French Creek Park Preserve Parks 62.50 BIFFS INC 06/13/2016 105246 W597568 101-45200-415 Hackberry Beach Parks 125.00 BIFFS INC 06/13/2016 105246 W597569 101-45210-415 Golf Course Golf Course 62.79 BIFFS INC 06/13/2016 105246 W597570 101-45200-415 Crystal Bay Playground Parks 62.50 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 2 Check Issue Dates: 5/24/2016 - 6/13/2016 Jun 09, 2016 10:12AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105246:792.79 BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF 06/02/2016 105235 52916 101-21706 Health insurance 39,649.00 BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF 06/02/2016 105235 52916 101-42110-135 Disability continuation Police Department 1,188.00 Total 105235:40,837.00 BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF 06/13/2016 105247 53116 101-21706 Health insurance 21,609.50 BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF 06/13/2016 105247 53116 101-15998 Cobra 4,030.00 Total 105247:25,639.50 BOYER TRUCKS 06/13/2016 105248 168487 101-43000-222 step for #426 Public Works Department 134.40 Total 105248:134.40 BRUNELLO, JOHN 06/13/2016 105249 60716 101-22205 Escrow refund 2015-00185 2,500.00 Total 105249:2,500.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 06/13/2016 105250 CF42016B 101-42110-437 meals at conference-Green Mill Police Department 2.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 06/13/2016 105250 CF42016CM 101-42110-437 hotel stay misapplied Police Department 327.00- CARDMEMBER SERVICE 06/13/2016 105250 CF51716 101-42110-201 flag for PD-L.E. Today Store Police Department 19.99 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 06/13/2016 105250 CF60516 101-42110-437 MCCoy training- TC Organized Retail Crime Associ Police Department 175.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 06/13/2016 105250 JL51316 101-41300-439 leadership lunch-Tin Fish Administration 11.66 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 06/13/2016 105250 JL52316 101-41110-439 food for worksession-Jimmy Johns Mayor & Council 61.18 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 06/13/2016 105250 JL60716 101-41300-439 meeting Country Cake Administration 5.77 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 06/13/2016 105250 SO52516 101-43000-240 shop supplies-Northern Tool Public Works Department 158.93 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 06/13/2016 105250 SO60216 101-43000-212 fuel-Holiday Public Works Department 26.01 Total 105250:133.54 CDW GOVERNMENT 06/13/2016 105251 3821 101-42110-221 squad printer Police Department 346.10 Total 105251:346.10 CECE S SIGNS 06/13/2016 105252 7017 602-49450-227 LS 24, GS 6 signs Sewer 100.00 CECE S SIGNS 06/13/2016 105252 7053 101-43000-222 #460 sweeper graphics Public Works Department 130.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 3 Check Issue Dates: 5/24/2016 - 6/13/2016 Jun 09, 2016 10:12AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105252:230.00 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 06/13/2016 105253 52616 601-49400-381 4/20 to 5/20 Water 527.92 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 06/13/2016 105253 52616 602-49450-381 4/20 to 5/20 Sewer 221.50 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 06/13/2016 105253 52616 101-41900-381 4/20 to 5/20 Central Services 269.02 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 06/13/2016 105253 52616 101-42110-381 4/20 to 5/20 Police Department 72.90 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 06/13/2016 105253 52616 101-45210-381 4/20 to 5/20 Golf Course 44.20 Total 105253:1,135.54 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 06/13/2016 105254 3000708776 602-16500 LS 14 backup generator 7,315.00 Total 105254:7,315.00 CENTURY LINK 06/13/2016 105255 51916 101-45210-321 gC dsl/phone Golf Course 196.77 Total 105255:196.77 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 06/13/2016 105256 13781 101-42110-402 #236 repair Police Department 33.43 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 06/13/2016 105256 13804 101-42110-402 #853 oil change Police Department 37.87 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 06/13/2016 105256 13807 101-42110-402 #233 oil change, brake pads Police Department 298.47 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 06/13/2016 105256 13812 101-42110-402 #241 battery Police Department 203.64 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 06/13/2016 105256 13815 101-42110-402 #240 replace tires Police Department 69.95 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 06/13/2016 105256 13817 101-42110-402 #237 alignment Police Department 95.35 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 06/13/2016 105256 13819 101-42110-402 #238 oil change Police Department 42.74 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 06/13/2016 105256 13826 101-42110-402 #223 repair Police Department 96.91 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 06/13/2016 105256 13838 101-42110-402 #228 oil change Police Department 45.79 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 06/13/2016 105256 13845 101-42110-402 #232 oil change, filter, transmission service Police Department 301.94 Total 105256:1,226.09 CITY OF WAYZATA 06/13/2016 105257 52616 101-42260-318 2nd half fire protection svcs Fire Protection Services 14,427.50 Total 105257:14,427.50 CLEVELAND GOLF/SRIXON 06/13/2016 105258 4692744 101-45210-095 golf balls Golf Course 152.92 Total 105258:152.92 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 4 Check Issue Dates: 5/24/2016 - 6/13/2016 Jun 09, 2016 10:12AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount CLIFTON LARSON ALLEN LLP 06/13/2016 105259 1291335 601-49400-301 2015 Audit services Water 5,000.00 Total 105259:5,000.00 COMMERCIAL ASPHALT 06/13/2016 105260 160515 101-43000-224 street materials Public Works Department 646.86 Total 105260:646.86 COMPASS MINERALS AMERICA 06/13/2016 105261 71485728 101-43000-224 2016-2017 road salt/sand Public Works Department 3,519.01 Total 105261:3,519.01 CULLIGAN 06/13/2016 105262 53116 101-45210-403 softener exchange service Golf Course 174.23 Total 105262:174.23 CUMMINS ALLISON 06/13/2016 105263 4962620 101-42110-201 bags Police Department 79.14 Total 105263:79.14 DAVE KLITZKE 06/13/2016 105264 52716 101-42110-322 reimb postage Police Department 9.15 Total 105264:9.15 DELTA DENTAL 06/02/2016 105236 6498169 101-21709 003722072 June Dental 2,398.00 DELTA DENTAL 06/02/2016 105236 6498169 101-15998 003722072 June Cobra 484.00 Total 105236:2,882.00 DEPUTY REGISTRAR 06/02/2016 105237 52316 231-45650-441 2009 Escalade case 15-14245 20.75 Total 105237:20.75 DIANE TIEGS 06/13/2016 105265 52616 101-41410-221 reimb election materials Elections 95.94 Total 105265:95.94 DODGE OF BURNSVILLE INC 06/13/2016 105266 36172 101-42110-550 New squad #247 Police Department 26,269.00 DODGE OF BURNSVILLE INC 06/13/2016 105266 36183 101-42110-550 New squad #244 Police Department 25,700.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 5 Check Issue Dates: 5/24/2016 - 6/13/2016 Jun 09, 2016 10:12AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105266:51,969.00 DPC INDUSTRIES 06/13/2016 105267 827000620-1 601-49400-216 chemicals Water 846.10 DPC INDUSTRIES 06/13/2016 105267 827000621-1 601-49400-216 chemicals Water 744.13 Total 105267:1,590.23 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 06/13/2016 105268 359117 101-41900-352 legal ads Central Services 113.24 Total 105268:113.24 EMBEDDED SYSTEMS INC.06/13/2016 105269 33986 101-42110-403 siren maint 07-01 to 12-31 Police Department 1,054.32 Total 105269:1,054.32 EMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODU 06/13/2016 105270 1823936 101-42110-240 gloves Police Department 67.35 Total 105270:67.35 ERICKSON, BRAD 06/13/2016 105271 52616 999-10015 Utility refund 176.10 Total 105271:176.10 FERGUSON WATERWORKS #2 06/13/2016 105272 182399-1 601-49400-227 meter parts Water 274.11 Total 105272:274.11 FINANCE AND COMMERCE 06/13/2016 105273 742773027 601-16500 North Well bid ad 211.49 Total 105273:211.49 G & K SERVICES 06/13/2016 105274 1006708143 101-43000-221 towels Public Works Department 6.38 G & K SERVICES 06/13/2016 105274 1006708143 602-49450-226 uniform Sewer 15.30 G & K SERVICES 06/13/2016 105274 1006708143 601-49400-226 uniform Water 15.30 G & K SERVICES 06/13/2016 105274 1006708143 101-43000-226 uniform Public Works Department 30.59 G & K SERVICES 06/13/2016 105274 1006719504 101-41900-404 mats Central Services 14.40 G & K SERVICES 06/13/2016 105274 1006719504 101-43000-221 towels Public Works Department 6.38 G & K SERVICES 06/13/2016 105274 1006719504 101-43000-226 uniform Public Works Department 27.29 G & K SERVICES 06/13/2016 105274 1006719504 601-49400-226 uniform Water 13.65 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 6 Check Issue Dates: 5/24/2016 - 6/13/2016 Jun 09, 2016 10:12AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount G & K SERVICES 06/13/2016 105274 1006719504 602-49450-226 uniform Sewer 13.65 G & K SERVICES 06/13/2016 105274 1006719519 101-45210-404 GC mats Golf Course 18.34 G & K SERVICES 06/13/2016 105274 1006730854 101-43000-221 towels Public Works Department 6.38 G & K SERVICES 06/13/2016 105274 1006730854 101-43000-226 uniform Public Works Department 27.30 G & K SERVICES 06/13/2016 105274 1006730854 601-49400-226 uniform Water 13.65 G & K SERVICES 06/13/2016 105274 1006730854 602-49450-226 uniform Sewer 13.64 Total 105274:222.25 GC BUILDERS 06/13/2016 105275 40516 101-43000-404 Salt shed repair Public Works Department 6,811.00 GC BUILDERS 06/13/2016 105275 40516B 601-49400-404 water plant repair Water 3,931.00 Total 105275:10,742.00 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 06/13/2016 105276 318859 101-42110-402 headlight Police Department 25.68 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 06/13/2016 105276 319027 101-43000-403 spark plug Public Works Department 1.98 Total 105276:27.66 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 06/13/2016 105277 6030621 601-49400-489 locates Water 123.98 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 06/13/2016 105277 6030621 602-49450-489 locates Sewer 123.97 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 06/13/2016 105277 6050622 601-49400-489 locates Water 300.38 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 06/13/2016 105277 6050622 602-49450-489 locates Sewer 300.37 Total 105277:848.70 GRAINGER INC 06/13/2016 105278 1263068555 101-45210-221 parts for sprayer Golf Course 182.96 GRAINGER INC 06/13/2016 105278 9119172014 101-45210-221 sprayer parts Golf Course 182.96 Total 105278:365.92 GUSTAFSON, DALE 06/13/2016 105279 60716 101-22205 land use app fee refund 700.00 GUSTAFSON, DALE 06/13/2016 105279 60716 101-34420 land use app fee refund 700.00 Total 105279:1,400.00 HAWKINSON, ROGER 06/13/2016 105280 60716 101-22205 Escrow refund 14-3652 700.00 Total 105280:700.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 7 Check Issue Dates: 5/24/2016 - 6/13/2016 Jun 09, 2016 10:12AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LT 06/13/2016 105281 541346 601-49400-227 supplies Water 78.26 Total 105281:78.26 HD SUPPLY WHITE CAP 06/13/2016 105282 1000528252 101-43000-221 safety supplies Public Works Department 243.65 HD SUPPLY WHITE CAP 06/13/2016 105282 5000446946 101-43000-221 safety supplies Public Works Department 149.97 Total 105282:393.62 HEATHER GEHLEN 06/13/2016 105283 51816 101-42110-437 mileage reimb PLEAA training Police Department 29.16 Total 105283:29.16 HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNE 06/13/2016 105284 14-0567 231-35610 20% proceeds from sale of forfeit 14-0567 200.00 Total 105284:200.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TE 06/13/2016 105285 1000077275 101-41900-319 network support Central Services 50.00 Total 105285:50.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF 06/13/2016 105286 100077339 101-41600-309 jail charges Law/Legal Services 1,452.82 Total 105286:1,452.82 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREAS 06/13/2016 105287 60616 602-49450-489 special assessment charge Sewer 462.00 Total 105287:462.00 INTEGRA TELECOM 06/13/2016 105288 13889829 101-42110-321 Phone service Police Department 272.12 INTEGRA TELECOM 06/13/2016 105288 13889829 101-41900-321 Phone Service Central Services 380.97 INTEGRA TELECOM 06/13/2016 105288 13889829 601-49400-321 Phone Service Water 63.49 INTEGRA TELECOM 06/13/2016 105288 13889829 602-49450-321 Phone Service Sewer 190.48 Total 105288:907.06 JACKIE YOUNG 06/13/2016 105289 60116 101-45200-319 Park Commission 5/02/16 Parks 165.00 JACKIE YOUNG 06/13/2016 105289 60116 101-42400-319 PC meeting 5/16/16 Building & Zoning 190.00 JACKIE YOUNG 06/13/2016 105289 60116 101-41300-319 CC meeting 5/9, 5/23 Administration 430.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 8 Check Issue Dates: 5/24/2016 - 6/13/2016 Jun 09, 2016 10:12AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105289:785.00 JASON BARNES 06/13/2016 105290 51616 101-42110-437 reimb training fee Child Safety Seat Police Department 50.00 Total 105290:50.00 JJ TAYLOR DIST LF MN JJ TAYL 06/13/2016 105291 2494128 101-45210-091 beer Golf Course 257.00 Total 105291:257.00 KEEPERS 06/13/2016 105292 299320 406-48720-226 weapons 6,636.94 KEEPERS 06/13/2016 105292 299320-80 406-39640 weapon trade in 2,137.50- KEEPERS 06/13/2016 105292 307077 406-48720-226 holsters 223.98 KEEPERS 06/13/2016 105292 307077-01 406-48720-226 weapons 1,007.91 KEEPERS 06/13/2016 105292 307077-02 406-48720-226 weapons 111.99 Total 105292:5,843.32 KELLY HERZOG 06/13/2016 105293 51916 101-42110-437 mileage reimb PLEAA training Police Department 28.51 Total 105293:28.51 KENNETH N POTTS PA 06/13/2016 105294 60116 101-41600-306 prosecution services May Law/Legal Services 3,000.00 Total 105294:3,000.00 LAND TITLE INC 06/13/2016 105295 536737 225-45200-510 Hackberry Park Land 281,586.00 Total 105295:281,586.00 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TR 06/13/2016 105296 32236 703-49960-151 2nd half workers comp 70,924.00 Total 105296:70,924.00 LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS 06/13/2016 105297 1297291-201 101-42110-311 Apr Contract fee Police Department 119.50 Total 105297:119.50 LILJA'S LANDSCAPING LLC 06/13/2016 105298 697 101-45210-404 Landscape services Golf Course 703.81 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 9 Check Issue Dates: 5/24/2016 - 6/13/2016 Jun 09, 2016 10:12AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105298:703.81 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 06/13/2016 105299 A31499 101-45210-223 supplies Golf Course 78.99 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 06/13/2016 105299 B328404 101-43000-403 return Public Works Department .90- LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 06/13/2016 105299 B328661 101-43000-240 supplies Public Works Department 33.28 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 06/13/2016 105299 B328762 101-42110-201 supplies Police Department 26.44 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 06/13/2016 105299 B328957 101-45210-201 supplies Golf Course 45.46 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 06/13/2016 105299 B329730 101-45210-221 parts for sprayer Golf Course 19.77 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 06/13/2016 105299 B329976 101-45210-221 parts for sprayer Golf Course 10.97 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 06/13/2016 105299 B330181 101-42110-223 supplies Police Department 19.97 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 06/13/2016 105299 B330390 101-45210-223 chain Golf Course 52.13 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 06/13/2016 105299 B330839 101-45210-221 parts for sprayer Golf Course 7.99 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 06/13/2016 105299 B332045 101-45210-223 stain Golf Course 31.74 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 06/13/2016 105299 B332373 101-45200-221 supplies Parks 13.77 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 06/13/2016 105299 B332982 101-42110-221 supplies Police Department 25.47 Total 105299:365.08 LOUDEN, ROBERT 06/13/2016 105300 53116 999-10015 Utility refund 193.20 Total 105300:193.20 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT 06/13/2016 105301 1160036 651-16500 Street Sweeper 220,870.00 Total 105301:220,870.00 MAILFINANCE 06/13/2016 105302 5936167 101-41900-401 postage meter lease Central Services 376.50 Total 105302:376.50 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 06/13/2016 105303 441265 101-43000-212 Diesel Public Works Department 191.71 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 06/13/2016 105303 441266 101-42110-212 Fuel PD Police Department 2,195.64 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 06/13/2016 105303 442936 101-42110-212 Fuel PD Police Department 192.27 Total 105303:2,579.62 Mediacom 06/13/2016 105304 52116 614-49840-329 internet Cable Franchise 593.50 Mediacom 06/13/2016 105304 52116 101-41900-329 internet Central Services 296.75 Mediacom 06/13/2016 105304 52116 101-42110-329 internet Police Department 296.75 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 10 Check Issue Dates: 5/24/2016 - 6/13/2016 Jun 09, 2016 10:12AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105304:1,187.00 MEDIACOM 06/13/2016 105305 52616 101-45210-415 GC cable Golf Course 7.34 Total 105305:7.34 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTA 06/13/2016 105306 53116 101-20809 Sac 2,485.00 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTA 06/13/2016 105306 53116 101-39610 SAC credit 24.85- Total 105306:2,460.15 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTA 06/13/2016 105307 105655 602-49450-383 Jul wastewater service Sewer 32,877.48 Total 105307:32,877.48 METRO WEST INSPECTIONS S 06/13/2016 105308 61016 101-42400-310 May inspection services Building & Zoning 6,850.25 Total 105308:6,850.25 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLI 06/13/2016 105309 188094813 101-45210-092 beverages Golf Course 381.60 Total 105309:381.60 MIKE WOCKEN 06/13/2016 105310 51016 101-42110-221 reimb for ATV supplies Police Department 91.39 MIKE WOCKEN 06/13/2016 105310 52416 101-42110-321 reimb for phone repairs Police Department 100.00 MIKE WOCKEN 06/13/2016 105310 52616 101-42110-201 reimb for supplies Police Department 27.97 Total 105310:219.36 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMP 06/13/2016 105311 171153575 101-43000-221 acetylene, oxygen Public Works Department 25.11 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMP 06/13/2016 105311 171153576 101-42110-221 oxygen Police Department 25.11 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMP 06/13/2016 105311 171153577 101-42110-221 oxygen Police Department 22.01 Total 105311:72.23 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 06/13/2016 105312 43466 602-49450-240 trimmer Sewer 66.65 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 06/13/2016 105312 43466 601-49400-240 trimmer Water 66.65 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 06/13/2016 105312 43466 101-43000-240 trimmer Public Works Department 66.65 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 06/13/2016 105312 43567 101-45210-403 tire repair Golf Course 31.74 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 11 Check Issue Dates: 5/24/2016 - 6/13/2016 Jun 09, 2016 10:12AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 06/13/2016 105312 44079 101-43000-240 filter Public Works Department 2.55 Total 105312:234.24 MN DEPT OF FINANCE 06/13/2016 105313 14-0567 231-35610 10% of proceeds 14-0567 100.00 Total 105313:100.00 MN DEPT OF HEALTH 06/13/2016 105314 3821-2016 601-49400-441 Water operator license B. Rathbun Water 23.00 MN DEPT OF HEALTH 06/13/2016 105314 4686-2016 601-49400-441 Water operator license G. Palmer Water 23.00 Total 105314:46.00 MN DEPT OF HEALTH 06/13/2016 105315 121712-2016 101-45210-441 GC Hospitality fee Golf Course 35.00 Total 105315:35.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 05/31/2016 201300 52016 101-34210 Apr sales tax 10.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 05/31/2016 201300 52016 601-20806 Apr sales tax 595.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 05/31/2016 201300 52016 101-37910 Apr sales tax 1,108.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 05/31/2016 201300 52016 101-37920 Apr sales tax 260.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 05/31/2016 201300 52016 101-37930 Apr sales tax 43.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 05/31/2016 201300 52016 101-37935 Apr sales tax 31.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 05/31/2016 201300 52016 101-37940 Apr sales tax 28.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 05/31/2016 201300 52016 101-37960 Apr sales tax 5.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 05/31/2016 201300 52016 101-37970 Apr sales tax 4.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 05/31/2016 201300 52016 101-37990 Apr sales tax 68.00 Total 20130074:2,152.00 MN NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS 06/13/2016 105316 6732616 101-21710 Pera life 6/16 224.00 Total 105316:224.00 MTI DIST CO 06/13/2016 105317 1065372-00 101-45210-221 supplies Golf Course 10.73 MTI DIST CO 06/13/2016 105317 1065373-00 101-45210-221 credit for return Golf Course 19.31- MTI DIST CO 06/13/2016 105317 1065488-00 101-45210-221 irrigation service Golf Course 352.74 MTI DIST CO 06/13/2016 105317 1065490-00 101-45210-221 irrigation parts Golf Course 24.46 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 12 Check Issue Dates: 5/24/2016 - 6/13/2016 Jun 09, 2016 10:12AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105317:368.62 NAVARRE HARDWARE 06/13/2016 105318 293790 101-43000-240 supplies Public Works Department 12.99 NAVARRE HARDWARE 06/13/2016 105318 293800 101-45200-223 supplies Parks 3.29 NAVARRE HARDWARE 06/13/2016 105318 293832 601-49400-227 supplies Water 7.49 NAVARRE HARDWARE 06/13/2016 105318 293943 101-45200-212 supplies Parks 18.99 NAVARRE HARDWARE 06/13/2016 105318 294192 602-49450-226 supplies Sewer 22.97 Total 105318:65.73 NEWEGG INC 06/13/2016 105319 1201809944 101-41900-221 hard drive cleaner Central Services 24.98 NEWEGG INC 06/13/2016 105319 1201845135 101-42110-221 mifi cables Police Department 39.00 Total 105319:63.98 NORLINGS 06/13/2016 105320 31569 101-41900-404 landscape maintenance City Hall/PD Central Services 420.00 NORLINGS 06/13/2016 105320 31569 101-42110-404 landscape maintenance City Hall/PD Police Department 420.00 Total 105320:840.00 OFFICE DEPOT 06/13/2016 105321 8385967980 101-42110-201 office supplies Police Department 151.51 OFFICE DEPOT 06/13/2016 105321 8385969080 101-42110-201 office supplies Police Department 48.71 Total 105321:200.22 OFFICE DEPOT 06/13/2016 105322 8348134450 101-41900-201 cabinet Central Services 107.99 OFFICE DEPOT 06/13/2016 105322 8403368290 101-41900-201 office supplies Central Services 75.08 OFFICE DEPOT 06/13/2016 105322 8403402490 101-41900-201 office supplies Central Services 21.99 OFFICE DEPOT 06/13/2016 105322 8403402500 101-41900-201 office supplies Central Services 52.56 OFFICE DEPOT 06/13/2016 105322 8403690900 101-41900-201 office supplies Central Services 71.69 Total 105322:329.31 OLSEN CHAIN AND CABLE INC 06/13/2016 105323 577889 101-43000-404 hoist inspection Public Works Department 150.00 OLSEN CHAIN AND CABLE INC 06/13/2016 105323 578379 101-43000-403 hoist repair Public Works Department 430.76 OLSEN CHAIN AND CABLE INC 06/13/2016 105323 581007 101-43000-224 chain parts Public Works Department 184.01 Total 105323:764.77 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 13 Check Issue Dates: 5/24/2016 - 6/13/2016 Jun 09, 2016 10:12AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount OTTEN BROTHERS 06/13/2016 105324 11447937 101-45210-223 straw bale Golf Course 18.99 OTTEN BROTHERS 06/13/2016 105324 3-1070276 101-45210-223 flowers Golf Course 83.96 OTTEN BROTHERS 06/13/2016 105324 31070777 101-45210-223 landscape supplies Golf Course 60.15 Total 105324:163.10 PHIL CHALMERS TRAINING 06/13/2016 105325 52616 101-42110-437 T. Sonnek training Police Department 125.00 Total 105325:125.00 POS PAPER 06/13/2016 105326 33012 101-42110-201 ticket writer paper Police Department 168.50 Total 105326:168.50 PREMIER RESTAURANT EQUIP 06/13/2016 105327 28311 101-45210-404 GC kitchen project Golf Course 1,465.37 Total 105327:1,465.37 QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC 06/13/2016 105328 31973 602-49450-406 LS 20 repair Sewer 508.00 QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC 06/13/2016 105328 31986 602-49450-406 LS 21 repair Sewer 8,763.00 QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC 06/13/2016 105328 32046 602-49450-406 LS 27 repair Sewer 3,467.00 Total 105328:12,738.00 RANDYS SANITATION INC 06/13/2016 105329 42516 603-49500-442 City clean up 3,386.00 RANDYS SANITATION INC 06/13/2016 105329 51916 101-41900-404 May Service Central Services 363.71 RANDYS SANITATION INC 06/13/2016 105329 51916 101-45200-404 May Service Parks 305.10 RANDYS SANITATION INC 06/13/2016 105329 51916 101-45210-404 May Service Golf Course 59.18 Total 105329:4,113.99 REED VENDING 06/13/2016 105330 9212 101-45210-094 concession supplies Golf Course 195.10 Total 105330:195.10 ROGER PEITSO 06/13/2016 105331 51716 101-42400-437 reimb mileage-training Building & Zoning 49.68 ROGER PEITSO 06/13/2016 105331 51716 101-42400-331 reimb parking Building & Zoning 1.50 ROGER PEITSO 06/13/2016 105331 51716 101-42400-208 reimb code materials Building & Zoning 10.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 14 Check Issue Dates: 5/24/2016 - 6/13/2016 Jun 09, 2016 10:12AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105331:61.18 SCOTT BORIS 06/13/2016 105332 51816 101-42110-437 reimb lunch (4 officers)Police Department 62.54 SCOTT BORIS 06/13/2016 105332 51816 101-42110-331 reimb parking Police Department 9.00 SCOTT BORIS 06/13/2016 105332 60616 101-42110-321 reimb phone case Police Department 53.63 Total 105332:125.17 SELECT ACCOUNT 06/13/2016 105333 60716 101-21719 FLEX 457.63 Total 105333:457.63 SELECT ACCOUNT 05/31/2016 201300 52416 101-21719 FLEX 617.53 Total 20130075:617.53 SELECT ACCOUNT 05/31/2016 201300 53116 101-21719 FLEX 42.15 Total 20130076:42.15 TESSMAN COMPANY 06/13/2016 105334 232094 101-45210-223 fertilyzer Golf Course 493.47 Total 105334:493.47 THE HOME DEPOT 06/13/2016 105335 2808018635 101-45200-403 picnic table repair parts, sign parts Parks 120.28 THE HOME DEPOT 06/13/2016 105335 2808028063 101-43000-240 yard stakes Public Works Department 137.82 Total 105335:258.10 THE SIGN AGE INC 06/13/2016 105336 31800 101-42110-352 business cards Police Department 150.00 Total 105336:150.00 THORPE DIST CO 06/13/2016 105337 1086262 101-45210-091 beer Golf Course 185.50 Total 105337:185.50 TREECARE 06/13/2016 105338 969 101-45200-223 tree trimming Summit Park Parks 775.00 TREECARE 06/13/2016 105338 973 101-45200-223 tree trimming Hackberry, Antoine, Navarre Parks 2,200.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 15 Check Issue Dates: 5/24/2016 - 6/13/2016 Jun 09, 2016 10:12AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105338:2,975.00 TRI CITY LAB 06/13/2016 105339 33116 601-49400-489 water testing Water 31.50 Total 105339:31.50 UNITED FARMERS COOPERATI 06/13/2016 105340 33664 101-43000-224 grass seed Public Works Department 62.99 Total 105340:62.99 VACKER INC 06/13/2016 105341 1241 101-43000-224 signs for right of way Public Works Department 320.00 Total 105341:320.00 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTE 06/13/2016 105342 45606 101-41900-407 Janitorial service Central Services 1,435.50 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTE 06/13/2016 105342 45606 101-42110-407 Janitorial service Police Department 1,039.50 Total 105342:2,475.00 VARNER MOBILE SERVICES LL 06/13/2016 105343 4685 101-43000-403 supplies Public Works Department 163.98 Total 105343:163.98 VERIZON WIRELESS 06/13/2016 105344 9764942277 101-42110-321 5/07 to 6/06 Police Department 1,382.69 VERIZON WIRELESS 06/13/2016 105344 9764942277 101-41900-321 5/07 to 6/06 Central Services 154.23 VERIZON WIRELESS 06/13/2016 105344 9764942277 101-45210-321 5/07 to 6/06 Golf Course 46.51 VERIZON WIRELESS 06/13/2016 105344 9764942277 601-49400-321 5/07 to 6/06 Water 95.72 VERIZON WIRELESS 06/13/2016 105344 9764942277 602-49450-321 5/07 to 6/06 Sewer 95.72 VERIZON WIRELESS 06/13/2016 105344 9764942277 101-43000-415 5/07 to 6/06 Public Works Department 47.86 Total 105344:1,822.73 VESSCO INC 06/13/2016 105345 66344 601-49400-405 supplies Water 56.50 Total 105345:56.50 WASTE MANAGEMENT RECYC 06/13/2016 105346 19304-2808-603-49500-316 Recycling June 8,783.36 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 16 Check Issue Dates: 5/24/2016 - 6/13/2016 Jun 09, 2016 10:12AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105346:8,783.36 WIGGINS, JASON 06/13/2016 105347 60716 101-22205 Escrow refund 2015-00042 2,500.00 Total 105347:2,500.00 WILLIAMS TOWING 06/13/2016 105348 6519177 231-45650-436 16-005402 155.00 Total 105348:155.00 WINDSTREAM 06/13/2016 105349 59432739 601-49400-321 water plant phone Water 56.67 Total 105349:56.67 XCEL ENERGY 06/13/2016 105350 503472691 101-41900-381 4/23 to 5/23 Central Services 1,697.44 XCEL ENERGY 06/13/2016 105350 503472691 101-42110-381 4/23 to 5/23 Police Department 1,189.22 XCEL ENERGY 06/13/2016 105350 503472691 101-42110-381 4/23 to 5/23 Police Department 34.88 XCEL ENERGY 06/13/2016 105350 503472691 101-43000-381 4/23 to 5/23 Public Works Department 134.92 XCEL ENERGY 06/13/2016 105350 503472691 101-43000-386 4/23 to 5/23 Public Works Department 2,059.37 XCEL ENERGY 06/13/2016 105350 503472691 101-45200-381 4/23 to 5/23 Parks 35.25 XCEL ENERGY 06/13/2016 105350 503472691 601-49400-381 4/23 to 5/23 Water 5,116.39 XCEL ENERGY 06/13/2016 105350 503472691 602-49450-381 4/23 to 5/23 Sewer 2,973.03 XCEL ENERGY 06/13/2016 105350 503472691 101-45210-381 4/23 to 5/23 Golf Course 968.51 Total 105350:14,209.01 YAMAHA GOLF & UTILITY INC 06/13/2016 105351 01-163705 703-49960-379 cart repair-vandalism 942.73 Total 105351:942.73 Grand Totals: 877,260.28