Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-11-2016 Council PacketAgenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, July 11, 2016, 7:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us – follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notification The public is invited to address the council regarding any item on the regular agenda. If your topic is not on the agenda, you may speak during the Public Comments section. Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Approval of Agenda 1. Consent Agenda – Consent agenda items, including (*) asterisk items, are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under this section of the agenda. Items on the Consent Agenda are reviewed in total by the City Council and may be approved through one motion with no further discussion by the Council. Any item may be removed by any Council Member, staff member or person from the public for separate consideration. If you wish to remove any item from the Consent Agenda, please state the item number and description of the item. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet located in the lobby near the sign in sheet. Approval of Minutes 2. Council Meeting of June 27, 2016* 3. Council Work Session of June 27, 2016* Presentation 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 4. 2016 Road Maintenance Crack Sealing 5. Brown Road Trail Rehabilitation 6. Stormwater Pond Assessment 7. Lurton Park a. 16-3832 City of Orono, 3580 Wayzata Boulevard West, Variances b. Lurton Off Leash Park Revised Design 8. Watertown Road and Stubbs Bay Road Rehabilitation – Pay Request No. 4 – Final 9. Watertown Road Phase 2 Rehabilitation – Pay Request No. 1 Public Safety Report 10. Disposal of Forfeited Vehicles Planning Department Report – Planning Commission Representative – John Thiesse 11. 15-3763a – Christopher W. Bollis, 200-350 Stubbs Bay Road North - Revised Preliminary Plat 12. 16-3822 – Lakewest LLC, 3245 Wayzata Boulevard West – Preliminary Plat Review 13. 16-3834 – Ned & Michelle Dau & Northgate Two HOA, 220 Northgate Road and Outlot C Northgate Two Lot Line Rearrangement, Variance and Easement Vacation (3 Resolutions) 14. 16-3836 – Rick Anderson & David Lind, 3585 Sixth Avenue North - Conditional Use Permit & Holding Tank Approval (Resolution) Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, July 11, 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 15. 16-3840 – City of Orono, Text Amendment: Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings (Ordinance) 16. 16-3838 – Al Musech on behalf of Thom & Laura Clapp, 215 Hollander Road, Easement Vacation (Resolution) 17. 16-3833 – John & Cyndy Bowlsby – 1025 Spring Hill Rd – Variances (Resolution) 18. 16-3835 – Michael Gallus Construction o/b/o Guy Milliren – 1991 Fagerness Pt Rd – Variances (Resolution) 19. 16-3837 – John Brunello LLC – 570 Orono Orchard Rd S – Variances (Resolution) Mayor/Council Report City Administrator's Report 20. Prosecuting Attorney – Request for Proposal (RFP) 21. Golf Course Donations (Resolution) 22. Claims/Bills * City Attorney's Reports 23. Hazardous Property - 3907 Cherry Avenue Adjournment Upcoming Events 2016 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. 09/05 – City Hall Closed in Observance of Labor Day Holiday 09/06 – Park Commission Meeting, Tuesday 6:30 p.m. 09/12 – City Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 09/19 – Planning Commission Meeting, 7:00 p.m. (Council Liaison – Dennis Walsh) 09/26 – City Council Work Session, 5:00 p.m. 09/26 – City Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 27, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 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. Representative Staff were City Administrator Jessica Loftus, Finance Director Ron Olson, Senior Planner Michael Gaffron, City Planner Melanie Curtis, Public Works Director/City Engineer Adam Edwards, City Attorney Soren Mattick, and Recorder Jackie Young. Consulting City Engineer David Martini was present. Mayor McMillan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 1. CONSENT AGENDA Item Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, and 16 were added to the Consent Agenda. Printup moved, Walsh seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 13, 2016 Printup moved, Walsh seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of June 13, 2016, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PRESENTATION 3. 2015 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT PRESENTATION Michelle Hoffman, Clifton, Larson, Allen, was present. Hoffmann noted the audit provides reasonable but not absolute assurance of the City’s financial affairs and does not look at every single financial document. Two new accounting policies, GASB No. 68 and 71, were adopted in 2015 and require the City to record its proportionate share of the unfunded state administered pension plans: PERA and PEPFF. Hoffmann noted some of the items in the financial audit are estimates and include the useful life of capital assets, valuation of investments, post-employment benefits, and net pension liability. Hoffmann stated her firm received full cooperation from city administration and the financial department. Hoffmann stated they issued an unmodified, clean opinion on the City’s financial statements, which is the best opinion that can be issued. Hoffmann stated as far as internal controls, the same two internal controls were noted that have been found in the past and include preparation of financial statements and segregation of duties. Hoffmann stated those two items are common in smaller cities and that they would be willing to work with the City on the segregation of duties. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 27, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 3. 2015 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT PRESENTATION (continued) Hoffmann reported there was one exception noted related to the prompt payment of bills. Out of 25 disbursements selected for testing, three invoices were past the 30-day deadline. Hoffmann reviewed the City’s General Fund as it relates to the unreserved/unassigned fund balance for the past five years. Overall the General Fund unassigned increased in 2015 and is currently sitting at 16.5 percent of annual expenditures. This is an increase of $385,710 over 2014 and is primarily the result of higher than budgeted building related fees, which accounted for an additional $117,000. The City’s largest revenue source is property taxes, followed by user fees, licenses and permits, other revenues and intergovernmental transfers. The City also received additional revenue from the golf course and the police contract. Major General Fund expenditures have remained relatively consistent over the past few years, with slight increases noted in the categories of public safety, general government, and streets, but nothing of significance. Main expenditures include debt service and capital outlay, with a slight decrease in capital outlay in 2015. Hoffmann noted in 2014 the City had the police garage project, which had increased that category in 2014. As it relates to other government funds, these are used to account for revenue derived from specific revenue sources that are legally restricted to expenditures for specific purposes. There are two main categories – restricted and assigned. Hoffmann noted the restricted category increased a little bit from some transfers into the fund. Park dedication fees also increased from $50,000 in 2014 to $300,000 in 2015 as a result of the Lakeview development. Hoffmann noted all enterprise funds except for sewer increased slightly in 2015. Unrestricted includes the water fund, sewer fund, storm water fund, recycling and cable television. All enterprise funds experienced an increase in operating costs. Hoffmann noted the fees for the Metropolitan Council increased in 2015, which caused the operating income for the sewer fund to go down. Hoffmann reviewed the City’s debt service and noted that the debt service will go up slightly in 2016 and then down for two years. The City’s debt service is projected to go back up in 2019. As it relates to the City’s tax rate, Orono is one of the lowest compared to the statewide city average and neighboring cities. Other items included in the audit include the following: GASB 68 and 71 implemented in 2015, required Orono to report a net pension liability for their allocation of the state administered pension plans, PERA and PEPFF. Hoffmann stated it basically added several additional pages of footnote disclosures and supplementary information. Hoffmann noted a number of states have net pension liabilities and that the Government Accounting Standards Board wanted people to become more aware of that. Overall the State of Minnesota is fairly well off in regards to their unfunded pension liabilities compared to a number of other states. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 27, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 3. 2015 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT PRESENTATION (continued) Hoffmann noted Orono also received the GFOA Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for 2014 and that Orono should likely receive it again for 2015. McMillan thanked City Staff and the Financial Department for their good work over the years in managing the City’s finances. The City Council took no formal action on this item. 4. TOUR DE TONKA Tim Litfin, Minnetonka Community Education, addressed the City Council regarding the 2016 Tour de Tonka. This year’s event is scheduled for Saturday, August 6. Litfin stated there were 3,500 riders last year, with participation coming from 239 different communities, 36 Minnesota counties, 24 states, and four countries. This is an increase from 2014. Out of the top 40 participating communities, Orono ranked 30. The City of Minnetonka is ranked number one. The event also attracted riders ranging from 0 to 89 years old. To date, the Tour de Tonka has raised over $40,000 for the ICA Food Shelf. Participation has grown each of the first ten years, with the City of Minnetonka being the number one city for participation each year. In 2015, Tour de Tonka has coordinated and collaborated with 104 different police departments, fire departments, cities, counties, ambulance crews, security guard companies, parks, schools, vendors and sponsors. Tour de Tonka offers seven different ride distance options ranging from 15, 28, 40, 48, 57, 67 and 100 miles. Litfin noted Trinity Lutheran in Orono provides a wonderful rest stop for the riders. There were also approximately 20 volunteers from Orono, with 497 volunteers overall. Litfin displayed some pictures of the riders from the 2015 Tour de Tonka. McMillan asked how traffic is managed on County Road 6. Litfin indicated police are stationed at busy corners and intersections. Volunteers are also stationed at non-busy areas to direct the riders. Litfin stated they attempt to alert people about the event with letters, newspaper articles, email blasts, and signage. Litfin stated they do their best to get the word out. Walsh encouraged any interested residents to go to tourdetonka.org to register for the event. Walsh stated the registration fees run from $29 up to $65 for the 100-mile ride. Litfin stated riders can also register the morning of the event as well. 5. GILLESPIE CENTER Jeanne Brustad, Past President of the Gillespie Center, and Deb Taylor, CEO of Senior Community Services, were present. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 27, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 5. GILLESPIE CENTER (continued) Deb Taylor thanked the Orono City Council for their past support of the Gillespie Center and Senior Community Services. Taylor provided an overview of Gillespie’s 2017 budget. The total population in Orono has gone down from 2000 to 2010 but the number of 60-plus individuals has increased from 993 to 1558. This represents an increase of 8 percent. Senior Community Services include household and outside maintenance for elderly, senior partners care, senior outreach, Medicare and health insurance counseling, and senior centers. Household and outside maintenance for the elderly include homemaking, household repairs, painting, mowing and plowing, raking, window washing, yard clean-up, in-house safety assessments. Senior partners care enables seniors to get the medical care they need by bridging the financial gap between their medical bills and their Medicare coverage. Senior outreach and caregiver services include a licensed social worker who has an office at the Gillespie Center. The elderly also have the option to obtain Medicare and health insurance counseling with a licensed counselor who volunteers at the Gillespie Center. The counselor will meet one-on-one to help seniors and their caregivers to make the best choices for Medicare supplemental insurance options and Medicare Part D plans. Also available is an employee of the Senior Community Services who promotes life-long learning by providing educational, social and health programs to seniors and community members. Jeanne Brustad stated the Gillespie Center is a senior community center for elderly residents throughout the area. The Gillespie Center helps coordinate services for the seniors in the community but it also provides a place for other people to come and socialize. Research shows that an active senior center helps to reduce the risk of depression in elderly people and helps to slow down deterioration of cognitive skills that are needed to live independently. An active senior center also enhances social connectedness to the community. Seniors who are involved in the center have a better social, physical, spiritual, emotional, and mental wellbeing. Orono’s community garden produced fresh and delicious vegetables and helped to supplement the Meals- On-Wheels program as well as the meals served at the Gillespie Center. Brustad stated the community garden was a blessing to all. The volunteers took pride in delivering meals to the smiling faces of the recipients and the Gillespie Center was also able to save money on food costs and were able to serve fresh vegetables to a number of seniors. Another way the Gillespie Center helps the local residents is by partnering with the local police departments. In 2015, two drug forums were held, with hundreds of people attending each forum. Statewide speakers were featured at both evens. In addition, several nonprofit and other organizations use the Gillespie Center. Orono and Mound have a joint swim team and they hosted two banquets at the Gillespie Center. Orono Housing, LLC, held a meeting with 60 people attending. The Humana Medicare meeting had 25 people. The Gillespie Center also offers a number of activities for trips for its members. These activities can be on a bus as a group or simply provide an opportunity for members to attend. Past events have included a trip to Galewood Farms, various casinos, plays, and other places of interest. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 27, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 5. GILLESPIE CENTER (continued) The trips are usually well attended. In addition, the Gillespie Center has an active photography club; bridge, canasta, cribbage and 500 card clubs; dice games; farkle; a beading class; craft club; and knitting and crocheting clubs. The Gillespie Center has also added adult coloring this year, which has been gaining popularity with all age groups. A number of several exercise groups are also available at the Gillespie Center, including line dancing, yoga, two different exercise classes, and a Nordic walking group. There is also a small group of gardening volunteers that work around the center. The Westonka Gardening Guild is currently working on plans to organize the garden in the back of the center. One of the more popular activities at the Gillespie Center is the Gillespie Singers. This group puts together programs to entertain Gillespie members as well as other community members. The programs often have a theme. Brustad stated research also shows that it is important for all age groups to interact with each other. The Gillespie Center offers activities throughout the year that involve children, parents, and grandparents. These activities give people a chance to do fun activities with each other. The Gillespie Center also typically has at least one speaker every month, hosts authors of books, and offers blood pressure checks, foot care, and flu shots, which are also available to the entire community. The Gillespie Center also sponsored a golf tournament, which was one of several fundraising events. Brustad stated the Gillespie Center is also working on developing an endowment fund so the Gillespie Center will be able to be self-sufficient in the future and will be able to continue to provide services to the community. To accomplish this, several fundraisers are held, such as a golf tournament, hidden treasures, and a holiday boutique. Members also sell sweepstake tickets, lunches, and host many other evening activities in addition to selling script gift cards. The Gillespie Center is also rented out for weddings, birthdays, and other community activities. Brustad stated they currently have a fundraising committee that is presently working on new and innovative ideas to raise funds. Another service to the community at the Gillespie Center is the day-old bakery section. Volunteers drive to Cub Foods every morning seven days a week to pick up the day-old baked goods and bring them to the center. Brustad stated there are many people of all ages in the community that arrive early several days a week to pick up baked goods in exchange for a small donation. Brustad stated this service helps both members of the community and the Gillespie Center. The Gillespie Center also attempts to have collaborative activities with the various schools in community. These activities make it possible for several intergenerational activities to occur, which is healthy to both sides of the age spectrum. Orono students get to enjoy these activities also. Other activities include two quilting clubs, one of which donates quilts to WeCan, and Santa’s Hidden Treasures. This event allows children to go shopping for gifts for their family members. Volunteer high school students and parents help out at this event. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 27, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 5. GILLESPIE CENTER (continued) Brustad stated it is difficult to determine from each of the seven or more communities how many residents come from Orono, but that the Gillespie Center has attempted to calculate that number. In 2015, 50 Orono residents were served through Senior Community Services for various activities, 35 Orono residents are listed as paid members of the Gillespie Center, there are 25 Orono Meals-on-Wheels clients, and 1,411 meals were delivered. Brustad noted most of the programs offered by the Gillespie Center are free and open to the public and do not require registration or fees. Brustad indicated they have used a percentage of members to make some logical estimates of the number of Orono residents who have utilized the program. In 2015, there were 1,248 people who utilized the health services from Orono. Approximately 988 people throughout the year from Orono participated in educational events and programs; 1,293 people from Orono participated in recreational events and programs; and 44 people used the IRS Certified AARP tax preparation service. Brustad stated the Gillespie Center also volunteers at the Tour de Tonka Mound rest stop. Deb Taylor thanked the Orono City Council for their support over the years. Taylor noted in previous years the Gillespie Center received $19,000 from the City of Orono, which was decreased down to $9,500 the past several years. Taylor stated she would request that the City’s contribution remain at $9,500, and that she would like to thank the Council for helping them create an environment to help seniors live now and well into the future. Council Member Walsh stated he is one of the 35 Orono members and a golf course sponsor as well. Walsh commented he appreciates everything the Gillespie Center does. Walsh noted he spoke with Orono’s City Administrator about this a number of times and that he is becoming educated from a services perspective. Walsh stated a lot of cities provide senior services directly but Orono has the Gillespie Center and that they are one of the assets that help support the Orono community. Walsh stated he has also talked with Council Member Printup about this a number of times and that in his view it is important to support the Gillespie Center from a business and personal perspective because it helps enhance the local community good and allows citizens to stay in the area. Walsh stated he would be glad to support their mission and funding. Council Member Printup thanked Deb Taylor and Jeanne Brustad for their presentation. Printup stated it was the most thorough presentation they have ever had. McMillan stated she really appreciates all the work that has been done by the Gillespie Center and that she appreciates the update as well as the community forums that have been held. McMillan stated the Gillespie Center has been a very good asset to the community and that the Meals-on-Wheel program provides a great service. McMillan stated the City of Orono is very lucky to have the Gillespie Center available to its residents. Council Member Levang stated she is very familiar with the Gillespie Center and that she often sees the people having coffee, playing cards, or exercising or dancing. Levang stated the Gillespie Center is a wonderful organization and that Orono is very lucky to have it in their community. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 27, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 5. GILLESPIE CENTER (continued) Levang stated if Orono was to provide all these services, they would not be able to afford it and that they look to the Gillespie Center to do that. Levang stated the Gillespie Center has her commitment to continue to be their partner because they are a very valuable asset to the community. Levang noted Commissioner Jan Callison has stated that the greatest population growth being experienced is among seniors, and as they continue forward in time, Orono will have more and more seniors. Levang stated the City’s partnership with the Gillespie Center will be even more important as the years go by and that it needs to be a solid relationship. Levang stated she is very happy to support the funding that has been requested and that she would challenge the City Council to increase it. Diane Carlson, Orono resident, stated a year and a half ago she lost her husband and that she has been an Orono resident for 42 years. Carlson commented Orono is a wonderful community to be in and that she got involved with the Gillespie Center after the death of her husband, which was a Godsend for her. Carlson stated it got her out socializing with other people and that they serve a nice lunch. Carlson stated she would highly recommend people utilize this facility and that the Gillespie Center has been an inspiration to her. Printup recommended the Gillespie Center come back every year and present the information. The City Council took no formal action on this item. PUBLIC COMMENTS None PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER REPORT *6. WELL SITE #4 AWARD Printup moved, Walsh seconded, to award the Well #4 construction project to Traut Wells for $556,468, and to authorize Bolton & Menk to provide construction management services for a fee not to exceed $43,925. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *7. PARK MAINTENANCE CONTRACT WITH SENTENCE TO SERVICE (STS) Printup moved, Walsh seconded, to approve the contract with Hennepin County Sentence to Serve for park maintenance not to exceed $6,779.20. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *8. APPOINTMENT OF 2016 SEASONAL EMPLOYEES – UPDATE 4 Printup moved, Walsh seconded, to approve the hiring of Myron Larsen, seasonal employee. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 27, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT None PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT – Jon Schwingler, Representative *9. #15-3786 MOONEY LAKE PRESERVE – PRAIRIE VIEW LANE CONSTRUCTION, APPROVE REVISED COVENANTS AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Printup moved, Walsh seconded, to approve the Amendment to Development Contract, Second Amendment to Declaration of Covenants, and the Road Construction Agreement regarding Prairie View Lane. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 10. #16-3822 LAKEWEST DEVELOPMENT, 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD – PRELIMINARY PLAT 2ND REVIEW – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT: PRELIMINARY APPROVAL RESOLUTION – RESOLUTION NO. 6637 Senior Planner Gaffron stated before the City Council tonight is a comprehensive plan amendment for the former Eisenger property. In addition, the applicant is requesting preliminary plat review. Gaffron noted on May 9 the City Council voted 5-0 to table the application and directed Staff and applicant to follow up on three specific items: 1. Staff to review and confirm with the Metropolitan Council the status of Orono’s development density situation and provide data regarding the number of units required relative to this development in order to remain above the 3.00 units per acre threshold. 2. Developer and Staff to meet with Hennepin County representatives regarding the potential and conditions for a second access point. 3. Review plat and access with Fire Chief Van Eyll. Pursuant to Council direction, Staff communicated with Metropolitan Council staff and received clarification on their methods for calculating density relative to Comprehensive Plan Amendments. For the proposed 27-unit development, the Metropolitan Council’s calculation resulted in a reduction of Orono’s overall development density to 3.01 dwelling units per acre, which is still above the 3.00 threshold. The Metropolitan Council further noted that because the future multi-family site is not proposed to be developed at this time, it does not factor into the current equation. Even absent the multi- family development, Staff expects that the 27-unit Comprehensive Plan Amendment will be approved. Staff would recommend that the City Council direct Staff to research which other Orono sites might be suitable for re-guiding for higher density to replenish the density offset and discuss the density options at a future meeting. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 27, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 10. #16-3822 LAKEWEST DEVELOPMENT, 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD – PRELIMINARY PLAT 2ND REVIEW – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT: PRELIMINARY APPROVAL RESOLUTION – RESOLUTION NO. 6637 (continued) Staff met with Fire Chief Van Eyll on May 13. His comments on the preliminary plat drawings include the following: 1. Two access points would be preferred, if possible. 2. If only one access point is allowed, the Fire Chief would prefer the hammerhead as depicted, finding that the cul-de-sac is more difficult to maneuver for large fire emergency vehicles. 3. With either hammerhead or cul-de-sac, the Fire Chief would like drivable ‘emergency only’ accessibility to be developed at that location, with some sort of a drivable base and breakaway or removable barriers which would be necessary to allow access if they are fighting a fire mid-block. 4. The Fire Chief has concerns about the private road and that his experience is that mediocre winter maintenance results in less than desired emergency accessibility. 5. The Fire Chief is willing to reduce the number of hydrants required if each dwelling unit has fire suppression sprinklers. 6. A looping water system would be desirable but appears difficult at this location. 7. A 32-foot wide paved road would be preferred over 28 feet. If the road is to be 28 feet wide, the Fire Chief would recommend that on-street parking be limited to one side. Gaffron stated given the initial comments from Hennepin County and the Fire Chief, and lacking County comment on the revised proposal, Staff has not prepared a resolution for concept plan and preliminary plat approval at this time. Staff does recommend adoption of the draft resolution granting preliminary approval for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, directing that the amendment, Comprehensive Plan Amendment application and appropriate attachments be forwarded to the Metropolitan Council for their review as soon as possible. Walsh stated on the first page of the staff memo under Met Council density review, it states that the Metropolitan Council noted since the future multi-family site is not proposed to be developed at this time, it does not factor into the current equation. Walsh asked if the City’s guiding of land is not factored in at all. Gaffron stated there is potential for a future multi-family development to be built in the landfill area, which will have to be mitigated. At this point the area being re-guided does not include that. If the developer were to say that they need two acres to build 20 units, that would be 10-unit per acre density, which would be useful in the future as a potential for solving the density. Walsh asked if it is not included because it is not being developed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 27, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 10. #16-3822 LAKEWEST DEVELOPMENT, 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD – PRELIMINARY PLAT 2ND REVIEW – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT: PRELIMINARY APPROVAL RESOLUTION – RESOLUTION NO. 6637 (continued) Gaffron stated the entire site was guided based on five acres at approximately 10 to 15 units per acre. The Metropolitan Council has on its book essentially a 50-unit development on this site. Walsh asked if it is guided for 10 to 15 units, whether that would increase the 3.0 unit density number. McMillan noted it is not included now. Gaffron stated it is difficult for the Metropolitan Council to accept the City’s guiding on a piece of land that is currently not developable and requires mitigation. Walsh asked if the City should give some guiding for that piece of land so future homeowners will know what will potentially be on that piece of property. McMillan stated there are a lot of unknowns at this time given the fact that it is a former landfill site. Gaffron stated it would be necessary to make sure that the people who live here understand the potential development in the future and that the road does not just end here for no reason. Gaffron stated that potential would need to be incorporated into the documents in some manner. Walsh commented that appears to be a good middle ground solution since in the future that could be a high-density property. McMillan noted the fire chief recommends a 32-foot wide road, and if it is only 28 feet wide, he would suggest on-street parking be limited to one side. McMillan stated the City Council does not need to deal with that this evening since it would be part of the preliminary plat review. Gaffron stated widening the road would impact how close the homes are to the road. McMillan noted this development is five units per acre. Walsh asked if there is a sidewalk. Gaffron indicated at this point no sidewalk is proposed and that the road width is 28 feet from back of curb to back of curb. Gaffron stated adding two feet on either side of the road would result in two feet being taken off of each driveway. Because of how the driveways are situated, there is room for maybe one car between driveways. Gaffron stated the lots are narrow and individual driveways are pretty uniform in the gaps between them. McMillan asked if the City should consider a future second access in the event anything is developed on the landfill site. Gaffron stated if it is possible at all, it should be made accessible for emergency vehicles. McMillan stated in her view a second access should be planned for in the event the landfill site is ever developed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 27, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11 10. #16-3822 LAKEWEST DEVELOPMENT, 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD – PRELIMINARY PLAT 2ND REVIEW – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT: PRELIMINARY APPROVAL RESOLUTION – RESOLUTION NO. 6637 (continued) Gaffron commented it may be difficult to convince Hennepin County to allow a second access point but that they did understand there is the potential for future expansion in this area. Levang asked if the Fire Chief was more specific about the parking. Gaffron indicated he was not. Gaffron stated the cul-de-sacs have an 80-foot paved diameter and that the Fire Chief likes the ability to have the hammerheads. Gaffron stated the problem with not having a second access is that if there is a fire in the middle of the development, people on the one side will not have the opportunity to get out of the site. Gaffron noted the City is planning on extending water service down Highway 12, but that there is not an easy way to loop the system and that they will end up with some dead-end situations with the water system. Gaffron stated it is not impossible to do it and that he is expecting there will be enough pressure in the water system to have sprinkler systems. Gaffron suggested the Council discuss with the developer whether they plan to have sprinkler systems in the individual homes. Walsh commented the developer probably will not do that given the cost. Walsh stated he was wondering how many fire hydrants would be needed if the homes were not sprinkled. Gaffron indicated it would probably be in the range of 5-6 and that even if the homes were sprinkled, it likely would only reduce it to four. Printup asked if there have been any comments from the public in the past about hammerheads versus cul-de-sacs. Gaffron stated there have not been. Gaffron noted the City has been advocating for cul-de-sacs for the last four decades and that they have not really had any pushback from anybody on having a cul-de-sac versus a hammerhead. Gaffron stated hammerheads are more efficient for fire vehicles. Printup stated he likes the idea of requesting a second access. Gaffron stated Staff and the applicant have not given up on that but that he is not sure whether they will be successful in making that request with Hennepin County. Curt Fretham, Lakewest Development, indicated he is here to answer any questions. Walsh asked if the additional survey work has been performed. Fretham indicated they have performed additional survey work and that the most recent comments they received from Hennepin County was that they wanted to send someone from their staff out there to do a review. Fretham stated the current access meets the County’s minimum standards. McMillan asked if this plan has received the County’s 100 percent blessing. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 27, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 12 10. #16-3822 LAKEWEST DEVELOPMENT, 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD – PRELIMINARY PLAT 2ND REVIEW – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT: PRELIMINARY APPROVAL RESOLUTION – RESOLUTION NO. 6637 (continued) Fretham indicated it has not. Levang asked how he feels about the sprinkling. Fretham stated he has not really thought about it and that it came as kind of a surprise tonight. Fretham commented he knows people have lots of great ideas, and that if everybody is doing it, that’s great, but because they are doing detached single-family homes, putting in a $15,000 sprinkler system in each home would make it hard to compete. Fretham stated if they are the only one doing it, it becomes a handicap. Walsh asked what his thoughts are about the Fire Chief’s comments. Fretham stated he is not bothered by the parking on only one side. Fretham indicated he is not sure whether they can make the extra four feet work but that they will look at that. McMillan asked if the south buildings could be shifted further south. Fretham indicated they might be able to move the homes further south but that they were attempting to avoid retaining walls near the wetland. Fretham stated by putting retaining walls there, they might be able to gain the extra two feet. Levang moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. , a Resolution Granting Preliminary Approval of Amendment No. 5 of the Orono 2008-2030 Community Management Plan for 3245 Wayzata Boulevard West, File No. 16-3822. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 11. #16-3830 ZEHNDER HOMES, INC., 1255 DICKENSON STREET, VARIANCES – RESOLUTION NO. 6638 Gaffron noted at the June 13 meeting the Council voted 2-1 to approve the requested variances as requested. Staff has prepared a resolution approving variances to lot area, lot width, front setback, side setback, side street setback, and structural coverage for construction of a new residence on the property. Levang stated she would like to hear the motion. Walsh moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6638, a Resolution Granting Variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-420 and 78-1403 for Property Located at 1255 Dickenson Street, File No. 16-3830. McMillan stated since she was not at the meeting when this was approved, she likely will not be voting on the resolution. City Attorney Mattick noted the variances have already been approved by the nature of the 2-1 vote at the last meeting. State law says once a City Council has approved or denied something, written findings need to be prepared showing the logic behind granting the variances. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 27, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 13 11. #16-3830 ZEHNDER HOMES, INC., 1255 DICKENSON STREET, VARIANCES – RESOLUTION NO. 6638 (continued) Mattick stated if the findings are not approved, the City runs the risk of something being automatically approved without any findings or conditions and that the findings help solidify the conditions that were imposed at least in the staff report. McMillan stated she wanted to make the clarification that it is counter to how she would have made the decision. Mattick noted the resolution is basically a reflection of what happened at the previous City Council meeting. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Levang Opposed. 12. #16-3842 ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 425-595 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH – FINAL PLAT REVIEW – ORONO PRESERVE – ADOPT FINAL PLAN APPROVAL RESOLUTION AND RELATED DOCUMENTS – RESOLUTION NO. 6639 & 6636 AND ORDINANCE NOS. 174 Gaffron stated before the City Council tonight are a number of documents regarding the proposed development and the final plat for Orono Preserve. The applicant is proposing 39 lots at the northwest corner of Wayzata Boulevard and Old Crystal Bay Road. The Council should be aware of the following: 1. The Watershed final approval is something the City does not have in hand at this point. Staff has been advised that they are pending and have been received by MCWD staff. Gaffron stated there potentially some minor tweaks that will need to be made to the documents. 2. The City Engineer has reviewed the plans with regard to the final plat, street signage, and pavement markings, grading and erosion control, sanitary sewer and water main installation, storm sewers and stormwater management, landscaping, and other general items. His comments will be incorporated into the Development Agreement. 3. A slightly revised plan regarding the side setbacks has been submitted. Lot 1, Block 1, and Lot 16, Block 4, have an increased setback to the adjacent Dumas property. 4. No homeowners association being proposed but a stormwater facilities maintenance agreement will be required. Gaffron stated typically the City does not want to have the obligation for maintenance of stormwater ponds within a development and that the Applicant is working towards a covenant that puts the onus on the homeowners through a homeowners association strictly for management of the ponds. Access to the stormwater pond in Lots 1, 2, and 3 of Block 4 will be documents and two bio-retention basins abut the public road for easy maintenance access. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 27, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 14 12. #16-3842 ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 425-595 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH – FINAL PLAT REVIEW – ORONO PRESERVE – ADOPT FINAL PLAN APPROVAL RESOLUTION AND RELATED DOCUMENTS – RESOLUTION NO. 6639 & 6636 AND ORDINANCE NOS. 174 (continued) 5. The proposed road names are as follows: Wood Duck Trail, Bluestem Way, Sandhill Drive, and Goldenrod Way. These have been checked by the Police Department and no conflicts with neighboring cities have been found. 6. The applicants will submit draft covenants for the development addressing individual property rights, responsibilities and limitations, for City Attorney review. Topics anticipated to be include, among others, perimeter fencing, stormwater system, maintenance, accessory structures, parking, future extension of roads to be expected, etc. Certain of these items have also been addressed in the draft development contract. Gaffron displayed the City’s wetland map. Gaffron noted there is a small wetland that will need to be filled as part of the development process and that the applicant is currently mitigating that with wetland credits, which appears to be acceptable to the Watershed District. Walsh stated it is a public road and Orono will be responsible for the plowing of the roads. Walsh asked who will be responsible for the sidewalks. Gaffron indicated the development agreement states that the individual homeowners are responsible for shoveling their individual properties. Tom Gonyea, Estate Development, stated the assumption is that everyone will handle their own snow. Walsh noted the developer would be responsible for the shoveling on those lots that are not sold. Gaffron stated also in the ordinance is language that states that any lots that are unsold need to be maintained. Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to adopt the following: RESOLUTION NO. 6639 , a Resolution Granting General Development Plan Approval for Planned Unit Development No. 11 for Estate Development Corporation and Approving the Plat of Orono Preserve, subject to Staff and City Attorney confirmation of satisfactory completion of all required final submittals and documents. ORDINANCE NO. 174 , Third Series, an Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code of Orono and Amending the Official Zoning Map by Rezoning Certain Properties from RR-1B Single-Family Rural Residential District to RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development District, subject to Staff and City Attorney confirmation of satisfactory completion of all required final submittals and documents. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 27, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 15 12. #16-3842 ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 425-595 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH – FINAL PLAT REVIEW – ORONO PRESERVE – ADOPT FINAL PLAN APPROVAL RESOLUTION AND RELATED DOCUMENTS – RESOLUTION NO. 6639 & 6636 AND ORDINANCE NO. 174 (continued) RESOLUTION NO. 6636, a Resolution Approving Amendment No. 4 of the 2008-2030 City of Orono Community Management Plan, subject to Staff and City Attorney confirmation of satisfactory completion of all required final submittals and documents. ORDINANCE NO. 172, Third Series, an Ordinance Amending the Official City Wetland Map per Municipal Code Section 78-1609, subject to Staff and City Attorney confirmation of satisfactory completion of all required final submittals and documents and a Summary of ORDINANCE NO. 172, Third Series, Amending the Official City Wetland Map per Municipal Code Section 78-1609, subject to Staff and City Attorney confirmation of satisfactory completion of all required final submittals and documents. To authorize the execution of Development Contract and Residential Planned Unit Development Agreement (PUD No. 11), Orono Preserve, subject to Staff and City Attorney confirmation of satisfactory completion of all required final submittals and documents. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 13. #16-3815 HALF STORY DEFINITION/MASSING REGULATIONS – ORDINANCE AND SUMMARY ORDINANCE – ORDINANCE NO. 173 City Planner Curtis stated at the June 13 meeting, the City Council reviewed two options presented for simplifying the City’s current massing regulations. At that time the Council discussed and directed Staff to draft an ordinance reflecting Option 1, which removes the number of stories limitation, preserves the maximum height limitation as it is currently calculated at 30 feet, and preserves the 15 percent structural footprint maximum limit for lots under two acres. The ordinance also deletes the definitions of basement and basement walkout, half story and story. The recent ordinance regarding “Existing Grade” was adopted on June 13, 2016, and provides direction on the use of existing or engineered grade for measurement of building height. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance and summary ordinance as drafted. The summary ordinance is prepared to save on publishing costs. Tonight the City Council should consider adopting or amending the two ordinances presented. McMillan asked if technically a house could have four stories. Curtis stated that is correct but that there are certain building requirements for habitable space for each story. McMillan asked if Staff is comfortable with the City’s 30-foot building height limitation. Curtis indicated it was not discussed or brought up that anyone was uncomfortable with the 30-foot limitation. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 27, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 16 13. #16-3815 HALF STORY DEFINITION/MASSING REGULATIONS – ORDINANCE AND SUMMARY ORDINANCE – ORDINANCE NO. 173 (continued) McMillan stated she is thinking more about how it is measured. Walsh noted that is not changing and that simply the half-story definition is being eliminated. McMillan commented she knows there has been some discussion regarding the height issue in the past and that she did not know if Staff and the Council are comfortable with the 30-foot limitation. Curtis stated the requirement for height of the stories will keep the height down and that the basement will still need to be in the ground a certain distance. Curtis indicated Staff will still measure the total height of the building the same way. McMillan noted the restriction on the number of stories acted as a cap and that they now could potentially have taller houses. Curtis stated they are still measuring from existing grade. Gaffron stated keeping some of the limits on roof height in place will keep the height of the homes down and that the new ordinance will make it easier for builders, homeowners and Staff to understand. Kelly Olson, 3470 North Shore Drive, stated her concern is with the structural maximum. Olson stated on her lot, there is an easement over the lot for the driveway that is not covered in the total square footage of the lot. Olson stated that leaves them with the 15 percent limit but that their lot is under 10,000 square feet. Olson stated if someone has a standard three-car garage, which is 700 square feet, which only leaves 800 square feet for the main level. Olson commented she is not sure whether there is any wiggle room there when the garage is taken into consideration and the hardcover requirements are met. Walsh stated that is more of a larger conversation and that the City Council will be talking about the 15 percent and whether it is needed. Walsh stated in his view the property owner should meet the hardcover requirements and the structural coverage limit should go away. Walsh stated that is a discussion the City Council will be having and that he perceives a small lot as a hardship. McMillan stated they will not be able to give her an answer on that tonight. Levang moved, Printup seconded, to adopt ORDINANCE NO.173 , Third Series, and Summary of No. 173, an Ordinance Amending the Orono Municipal Code by Amending Sections 78-1; 78-230; 78-255; 78-305; 78-330; 78-350; 78-370; 78-395; 78-420; 78-572; 78-646; 78-672; 78-707; 78-736; 78- 766; 78-797; 78-825, Regarding Limitations on Number of Stories and Definitions of Basement, Walkout Basement, Half Story, and Story. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 27, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 17 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Mayor McMillan stated she would like to comment on some of the civil discourse that has been going on among the City Council Members. McMillan stated it seems that the Council has been struggling for the past 18 months on some issues and that she has been hoping as the mayor that the Council could self- correct or have some self-awareness of what is going on but that has not been happening. McMillan stated since that has not occurred, she will be taking a more active role to make sure the discourse among the Council Members is civil and that personal attacks are stopped. McMillan stated she will be trying to anticipate this happening and that she will apologize ahead of time if she cuts anybody off. McMillan stated she will only cut somebody off if she thinks the speech is turning uncivil. McMillan stated some of the helpful guidelines that she will be looking for is limited cross talk between Council Members and being well-intentioned and respectful when you address a fellow Council Member. McMillan stated some examples are, Mayor McMillan, could you explain what you mean by this or that or, Mayor McMillan, what did prior Councils do and what is the history of that issue. McMillan requested that everyone say what they want to say in a nice tone and respectfully rather than attempting to find something to trip someone up on. McMillan stated another guideline is to do not judge or criticize fellow Council Members and speak only about your own personal decisions. McMillan requested the Council not reference other Council Members’ opinions. An example of what not to say would be, I do not agree with Mayor McMillan’s flawed decision making. McMillan stated while her decision may be different from someone else’s that does not necessarily mean it is flawed. McMillan requested the Council also not infer or inject what other Council Members might be thinking in their decision. McMillan stated an example of that would be saying that Mayor McMillan does not want this or she might be fearful. McMillan stated the citizens of Orono can decide for themselves on how the Council voted and that she wants every Council Member to be able to say that they believe in this or that or apply the Code in a certain way. McMillan requested the Council also refrain from making inappropriate or sideway comments to disrespect fellow Council Members. McMillan noted all Council Members are volunteering their time as well as spending time away from their families and that the last thing they need is for someone to make a sideways jab. McMillan stated that is not appropriate and Orono citizens do not want their Council Members behaving like that. McMillan stated all of these things apply to interactions with Staff and public. McMillan stated she will be trying to error on the side of anticipating, and that if she cuts someone off, it is because she does not want to go down the path that the Council has been going down recently. McMillan encouraged the Council to set their personal ambitions aside to serve the citizens of Orono. McMillan stated if a Council Members needs to temporarily leave the dais in the middle of a meeting, she would ask that the person publicly say that they would like to be excused. McMillan requested any Council Member that would like a break or leave the meeting to formally state that instead of getting up and walking out. McMillan stated if the meetings go long or past 9:00, she will try to schedule a recess and that she would like everyone to get back to their seats right away. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 27, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 18 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT (continued) McMillan further requested the Council to try not to engage the public when they leave the dais during the middle of a meeting in order to be 100 percent transparent. McMillan stated the Council should be doing all of their talking with the public during the meeting. McMillan stated when the meeting starts at 7:00, everyone should be up at the dais unless there is a personal reason for leaving. McMillan stated hopefully the Council can get back on track. McMillan commented that the flag banners in Navarre look great and that the sheriff’s dock has been installed on County Road 15. McMillan noted she had a couple of citizens on the northern shore of Long Lake call her at the end of May, the first part of June, and that they scheduled a meeting with the Watershed District that they wanted her to attend regarding the poor water quality of Long Lake. The Watershed District indicated it could be the early ice-out or the storms in 2014 that pushed a lot of nutrients into the lake and surrounding water bodies. McMillan stated the citizens are concerned about the water quality and that they are looking at perhaps starting a lake association. McMillan reported MnDOT has installed the LED lights along Highway 12, along with work occurring out in Independence. MnDOT will start work on the left turn lanes for the County Road 92 intersection later this summer and that MnDOT was able to secure the funding for the median barrier near the Long Lake bypass. McMillan stated MnDOT is very attentive to the traffic safety issues on Highway 12 and that they are reaching out and trying to improve the situation despite the funding bill not being passed. McMillan noted a couple of months ago she was asked about Orono being selected as one of the cities in the MPLS-St. Paul Magazine Newcomers Guide. That article came out approximately two weeks ago and that it has a little write-up on some of Orono’s highlights. McMillan commented it was a nice two- page article. Printup stated he had nothing to report. Levang noted she was the City Council liaison at the last Planning Commission meeting. Levang reported the City newsletter will be out early in July and that they are already planning for the fall newsletter, which will come out the end of September. Levang stated she has been receiving a lot of positive comments about Livingston Park and that everyone should be proud of what they were able to accomplish. Levang commented Livingston Park is a wonderful asset. Cornick stated he would pledge to abide by the Mayor’s guidelines and that he hopes other Council Members will as well. Walsh stated he also attended the last Planning Commission meeting and that they did a good job as usual at their last meeting. Walsh stated the Planning Department discussed Lurton Park at their meeting and that there likely will be some changes that will be really good as a result of that discussion. Walsh stated he hopes Staff will have that application before the City Council soon. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 27, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 19 CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 14. HENNEPIN COUNTY ASSESSING AGREEMENT Loftus stated the City’s agreement with Hennepin County to perform assessing services is set to expire soon. In April of this year, the Council had a presentation from the Hennepin County Assessor’s Office as well as had an opportunity to discuss this at their May work session. Loftus stated the item in front of the Council this evening for consideration is a 4-year contract at a cost of $172,000 for 2017. Staff recommends approval of the agreement. Walsh stated the reason he took it off the Consent Agenda is that he does not see a reason to do more than a 1-year agreement with Hennepin County since a longer agreement would preclude the City from having the opportunity to look at other vendors as they become available. Walsh stated this might be a really good opportunity to look at other options and perhaps save some money. Walsh stated by entering into a 4-year contract, the City precludes other options being pursued, and that there is no financial incentive for the City to do more than one year at a time. McMillan noted a representative from the Hennepin County Assessor’s Office is not here to address this tonight and that they do make investments in hiring assessing staff. Loftus stated it is promising to have new businesses enter this field but that of the ones that exist right now, she is not sure that a 1-year track record would make her more comfortable to go with them. Loftus indicated she would prefer over a two year track record. Loftus stated since the Council last met, she was informed by the new company that they have secured a contract with the City of Greenwood, which would provide Lake Minnetonka experience, and that perhaps Orono could look at contacting them a couple of years down the road. Levang stated she would like to go along with Staff’s recommendation and that it is a good agreement and a good department to be working with. Levang stated there are advantages to working with Hennepin County and that the Council needs to be extremely careful about the people who enter Orono residents’ homes. Levang stated in a few years the City could take the time to look at something else or they can put this out as an RFP. Levang stated since there is a cost associated with the RFP process, she would rather not do that every year or two years and that perhaps it could be a 4-year rotation. Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the Hennepin County Assessing Agreement. McMillan stated when she became Mayor, she looked at a number of their assessments and they were close to the market. McMillan stated the Hennepin County Assessor’s Office provides a good service and that they do have to hire people based on their agreements and that she would hate to check up on them every year or leave them in limbo. McMillan stated in her view four years is okay for the term of the agreement. Printup asked if in the past it has been on a 4-year rotation. Loftus indicated it has been. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 27, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 20 14. HENNEPIN COUNTY ASSESSING AGREEMENT (continued) Cornick stated he is good with the agreement but that he does not want Staff to forget the commitment they made to store their records elsewhere. Loftus stated they are making progress in moving the files. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Walsh opposed. *15. GOLF COURSE DONATIONS – RESOLUTION NO. 6640 Printup moved, Walsh seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6640, a Resolution to Accept Golf Course Donations. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *16. LICENSES & PERMITS Commercial Kennel Licenses 1. The Woofington 3596 Shoreline Drive Printup moved, Walsh seconded, to approve the above-listed license. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *17. CLAIMS/BILLS Printup moved, Walsh seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT, CONTINUED City Administrator Loftus noted absentee ballots are available through August 8 for the primary, which will be held on August 9. Loftus stated council seats will be on the general election ballot on November 8 and interested residents can file for candidacy from August 2 to August 16. Loftus reported the City received the LMCD’s final budget last week and that Orono’s contribution will increase 4.7 percent or $2,372. Loftus stated she and Adam Edwards have been asked by the City of Spring Park to provide short-term emergency call coverage while they are recruiting for their Public Works position. Loftus noted the City has also had a long-standing agreement with Minnetonka Beach. Loftus stated short-term was defined as 90 days and that Staff will be helping them with any emergencies that might occur. Loftus stated there is also a possibility that Spring Park might ask Orono to provide a cost on providing routine maintenance for them. Loftus stated she is not sure if the City is interested in that at this point but that it is something to consider. Spring Park is meeting with some private contractors as well. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 27, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 21 CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT City Attorney Mattick reported there has recently been a ruling by the MN Supreme Court that has led to the variance standard changing. Previous to this decision there has not been a case that covered practical difficulties. Mattick stated Orono still does a lot of variances as compared to other cities and asked whether the Council feels it would make sense to talk about practical difficulties and what constitutes a practical difficulty at a future work session. McMillan stated it might be hard to get a joint work session together. Mattick stated a minimum of a half hour to an hour would be required. McMillan suggested perhaps doing it before a Council meeting. McMillan requested each Council Member let the City Administrator know what they feel about the training. ADJOURNMENT Levang moved, Printup seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 9:06 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ATTEST: ___________________________________ _______________________________________ Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION June 27, 2016 4:00 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, Police Chief Correy Farniok, Police Sergeant Scott Boris, and City Clerk Diane Tiegs. The Council met at 4:00 p.m. to interview four firms for consideration as the City’s prosecuting attorney. • Carson, Clelland & Schreder • Kenneth Potts, P.A. • Gregerson, Rosow, Johnson & Nilan, Ltd. • Tallen and Baertschi Council directed staff to prepare an agenda item for action on the City’s prosecuting attorney at the July 11, 2016 Council meeting. Council discussed the 2017 Budget line items and priorities. The tax levy, wages, and insurance were items for discussion. Staff will draft the preliminary budget for Council review at the July 25 work session. The meeting closed at 6:55 p.m. ATTEST: _________________________________ _____________________________________ Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July 11, 2016 ITEM NO: 4 _____________________________________________________________________________________ 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 Street Maintenance Crack Sealing _____________________________________________________________________________________ List of Exhibits A- Project Area 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain Council approval for the 2016 Streets Maintenance Crack Sealing project. 2. Background. Crack sealing is a routine preventive road maintenance process. 3. Project Scope. The identified streets shall have their cracks routed, cleaned and sealed. Spot sealing will be required on areas with a concentration of small cracks. (See Exhibit A) 4. Cost. Public Works solicited quotes from nine contractors and received quotes from two contractors for crack sealing. A summary of the quotes received is in the table below. The lowest quote was from Allied Paving for $35,842.22. Company Quote Allied Blacktop Company $ 35,842.22 ACI $ 51,191.67 5. Funding. The project will be funded from the pavement management fund. 6. Timing. The project will take place later this summer. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to authorize Allied Blacktop Company to complete the 2016 Street Maintenance crack sealing project for $ 35,842.22. Exhibit A- Crack Sealing Streets for 2016 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July 11, 2016 ITEM NO: 5 _____________________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Adam Edwards JML Public Works Director/ Title Public Works Director/City Engineer City Engineer’s Report ____________________________________________________________________________________ Item Description: Brown Road Trail Rehabilitation ____________________________________________________________________________________ List of Exhibits A. Bid Summary B. Bolton and Menk Proposal 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain Council approval for award of the rehabilitation of the trail that runs along the west side of Brown Road North. 2. Background. The rehabilitation of the Brown Road trail is part of the City Pavement Management Plan and is listed for 2016 in the Capital Investment Plan (CIP). In December of 2015 the Council approved the Bolton and Menk proposal to conduct surveying and engineering from the project. Over the last month Bolton and Menk solicited and received quotes for the project. 3. Scope of Work. This project will rehabilitate the 0.7 miles bituminous trail that runs along Brown Road North. Rehabilitation will include a combination of patching, replacing, and sealing the pavement. In addition the retaining wall along section the trail will be rehabilitated by salvaging existing blocks and correcting/adding geogrid and reinstalling the block on portions of two walls leaning into the trail. 4. Cost. Quotes for the pavement work and retaining wall work were solicited separately. The low quote for the pavement rehabilitation was from Bituminous Roadways for $35,650. The low Quote for the retaining wall work was from for $12,115. 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 $5,300 Not to exceed. Previously approved Bituminous Roadways Trail Rehabilitation $35,650 Pending approval Advanced Wall Structures Retaining Wall Rehabilitation $12,115 Pending approval Bolton &Menk, Inc $4,500 Pending approval TOTAL $52,318 5. Funding. The project will be funded from the Park Fund. Fund Total CIP Estimate Est. End of Year Fund Balance Park Fund $ 52,318 $ 61,088 $594,723 Total $ 52,318 7. Timing. Construction- summer 2016. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to award the Brown Road Trail rehabilitation project to Bituminous Roadways for $35,650 and Advanced Wall Structures for $12,115. In addition to Authorize Bolton and Menk to provide construction oversight services for an amount not to exceed $4,500. Exhibit A. Bid Tabulation Brown Road Trail Rehabilitation Retaining Wall Rehabilitation July 5, 2016 City of Orono Attn: Adam Edwards PO Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 RE: Brown Road Trail Construction Phase Services Dear Adam, As requested, we have prepared a scope of services and estimated fee for the construction phase of the Brown Road Trail Improvements Project. Scope of Services Public Coordination/Communications Bolton & Menk is committed to supporting the coordination requirements of this project with qualified staff and will proactively engage affected property owners and the general public with timely and accurate information. Construction Observation Part time construction observation will be provided. Duties of the Construction Observer will include the following: Attendance at the pre-construction meeting and all construction-related meetings Serve as a liaison between the City and the contractor Review of the completed work to determine if the project is in general conformance with the plans and specifications Maintenance of construction documentation Communication with affected property owners, as necessary, to address their construction-related concerns and issues Construction Administration Construction administration duties will include the following: Administering a pre-construction meeting Administering project meetings Preparation of pay estimates Contractor Communications Liaison with City Staff and Council Brown Road Trail Improvements July 5, 2016 Page 2 Fee Estimate Based on the scope of services described above, we propose a not-to-exceed fee of $4,500 to be billed on an hourly basis. Please let me know if you have questions or need additional information. Sincerely, BOLTON & MENK, INC. David P. Martini, P.E. Principal Engineer MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 20, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 10. #16-3840 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT: TEMPORARY FAMILY HEALTH CARE DWELLINGS, 8:40 P.M. – 8:49 P.M. Barnhart stated during the 2016 Legislative session, the Minnesota legislature enacted a law allowing “temporary family health care dwellings” in Minnesota. These dwellings are 300 square feet, usually on a trailer, that are connected to the houses’ electivity and water sources, contain a sewage tank for pumping and can be placed anywhere on the property. The legislature noted that these drop houses provide a viable housing option for patients needing care provided by others but not necessarily in a hospital or nursing facility. The statute allows a city to opt-out of the requirements of this statute. To alleviate possible confusion and to avoid situations where a property owner may place a temporary family health care dwelling as a guest house, the proposed ordinance opts out of the statute. Staff recommends approval of the text amendment. Barnhart noted this was not on the City’s list of priorities but it was identified by the Council in early May that this should be moved to the top of the list prior to the statute becoming effective in September. Schoenzeit asked if it is like a blood mobile or a library mobile. Barnhart stated there is actually a company out there that provides this service. The dwelling basically consists of 300 square feet with a holding tank for the septic. The dwelling can be hooked up to water and electricity from the main house and is essentially an addition that is parked in the yard. Thiesse asked if this is something the City might want to allow. Thiesse stated he can understand the concern about maintaining some control over it but that it might be something the City would want to discuss a little bit more. Barnhart stated the mobile dwellings are designed to provide avenues for people to get healthcare and that Mr. Thiesse raises a very valid point. Barnhart noted the City’s ordinance already prohibits it and that he did not want to have an ordinance that prohibits it and then have a statute that allows it. Barnhart stated Council Exhibit C 16-3840 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 20, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 the purpose of the text amendment is to clarify it and that perhaps later in the year the City can discuss it further. Leskinen stated adopting this does not shut the door on it permanently but simply just clarifies what is already on the books. Leskinen stated the City could choose to allow it at some point. Barnhart stated in his view it would be worthwhile to revisit it. Lemke asked what the definition is of a guest house and whether a trailer would be considered a guest house. Barnhart stated a trailer is specifically listed as those that are not allowed for dwelling units. Curtis stated the definition of a guest house is an accessory separate dwelling constructed on an existing undivided lot for the sole use of the occupants, including their domestic employees or the nonpaying guests of the primary dwelling. All regular lot requirements will be met by the guest house. Barnhart stated under 1372 in the draft ordinance it says: no cellar, basement, tent or accessory building shall at any time be used as an occupied building. Barnhart indicated he added the words “unless otherwise approved as a guest house.” Barnhart stated the City allows guest houses as an accessory building and a tent and a trailer are expressly listed as those that are not appropriate for a dwelling. Planning Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as drafted. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. Leskinen moved, Olson seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3840, City of Orono, Text Amendment, Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July 11, 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: Stormwater Pond Assessment ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ List of Exhibits A- Bolton & Menk, Inc. Proposal 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain Council authorization for Bolton and Menk to conduct a stormwater pond assessment for the Long Lake and Tanager Lake sub watersheds. 2. Background. In order to maintain compliance with the MS4 permit one of the action items in the City’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan is to develop a Pond Assessment Program. The plan covers the years of the MS4 permit (2015-2020) and calls for a deliberate process of gathering/ verifying current data on our ponds and then using that data to determine their effectiveness in removing total phosphorus (TP) and total suspended solids (TSS) from our storm water. To complete the process we divided the city into its various sub-watersheds with the goal of completing the assessment of a couple sub watersheds per year. 3. Scope of Work. Assess the stormwater ponds in the Long Lake (LL) and Tanager Lake (TL) Sub watersheds to include the delineation of their watersheds, determination of pond watershed characteristics and the characteristics of the ponds themselves. 4. Cost. Bolton and Menk provided a not to exceed estimate of $9,900 for the assessment (Exhibit A) 5. Funding. The assessment will be funded by the Storm Water Fund. Fund Project Total CIP Programed amount EOY 2016 Est. Fund Balance Storm Water Fund NTE $ 9,900 $ 10,000 $ 1,077,861 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to authorize Bolton and Menk to complete the assessment of Stormwater ponds in the Long Lake and Tanager Lake Sub watersheds. June 20, 2016 City of Orono Attn: Adam Edwards PO Box 66 Orono, Mn 55323 RE: Stormwater Pond Assessment Dear Adam: As requested, we have prepared a scope of services and fee estimate for completing a Stormwater Pond Assessment for the City. Based on our understanding of the project, we propose the following scope of work: Stormwater Pond Assessment – Long Lake (LL) and Tanager Lake (TL) Subwatersheds Coordinate and meet with City as necessary to review and discuss Pond Assessment procedures and results. Establish location of all stormwater ponds within subwatersheds on City Parcel Maps through review of City Maps, Record Drawings, and visual inspection. Establish location of City maintained stormwater ponds within subwatersheds with GIS coordinates. Delineate watersheds for City maintained stormwater ponds. Define watershed characteristics for City maintained stormwater ponds. Characteristics shall include impervious surface percentage, time of concentrations, areas, and soil types. Define pond characteristics for City maintained stormwater ponds. Characteristics shall include design permanent volume, estimated existing permanent volume, outlet design, normal water level, and high water level. Prepare initial rating of City maintained stormwater ponds within subwatersheds as defined in City’s Pond Assessment Program Prepare recommendations for pond bathymetric surveys to establish accurate existing permanent volumes based on initial ratings and discussions with City. Provide layer on City’s GIS mapping for data generated from pond assessments. Assumptions Long Lake (LL) and Tanager Lake (TL) Subwatersheds are accurately delineated in the City’s Surface Water Management Plan dated January 2011. No Maps or Plans will be generated as part of this proposal. No surveys will be performed as part of this proposal. Wetland delineation services will not be required. Stormwater Pond Assessment June 20, 2016 Page 2 Based on the scope of services described above, we propose a not-to-exceed fee of $9,900 to be billed on an hourly basis. Please let me know if you have questions or need additional information. Sincerely, BOLTON & MENK, INC. David P. Martini, P.E. Principal Engineer REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July 11, 2016 ITEM NO: 7a Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Jeremy Barnhart JML Planning Title Community Development Director Item Description: 16-3832, City of Orono, Variances Application Summary The variances, if approved, would allow the placement of wire fencing closer than 150 feet from Lake Classen and closer than 35 feet from wetlands on the east side. The fencing is necessary for an off-leash pet area planned for Lurton Park. The Council originally reviewed this application during their meeting on May 23rd, where public comment was received. The Council elected not to waive the Planning Commission review, so in addition to the public hearing on May 23rd, the Planning Commission reviewed the application at their meeting on June 20th and held a public hearing. Since the original city Council meeting, and again after the Planning Commission, the Park Commission has altered the plan from the original plan. The planned fence is now at least 35 feet from the wetland in the NW corner of the property, the fence is greater than 35 feet from the north property line to maintain wildlife routes, and the fence is beyond the wetland setback on the east side. These adjustments have reduced the overall off leash area from 14 acres to 9.92 acres. Variances are necessary because the fence as proposed is closer than 150 feet from Lake Classen on the east side, and a portion of the fence encroaches into wetland buffer on the extreme east side of the lot. The Planning Commission staff report and exhibits dated June 20, 2016 more completely describe the project and are incorporated by reference. The staff report is attached as Exhibit D. Public Comment Staff has received written opposition to the application, primarily from neighbors to the north. These concerns were more generally directed at the off leash pet designation, rather than the setback variances. Planning Commission Recommendation After the public hearing on June 20th, the Planning Commission did not support the variances, recommending denial 5-0. Commissioners struggled with the practical difficulty aspect of the variance, and some felt the off leash park could be accomplished without the variance. Planning Staff Recommendation The placement of a fence in a park must be viewed as a principal structure, and the impacts prevented by the ordinance must be viewed against this type of improvement, rather than more typical building construction. Staff’s analysis of the practical difficulty statement showed that practical difficulty could be satisfied, summarized below. The corresponding numbers from the practical difficulty form are in parenthesis. The use of the property is a reasonable use (1), unique circumstances exist because the property is operated as a public park (2), and the variance wouldn’t alter the character of the locality (3). The fence location is chosen to provide more benefit to the public, and is in fact more expensive than staying within the ordinance (4). The special conditions are perhaps the strongest argument, in that there is no principal structure on the property, the fencing system serves as the principal improvement, and its’ construction is far less obtrusive to the goals of the ordinance than a building (8). The variance granted, for an off leash public park would not apply to other properties in the zoning district (9), and the variances allow the expansion of the public benefit of the park (10). The improvements being proposed are intended to blend into the landscape, and will not impair the health, safety, morals of the public, nor circumvent the zoning ordinance (11). Lastly, the fencing is not proposed as a convenience, but as a means to maximize the benefit to the public (12). Items 5-7 do not apply. Because the practical difficulty can be met, Staff recommends approval of the variances. Action Requested: Direct staff to prepare a resolution based on Council decision. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Revised Park Plan dated July 1, 2016 Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Form Exhibit C. Correspondence received Exhibit D. Planning Commission staff report Exhibit E. Draft PC Minutes Council Exhibit B 16-3832 PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM Minnesota State Statutes Section 462.357, Subdivision 6(2) requires that practical difficulties be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. The difficulties must be unique to the property as variances run with the land and not the land owner. Personal and economic situations are not considered valid practical difficulties. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council practical difficulties having merit must be demonstrated. HOW DO I PROVE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if practical difficulties exist and how the variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove practical difficulties, address all the relevant points listed below and answer them as clearly as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is justified. The information the City receives is what is used in determining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave something out it will not be considered. Please address each of the twelve practical difficulties criteria as they relate to the request, if they do not apply, write N/A in the space provided: 1. “The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter .” The use of the park property for a park is reasonable. The fences allows more efficient use of this public property. 2. “The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.” Most properties in the RR-1B, lakeshore, and wetland buffer areas are private homes and businesses. A park is a unique land use with these features. 3. “The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” The fencing is designed to blend into the environment. From outside of the park property, the visual impact will be minimal. The fencing will not impact water drainage, nor will it impede deer or bird movement. 4. “Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.” The fencing is proposed to be located within the setback and buffe r areas to maximize usable space, promote the most efficient use of the city resource and the improvements already contained within the park in addition to permitted access to the southeast 2 acres of the park. 5. “Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter.” This does not apply. 6. “The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.” This does not apply. This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An application will not be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the City. 7. “The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.” This does not apply. 8. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediatel y adjoining property.” Properties along the lake are required to meet setbacks, including the lake setback, which varies between 75 and 150 feet, depending on the type of lake. In almost every situation, the principal use of the property is carried out with construction of a principal structure, a dwelling or commercial structure. The special condition in this situation is the “principal” structure is the fence, far less obtrusive. Here, the special condition is this is public land, for the benefit of th e public, rather than for the private enjoyment of individuals. 9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located.” There are no other off leash parks planned in the RR-1B zoning districts or elsewhere in the city. 10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” The park is a public park, and the owners are the public, represented by the City Council. T he goal of this park improvement is to expand the benefit to the public, t he substantial property right of the applicant. 11. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.” The requested variance is from a section of the code intended to preserve views from the lake into property and to preserve the natural character of wetlands. The variance will likely not be visible to those outside the park from the lake. The fencing will in many ways preserve and maximize the benefit of the wetland as dogs and people would be restricted from the wetland, disturbing wildlife within. The variance will allow for the continued effectiveness of the code for this project and this property. 12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.” The variance allows the owner to install park fencing at the optimal location to the benefit of the public and it’s eventual users, while preserving the goals of the buffer and setback requirements. Practical Difficulties Statement Should you feel the practical difficulties cannot fully be described in the above criteria, describe the practical difficulties preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary): Practical difficulties, when applied to accessory structures, are challenging to address, as accessory structures are accessory to the principal use and enjoyment of the property. As part of the planned and lawful improvement of the park, the owner intends to construct an off leash dog park. An off lease park is almost identical to other parks, except that pets are allowed to be off leash. The pets are controlled by their masters, and corralled using fencing, often chain link fencing. In this manner, the principal structure for the park is the fencing. The improvements are located to preserve the natural identity of the park by siting the fence to incorporate slopes, existing trails, and vegetation. The 47’’ woven wire fencing is designed to blend into the agricultural history of the property. The fencing is not proposed to be chain link because chain link is visually more apparent. To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Jessica Loftus, City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: June 20, 2016 Subject: #16-3832, City of Orono, 3580 Wayzata Blvd W, Susan E. Lurton Nature Area Variances: Lake and wetland setback Public Hearing List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit B. Proposed Plans Exhibit C. Property Owners List Exhibit D. City Council minutes, May 23, 2016 Background On April 25th, the Orono City Council approved a plan to develop a portion of Lurton Park as an off-leash park. An off leash park is a park that allows users to unleash their pets, and fencing is constructed to keep the pets within the park boundaries. Other improvements approved by the Council include expansion of the parking lot, additional benches and tables within the park. While the decision to improve a portion of the Susan E. Lurton Nature Area, also informally called Lurton Park, into an off-leash area, the final design details have not been approved. Those details will be decided by the City Council at an upcoming Council meeting. The variance application was presented to the City Council on May 23rd, and while the Council elected not waive Planning Commission review and hold an official public hearing at their meeting that evening, public comments were received. The plan presented in May differs from the plan presented now. The proposed fence has been pulled back from the wetland buffer on the west side, pulled back from the private residential property to the north, and largely pulled back from the wetland boundary on the east side of the property. Variances are necessary because the fence crosses mapped wetlands just to the east of the parking lot and is within 150 feet of the edge of Lake Classen. The fence within the wetland near the parking lot replaces an existing fence. Application Summary: The applicant is requesting setback variances from the lake and wetland boundaries to facilitate construction of fencing within the park. Staff Recommendation: The Planning Commission should provide a recommendation to the City Council. Council Exhibit D 16-3832 FILE # 16-3832 June 20, 2016 Page 2 of 4 LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-420 - Setbacks: RR-1B Required Proposed Wetland 35’ 0’-40’ Lakeshore 150’ 40’ Section 78-420 - Lot Area/Width: RR-1B Lot Area Lot Width Required 2 acres 200’ Actual 21.80 acres 1,607’ @ 75’ 1,700’ @ OHWL Applicable Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The intent of the ordinance is to maintain a rural, natural character adjacent to the lake. The fence is placed to minimize impacts to the lake, and is of a design intended to blend into a rural character. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The global intent of the Comprehensive Plan is to maintain a certain character of the City, while establishing minimum standards for health, safety, and general welfare of residents. The fence proposed is consistent in character with minimal lake impact, and accomplishes certain health, safety general welfare goals identified by the City by offering expanded recreational opportunities. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The property is currently a park. The FILE # 16-3832 June 20, 2016 Page 3 of 4 improvements proposed are consistent with a park, which is a permitted use (publically owned parks and playgrounds). b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The fence location is preferred to avoid invasive work within the wooded area. The trees were not planted by the property owner. c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The fence design is intended to blend into the park character which is rural. The fences are designed to blend into the landscape and will be minimally visible from the street and off the property. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The property is used as a public park. This classification is peculiar to the subject parcel and not applicable to other lots in the zoning district. 5. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The unique conditions do not generally apply to other land or structures in the district. The majority of land developed within the wetland and shoreline districts are single family residential. Approving a variance for public park improvements would not apply directly to other land uses. 6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The ordinance provisions were drafted primarily to apply to the predominant land use in the city, single family residential. Applied to a park use, the enjoyment of the property is threatened because the ideal park and open space incorporates vegetation, slopes, wetlands, and water features. The fencing proposed is the minimal amount necessary to grant relief from the ordinance while preserving a substantial right of the property owners. 7. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. The fence as proposed will not block views from neighboring properties, and due to its design and distance from the lake, will not be visually impactful from the lake. The fence is not located along the northern property line, further negating any impact to these property owners and maintain wildlife passage. 8. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Location of the fence at the setback and at the necessary height is not merely a convenience, it is the planned efficient use of city resources to create a desirable experience for park users. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Septic System Status The improvements do not include plumbing. Temporary restrooms are provided on site. FILE # 16-3832 June 20, 2016 Page 4 of 4 Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit A. Analysis (Practical Difficulties, Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan) Staff’s analysis of the practical difficulties is outlined above. Public Comments During the public comment period at the Council meeting, neighboring property owners spoke in opposition to the conversion of the park to an off-leash park. They noted concerns that the fence would impact wildlife movement and habitat, and a fence adjacent to their property would negatively impact their property (The fence has since been pulled back from the property line to allow for wildlife movement and to prevent interaction from the park to the private property. The comments received to date center more on the presence of fencing versus the location of the fencing. The minutes reflecting public comment are attached in Exhibit D. 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 variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate th e impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 20, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 9. #16-3832 CITY OF ORONO, 3580 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST, VARIANCES, 8:05 P.M. – 8:40 P.M. Barnhart stated in April of this year, the City Council approved a plan to develop a portion of Lurton Park as an off-leash park. The City is requesting setback variances from the lake and wetland boundaries to facilitate construction of fencing within the park. Other improvements approved by the Council include expansion of the parking lot, additional benches and tables within the park. Barnhart noted the plan presented in May differs from the plan being presented now. The proposed fence has been pulled back from the wetland buffer on the west side and has been pulled back from the private residential property to the north. The fence has mainly been pulled back from the wetland boundary on the east side of the property. Variances are necessary because the fence crosses mapped wetlands just to the east of the parking lot and is within 150 feet of the edge of Lake Classen. The fence within the wetland near the parking lot replaces an existing fence. Barnhart stated a fence is a normal part of a park and the proposed fence is the primary improvement to the park. When Staff looked at applying the practical difficulty standards in this situation, they looked at the fence as being the primary structure. In Staff’s analysis, it was felt the fence does meet the requirements and goals of the ordinance in trying to minimize the impacts to the neighbors and the goals of the City. A letter of concern was received by the City regarding the change of the park to an off-leash park. During the public comment period at the Council meeting, neighboring property owners spoke in opposition to the conversion of the park to an off-leash park. The neighbors noted concerns that the fence would impact wildlife movement and habitat, and a fence adjacent to their property would negatively impact their property. The fence has been pulled back from the property line to allow for wildlife movement and to prevent interaction from the park to the private property. The comments received to date center more on the presence of fencing versus the location of the fencing. Lemke asked why the Planning Commission did not see this application previously. Council Exhibit E 16-3832 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 20, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 Barnhart stated the application was originally presented to the City Council, with the City Council having the opportunity to waive review by the Planning Commission and hold a public hearing if they deem appropriate. Barnhart stated because the City was under time constraints with bidding the project and had an opportunity to hire a contractor in May, Staff felt it should go before the City Council. The City Council, however, felt a review by the Planning Commission was appropriate. Lemke asked how big a dog park typically is. Barnhart indicated they vary in size and can range anywhere from one acre to a number of acres depending on the community. Barnhart stated the city he lives in has a 5-acre dog park. Schoenzeit stated the notes from the resident say that the City will be selling permits. Schoenzeit asked if it will cost money to use the park. Barnhart stated there are some policy issues that the Council is considering and that his understanding is that they are looking at charging for parking at the park. Schoenzeit asked who is paying for the fence. Thiesse stated it is the City. Barnhart stated his understanding is that it is coming out of park dedication fees. Schoenzeit stated it is coming from the City and not the people who donated the land. Lemke asked if the well is part of the proposal. Adam Edwards, City Engineer, stated the size of dog parks vary from less than an acre up to 30, 40 acres. Edwards stated the intent of this park is that it will be an off-leash park as opposed to a little piece of Astroturf. People will have the ability to walk on trails through the woods or through the prairie with their dog off leash. Edwards stated the intent is to maximize the use of the land. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 20, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 As it relates to funding, the Council did elect to fund the construction of all the real property improvements out of the park dedication fund. Edwards stated the Lurton Park Fund is being preserved to continue maintenance of the prairie and there is an opportunity, if the family so chooses, to do small improvements such as adding more benches or similar items. Schoenzeit asked what the budget is for the project. Edwards stated to his recollection the overall budget was around $115,000. The well was deferred to a later date until sufficient interest in the park was demonstrated as well as some other items. The two main items that were approved were the fence and the expansion of the parking lot in addition to some signage. Thiesse noted the Planning Commission is only looking at the variance for the fence and that they do not need to discuss the merits of an off-leash dog park. Thiesse stated the only reason this is before the Planning Commission is that Council Member Walsh voted not to waive the review by the Planning Commission. Thiesse asked why there is no wetland delineation or survey. Barnhart stated Staff felt it could site the fence properly without impacting the wetlands and that Staff elected not to spend City resources on a survey. Thiesse stated he understands that, but his feeling is that he would treat it more like the coach’s kid who gets a higher vision because they do not want to show any favoritism. Thiesse noted the City typically requires it from absolutely everybody and that it would have been nice to have one as he was walking the site. Edwards noted the City has a GIS system, which has fairly accurate data, and that the City also has access to all the wetland data from the DNR, which was used to place the fence. Schoenzeit stated he disagrees that the discussion is limited to the fence and that all questions should be allowed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 20, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 Thiesse noted the Planning Commission does not have any say into whether a dog park is desirable at this location. Schoenzeit asked whether there were any studies done on the amount this park will get used. Schoenzeit stated typically this park is empty when he goes by it and that to justify a $150,000 investment seems crazy. Thiesse noted that is not the choice of the Planning Commission. Schoenzeit commented he is an Orono taxpayer. Thiesse stated he will need to attend the City Council meeting to discuss that. Edwards stated the City does not keep attendance records at the park but that it is not a heavily used park, which is one of the reasons why it became a candidate for a dog park. Edwards stated the donating family brought the idea to the City. Thiesse noted it was the family of the donors and not the actual donors. Lemke asked whether the residents can tap into that same information bank that the City used in order to do the wetlands. Edwards stated the City did not do a wetland delineation but that they used the GIS data base to look at where the wetlands were plotted and then backed off from that. Edwards stated the topography in this area includes a fairly steep drop-off and it is not a gradual slope. Lemke asked if that same data could be made available to the residents if the City is confident with their wetland delineation in this case. Curtis stated it is not a delineation by WACA standards and that it is a delineation that is required by City Code. Curtis noted the Watershed District has authority over what is and is not a valid wetland MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 20, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 delineation and that this application does not trigger the Watershed District’s wetland delineation requirements. Gaffron stated while the general public may have access to specific parts of the City’s data, it would be unusual to exempt them from doing a wetland delineation based on using that data. Lemke commented the City is exempting themselves and that he agrees with Mr. Schoenzeit’s comments. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:18 p.m. Thiesse noted this request is for a variance to allow a fence and not about the merits or needs of a dog park. Dianna Milianta, 3515 Sixth Avenue North, stated she does not repeat a lot of what she said at the City Council meeting and that she will summarize some of what she said. Milianta stated the intent of the park was to be left as a wildlife park per the wishes of Susan Lurton. Milianta stated the placement of the fence will make it difficult for wildlife to travel freely through the park. Milianta noted the fence is still within 150 feet of the lake as well as being close to the residential properties. Milianta pointed out the 150-foot line. Milianta stated she would suggest moving a portion of the fence back since it would leave access to the lake open for the wildlife. Milianta stated the other item she would like to discuss is the practical difficulties document. Item No. 3 states the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Milianta stated if you take that very literally, the fence is intended to blend into the environment, but it should not be taken out of context. Milianta noted the fence will hold dogs in and the dogs will alter the essential character of the locality. Milianta stated the fence and the dogs together will really change the character of the locality around the lake and around that corner. Milianta stated the fence and the dogs will impact the value of their property. Milianta noted they have a very nice horse barn and that there will be problems with the noise and having the dogs that close. Milianta stated moving the fence down will still give a lot of space for the dogs and provide enough space between the dogs and the horses. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 20, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 Laurel MacLachlan, 3565 Sixth Avenue North, stated the original intent of the park was to keep it passive so all the animals would be able to live there without any obstruction. MacLachlan stated she is in agreement that the fence should be moved further back. MacLachlan stated in her view most dog parks are in that 1 to 7 acre range and not 30 or 35 acres. MacLachlan stated if the dog park encompasses a lot of acreage, it will impede on some of the wildlife, and when the dog park is that big and the dogs are off leash, it will be difficult to pick up after them. MacLachlan stated she would like to see the dog park restricted further. MacLachlan stated she also is not sure that a 4-foot fence is not jumpable by a number of larger dogs, and if a dog does jump that fence, it is a risk to the other animals that may or may not be there. MacLachlan noted she did write some comments down and submitted those about how the change to the park came about and about the lack of public notice. Thiesse asked what the height of the fence is. Barnhart indicated it is 47 inches. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. Thiesse asked specifically what the Planning Commission is being asked to address tonight. Barnhart illustrated on the overhead the location of the fence and the areas where a variance would be required. The fence will be located within 150 feet of the lake and 35 feet of the wetland. Lemke stated his feeling is that by not granting the variance, the park still works perfectly well. Lemke stated the fence could be moved back to the proper line and it would still be a very valuable and viable park. Thiesse stated he thought so, too, at the beginning until he heard the comments of the neighbors. One of the comments was if the fence is pulled back, it would open up half that area for lake use and preserve the wildlife corridor. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 20, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 Barnhart stated this part of the fence is not accessible without a variance based on the wetland and the GIS information. Barnhart stated there really is no other method to get through that area since the fence would block that finger-shaped piece off. Schoenzeit asked if the City plans on using a survey when locating the fence. Barnhart stated the City plans on field locating the fence with the contractor and the Watershed District. Schoenzeit commented the City should follow its own advice and obtain a survey since it helps to prevent problems with neighbors. Olson stated he does not necessarily like the fence as it stands right now but that he does not want to debate the necessity of the dog park. Olson asked if there is a way for pedestrians to use the park without going through the area being used by the dogs. Barnhart stated a person would not need a pet to use the park but that they would need to pay to park there. Barnhart noted there are no trails adjacent to this park that provide access to it. If someone wanted to walk through the park, they can still do that since there likely will not be very many dogs using the park. Barnhart stated currently people will let their dogs off leash even though it is clearly posted that dogs must be on a leash. Barnhart stated he does not expect it to be wall to wall dogs and that it is just more of an opportunity to use the park for an alternative use. If a pedestrian wanted to get through there, they would have to go through the fenced area but there will be gates that someone can walk through. Thiesse stated he is in agreement that the principal use has to include the dogs, and putting the fence where it is, the use behind the fence does create an impact. Leskinen noted No. 4 of the practical difficulties states that economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists. Leskinen stated the question is whether someone can make reasonable use of a dog park if the fence is in a conforming location. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 20, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 Thiesse indicated he did do a little research with Three Rivers Park and to his knowledge there are nine parks within the area that allow dogs off leash and they range from three acres to 49 acres. At 13 acres, this would be about a median size. Leskinen stated the dog park can still be reasonably used if the fence is pulled away from the lake. Leskinen stated if there is no other way to use that finger-shaped area, she has less issue with that portion of it, but that she does have an issue with the area higher up along the lake. Leskinen stated as a whole it is an awful lot to fence in for a dog park. Barnhart stated the idea here is that there is some investment in time and energy already made with the clearing of the trails and trees. Barnhart stated the City does not want to have to duplicate that up the hill, which is part of the rationale for the location of the fence. Barnhart stated some other improvements have already been made that they are trying to incorporate into it. Thiesse asked if there is some way to add a gate to access the trails on the east side. Barnhart stated he is sure the Park Commission and City Council would take any advice the Planning Commission would like to offer. Schoenzeit stated he was at the Council meeting when the family donated the land to the City and the discussion centered around controlled burns and re-establishing the prairie. Schoenzeit stated fencing it in and charging money to park was completely outside the scope of the plan. Schoenzeit stated there is also the lack of transparency of the planning process and the fact that the City actually wants to push this through without a public hearing. Thiesse noted that is not true and that the public hearing would have taken place at the City Council if it had not been referred back to the Planning Commission. Schoenzeit stated it also appears they are using City privilege to shortcut the survey process and the wetland delineation. Schoenzeit stated it is a great example of bad government and that he is strongly opposed to putting a fence on the property. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 20, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 Olson stated without having all the information, in his view they can still do the dog park without granting the variances. Olson noted someone else is going to decide if there is going to be a dog park and that the Planning Commission will not be deciding that. Olson stated in his view the City can get to that end result without granting the variances and that he has not seen a very substantial hardship demonstrated. Lemke stated he is in agreement with Commissioner Schoenzeit and that he does not see much thought having gone into the concept of a dog park. Leskinen stated she would be okay with the variance on the smaller portion that is not accessible without it, but that along the larger section, she is having trouble seeing enough practical difficulty to be able to grant the variance. Schoenzeit stated by granting the variance, they are giving the City permission to spend $150,000 to get into the dog park business. Schoenzeit stated he hears all the time how the City does not have the resources to do various things, and that anything the Planning Commission can do to slow that down would be their duty. Thiesse stated he is ambivalent to the dog park, but that in his view the park can function with the fence in a legal position. Thiesse indicated he is more willing to accept the variance for the small part. Thiesse noted Three Rivers has nine dog parks and that he hopes someone has checked to see whether Baker Park will be included in that in the near future. Schoenzeit moved, Lemke seconded, to recommend denial of Application No. 16-3832, City of Orono, 3580 Wayzata Boulevard West. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July 11, 2016 ITEM NO: 7b _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Adam Edwards JML Public Works Director/ Title Public Works Director/City Engineer City Engineer’s Report ____________________________________________________________________________________ Item Description: Lurton Off Leash Park Revised Design ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ List of Exhibits A. Revised Project Design B. Revised Cost Estimate 1. Purpose. The purpose of this item is to gain council approval for the revised design of the of Lurton Off Leash Park. 2. Background. Since its reestablishment the Orono Park Commission has been looking for ways to establish an off leash dog park within the Orono park system. Last fall the Lurton family approached the City with the idea of exploring possibilities to improve the public’s usage of Lurton Park by transitioning the park into an off leash park. City Staff and the Parks Commission developed a plan to transition the park. At the March 7th Park Commission meeting the Commission endorsed the Off Leash Dog Park Plan. Council approved the design/master plan for the off leash park at their April 25th meeting. Since then the process of gaining the required variances for the fence has resulted in changes to the layout of the park. At their July 5th meeting the Park Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the revised design. Further due to the reduced fencing requirement and cost the Park Commission recommends that the well, shade structures and additional picnic table be re-included in the project. 3. Design Changes. A copy of the revised design is Exhibit A. Changes include the movement of the perimeter fence 150 ft. south of the northern park boundary, the move of the fence back out of wetland setback along the western wetland and the majority of the eastern wetland as well as the switch of the small dog off leash area from the prairie to the eastern extremity of the park. 4. Project Cost. The estimated cost of the project was $129,198. The estimated cost for the revised layout and the re-inclusion of well, table and shade structures is $121,360 (See Exhibit B) 5. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to approve the revised design for reconfiguring Lurton Park to an off leash dog park. Revised Project Estimate Item Description Qty Unit Price Total 1 Perimeter Fence 2724 $ 12 $32,688 2 Small Dog Fence 1270 $ 12 $15,240 3 Gate Area Fence 300 $ 20 $6,000 4 Pedestrian Gate 4 $ 500 $2,000 5 Vehicular Gate 4 $ 700 $2,800 6 Parking Expansion 1 $ 17,250 $17,250 8 Dog Waste Station 1 $ 325 $325 9 Porta Potty Pad 1 $ 400 $400 10 Information Signs 2 $ 770 $1,540 12 Trail Signs 10 $ 20 $200 13 Road Sign 1 $ 200 $200 14 Well 1 $ 11,200 $11,200 15 Bench 1 $ 310 $310 16 Picnic Table 1 $ 2,130 $2,130 17 Shade Sails 3 $ 2,950 $8,850 Total Cost $101,133 20% Contingency $20,227 Total $121,360 Exhibit B. Project Cost Estimate Lurton Off Leash Park Design #3 Wetland Setback Lakeshore Setback Main off Leash Area (8.12 ac) ~2724 ft Small Dog Area (1.8 ac) ~1265 ft ~300 ft Improved fence W On Leash Area (7.87 ac)Wetland Area (2 ac) Pond 1.2 ac) REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July 11th, 2016 ITEM NO: 8 ______________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Adam Edwards JML Public Works Director/ Title Public Works Director/City Engineer City Engineer’s Report ______________________________________________________________________________ Item Description: Watertown Road and Stubbs Bay Road Rehabilitation – Pay Request No. 4- FINAL ______________________________________________________________________________ List of Exhibits A- Recommendation Letter from Bolton & Menk B- Contractor’s Pay Request No. 4 C- Work Order 6 1. Purpose. Gain Council authorization for Pay Request #4 for the Watertown Road and Stubbs Bay road rehabilitation. 2. Background. On May 11th, 2015 the City awarded the contract for the road rehabilitation project to Bituminous Roadways. Construction began on June 5th, 2015. Work is now complete. 3. Cost. Total Cost for the project is $880,211 broken down as listed below: Who Work Cost Bolton &Menk, Inc Design and Bid Engineering $124,630 Bituminous Roadways Construction $686,481.30 Bolton &Menk, Inc Construction Oversight $69,100 TOTAL $880,211 4. Funding. This project is funded from MSA, the General fund and the Storm Water fund. 5. Status. Bituminous Roadways has completed approximately 100% of the work. Bolton and Menk has reviewed the payment request and confirmed that the work has been completed to standard (Exhibit A&B). Also enclosed additional work order #6 that was issued as part of the project (Exhibit C). To date, the cost split by funding source for construction are: State Aid General Fund Storm Water Fund Total This Pay Request $ 21,380.92 $ 7,703.73 $ 2,584.98 $ 31,669.63 Total to Date 427,618.17 $ 154,074.58 $17,499.90 $ 599,192.65 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to approve Pay Request No. 4-FINAL to Bituminous Roadways in the amount of $31,669.63 for the Watertown Road and Stubbs Bay Road Rehabilitation Project. • ~ BO L_TON 8~. M ~ N K , Consulting Engineers &Surveyors ~~ 2638 Shadow Lane, Suite 200 •Chaska, MN 55318-1172 Phone (952) 448-8838 •Fax (952) 448-8805 www.bolton-menk.com July 5, 2016 City of Orono Attn: Adam Edwards 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 RE: Watertown Road &Stubbs Bay Road Rehabilitation Dear Adam: NCo Enclosed is Payment Request No. 4 -Final from Bituminous Roadways for work completed on the Watertown Road &Stubbs Bay Road Rehabilitation Project through June 30, 2016. The payment request includes Work Order 6, which account for the construction of a temporary ditch check at the south end of Stubbs Bay Road and reduction of the retained amount to $0.00. To date, the cost splits for construction costs are as follows: State Aid $427,618.17 City (General Fund) $] 54,074.58 City (Storm Sewer Fund) $17,499.90 Total $599,192.65 For Payment Request No. 3, the cost splits are as follows: State Aid $21,380.92 City (General Fund) $7,703.73 Cit~(Storm Sewer Fund) $2,584.98 Total $31,669.63 We have reviewed the estimate, verified the quantities, and recommend payment in the amount of $31,669.63. Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, BOLTON & MENK, INC. ~ ~~ David P. Martini Principal Engineer H:\ORNO\C 13109335\l_Corres\C_To Others\Pay Request No 4-Final.doc DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an equal opportunity employer O~oN ~~~zm ~ F~1,/ \ July 5, 2016 BO l_TON 8i. M ~ N K , Consulting Engineers &Surveyors 2638 Shadow Lane, Suite 200 •Chaska, MN 55318-1172 Phone (952) 448-8838 •Fax (952) 448-8805 www.bolton-menk.com Bituminous Roadways, Inc. 1520 Commerce Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 RE: Watertown Road &Stubbs Bay Road Rehabilitation Orono, MN NCo Enclosed are three copies of Pay Request No. 4 in the amount of $31,669.63 for the Watertown Road &Stubbs Bay Road Rehabilitation Project in Orono. Also enclosed is Work Orders 6. Please review the quantities and amount. If everything is in order, please sign all three copies of the Pay Request and Work Order and return them to Adam Edwards at the City of Orono as soon as possible. Please let me know if you have questions. Sincerely, BOLTON & MENK, INC. `~i ~ 1~~ David P. Martini, P.E. Principal Engineer cc: Adam Edwards Enclosures H:\ORNO\C13109335\I_Cones\C To Others\Contractor Pay Request 4.doc DESIGNING Fc~R A BETTER TpMC}RRC~1N BoItc~n ~4c. Menk is ~n equ~rl o~pc~rtunity ernpic~yer CONTRACTOR'S PAY REQUEST NO. 4 -FINAL WATERTOWN ROAD & STUBBS BAY ROAD REHAB. CITY OF ORONO BMI PROJECT NO. 013.109335 TOTAL AMOUNT BID PLUS APPROVED EXTRA WORK ............................................................ $ 686,481.30 TOTAL, COMPLETED WORK TO DATE ........................................................................................ $ 599,192.66 TOTAL, STORED MATERIALS TO DATE ...................................................................................... $ - DEDUCTION FOR STORED MATERIALS USED IN WORK COMPLETED ................................... $ - TOTAL, COMPLETED WORK &STORED MATERIALS ................................................................ $ - RETAINED PERCENTAGE ( 0%) .................................................................................. $ - TOTAL AMOUNT OF OTHER DEDUCTIONS .......................................................................... $ - NET AMOUNT DUE TO CONTRACTOR TO DATE ........................................................................ $ 599,192.66 TOTAL AMOUNT PAID ON PREVIOUS ESTIMATES ............................................................. $ 567,523.03 PAY CONTRACTOR AS ESTIMATE NO. 4 -FINAL ..................................................... $ 31,669.63 Certificate for Final Payment hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, all items quantities and prices of work and material shown on this Estimate are correct and that all work has been pertormed in full accordance with the terms and conditions of the Contract for this project between the Owner and the undersigned Contractor, and as amended by any authorized changes, and that the foregoing is a true and correct statement of the amount for the Final Estimate, that the provisions of M. S. 290.92 have been complied with and that ail claims against me by reason of the Contract have been paid or satisfactorily secured. Contractor: BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS, INC. 1520 COMMERCE DRIVE MENDOTA HEIGHTS, MN 55120 By Name Title Date CHECKED AND APPROVED AS TO QUANTITIES AND AMOUNT: BOLTON & MENK, INC., ENGINE RS, 2638 SHADOW LN, SUITE 200, CHASKA MN 55318 gy~ G ~ ,CONSULTANT CITY ENGINEER DAVID P. MA TIN , P.E. Date J~ APPROVED FOR PAYMENT: Owner: CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA By Name Title PA R T I A L PA Y ES T I M A T E NO . 4 -F I N A L WA T E R T O W N RO A D 8 ST U B B S BA Y RO A D RE H A B I L I T A T I O N CI T Y OF OR O N O , MI N N E S O T A BM I PR O J E C T NO . 07 3 . 1 0 9 3 3 5 ~n i n R u rn n n p i Fr F n rN R n i i~ H .i i iN F ~n ~n ~ F - -- -- - OR I G I N A L UN I T PR E V I O U S TO T A L CO M P L E T E D IT E M MA T . PL A N OF UN I T BI D PA Y AP P L I C A T I O N S TO DA T E NO . NO . QT Y . ME A S U R E PR I C E AM O U N T QU A N T I T Y AM O U N T QU A N T I T Y AM O U N T 1 20 2 1 . 5 0 1 MO B I L I Z A T I O N 1 LU M P SU M $4 7 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $4 7 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 1. 0 0 $4 7 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 1. 0 0 $4 7 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 2 21 0 1 . 5 0 1 CL E A R I N G 0. 0 2 AC R E $1 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $3 0 0 . 0 0 3 21 0 1 . 5 0 6 GR U B B I N G 0. 0 2 AC R E $1 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $3 0 0 . 0 0 4 21 0 4 . 5 0 1 RE M O V E SE W E R PI P E ST O R M 38 1 LI N FT $6 . 3 0 $2 , 4 0 0 . 3 0 38 0 . 0 0 $2 , 3 9 4 . 0 0 38 0 . 0 0 $2 , 3 9 4 . 0 0 5 21 0 4 . 5 0 1 RE M O V E GU A R D R A I L -P L A T E BE A M 15 0 LI N FT $6 . 9 0 X1 , 0 3 5 . 0 0 60 0 . 0 0 $4 , 1 4 0 . 0 0 60 0 . 0 0 $4 , 1 4 0 . 0 0 6 21 0 4 . 5 0 3 RE M O V E BI T U M I N O U S DR I V E W A Y PA V E M E N T 7, 9 9 6 SQ FT $0 . 7 0 $5 , 5 9 7 . 2 0 8, 4 2 5 . 0 0 $5 , 8 9 7 . 5 0 8, 4 2 5 . 0 0 $5 , 8 9 7 . 5 0 7 21 0 4 . 5 0 9 RE M O V E PI P E AP R O N 4 EA C H $4 2 1 . 0 0 $1 , 6 8 4 . 0 0 3. 0 0 $1 , 2 6 3 . 0 0 3. D 0 $1 , 2 6 3 . 0 0 8 21 0 4 . 5 0 9 RE M O V E BO L L A R D S 6 EA C H $2 2 7 . 0 0 $1 , 3 6 2 . 0 0 6. 0 0 $1 , 3 6 2 . 0 0 6. 0 0 $1 , 3 6 2 . 0 0 9 21 0 4 . 5 0 9 RE M O V E MA R K E R 2 EA C H $2 6 . 3 0 $5 2 . 6 0 2. 0 0 $5 2 . 6 0 2. 0 0 $5 2 . 6 0 10 21 0 4 . 5 1 3 SA W I N G BI T PA V E M E N T FU L L DE P T H 96 5 LI N FT $2 . 1 0 $2 , 0 2 6 . 5 0 79 7 . 0 0 $1 , 6 7 3 . 7 0 79 7 . 0 0 $1 , 6 7 3 . 7 0 11 21 0 4 . 5 2 1 SA L V A G E FE N C E 65 LI N FT $1 0 . 0 0 $6 5 0 . 0 0 65 . 0 0 $6 5 0 . 0 0 65 . 0 0 $6 5 0 . 0 0 12 21 0 4 . 5 2 3 SA L V A G E SI G N 4 EA C H $2 6 . 3 0 $1 0 5 . 2 0 4. 0 0 $1 0 5 . 2 0 4. 0 0 $1 0 5 . 2 0 13 21 0 5 . 5 0 1 CO M M O N EX C A V A T I O N 1, 8 4 9 CU YD $1 2 . 0 0 $2 2 , 1 8 8 . 0 0 33 0 . 0 0 $3 , 9 6 0 . 0 0 33 0 . 0 0 $3 , 9 6 0 . 0 0 14 21 0 5 . 5 0 7 SU B G R A D E EX C A V A T I O N 1, 4 0 6 CU YD $1 5 . 0 0 $2 1 , 0 9 0 . 0 0 10 8 . 0 0 $1 , 6 2 0 . 0 0 10 8 . 0 0 $1 , 6 2 0 . 0 0 15 21 0 5 . 5 2 3 CO M M O N BO R R O W CV 1, 2 7 8 CU YD $1 8 . 0 0 $2 3 , 0 0 4 . 0 0 56 . 0 0 $1 , 0 0 8 . 0 0 56 . 0 0 $1 , 0 0 8 . 0 0 16 21 0 5 . 5 3 3 SA L V A G E D AG G R E G A T E LV 10 0 CU YD $1 6 . 6 0 $1 , 6 6 0 . 0 0 70 . 0 0 $1 , 1 6 2 . 0 0 70 . 0 0 $1 , 1 6 2 . 0 0 17 21 0 5 . 5 4 3 ST A B I L I Z I N G AG G R E G A T E 31 5 TO N $2 9 . 5 0 $9 , 2 9 2 . 5 0 36 7 . 1 0 $1 0 , 8 2 9 . 4 5 36 7 . 1 0 $1 0 , 8 2 9 . 4 5 18 21 0 5 . 6 0 4 GE O T E X T I L E FA B R I C TY P E V 4, 0 8 1 SQ YD $1 . 2 0 $4 , 8 9 7 . 2 0 19 21 1 8 . 5 0 1 AG G R E G A T E SU R F A C I N G CL A S S 2 75 8 TO N $3 2 . 2 0 $2 4 , 4 0 7 . 6 0 39 7 . 4 8 $1 2 , 7 9 8 . 8 6 39 7 . 4 8 $1 2 , 7 9 8 . 8 6 20 22 1 1 . 5 0 1 AG G R E G A T E BA S E CL A S S 5 64 5 TO N $1 8 . 0 0 $1 1 , 6 1 0 . 0 0 58 4 . 2 0 $1 0 , 5 1 5 . 6 0 58 4 . 2 0 $1 0 , 5 1 5 . 6 0 21 22 1 5 . 5 0 1 FU L L DE P T H RE C L A M A T I O N 20 , 4 8 8 SQ YD $2 . 0 0 $4 0 , 9 7 6 . 0 0 21 , 2 3 6 . 0 0 $4 2 , 4 7 2 . O D 21 , 2 3 6 . 0 0 $4 2 , 4 7 2 . 0 0 22 22 1 5 . 5 0 2 HA U L FU L L DE P T H RE C L A M A T I O N LV 10 0 CU YD $1 6 . 6 0 $1 , 6 6 0 . 0 0 98 . 0 0 $1 , 6 2 6 . 8 0 98 . 0 0 $1 , 6 2 6 . 8 0 23 22 3 2 . 5 0 1 MI L L BI T U M I N O U S SU R F A C E 1. 5 " 69 SQ YD $1 3 . 8 0 $9 5 2 . 2 0 24 22 3 2 . 6 0 4 MI L L BI T U M I N O U S PA V E M E N T SP E C I A L 25 1 SQ YD $1 0 . 5 0 $2 , 6 3 5 . 5 0 25 23 6 0 . 5 0 2 TY P E SP 12 . 5 NO N WE A R CO U R S E MI X 3, 6 ) 3, 2 4 3 TO N $5 5 . 2 0 x' 1 7 9 , 0 1 3 . 6 0 3, 1 7 9 . 3 6 $1 7 5 , 5 0 0 . 6 7 3, 1 7 9 . 3 6 $1 7 5 , 5 0 0 . 6 7 26 23 6 0 . 5 0 3 TY P E SP 9. 5 WE A R CO U R S E MI X 3, B 1. 5 " TH I C K 21 , 4 8 2 SQ YD $5 . 8 0 $1 2 4 , 5 9 5 . 6 0 20 , 8 8 0 . 0 0 $1 2 1 , 1 0 4 . 0 0 20 , 8 8 0 . 0 0 $1 2 1 , 1 0 4 . 0 0 27 23 6 0 . 5 0 5 TY P E SP 9. 5 BI T MI X T U R E FO R PA T C H I N G 36 TO N $1 1 0 . 0 0 $3 , 9 6 0 . 0 0 33 . 6 6 $3 , 7 0 2 . 6 0 33 . 6 6 $3 , 7 0 2 . 6 0 28 25 0 1 . 5 1 1 12 " CS PI P E CU L V E R T 23 3 LI N FT $3 1 . 6 0 $7 , 3 6 2 . 8 0 28 4 . 7 0 $8 , 9 9 6 . 5 2 28 4 . 7 0 $8 , 9 9 6 . 5 2 29 25 0 1 . 5 1 1 15 " CS PI P E CU L V E R T 79 LI N FT $3 2 . 7 0 $2 , 5 8 3 . 3 0 74 . 8 0 $2 , 4 4 5 . 9 6 74 . 8 D $2 , 4 4 5 . 9 6 30 25 0 1 . 5 1 5 12 " CS PI P E AP R O N 12 EA C H $3 1 6 . 0 0 $3 , 7 9 2 . 0 0 14 . 0 0 $4 , 4 2 4 . 0 0 14 . 0 0 $4 , 4 2 4 . D 0 31 25 0 1 . 5 1 5 15 " CS PI P E AP R O N 6 EA C H $4 2 1 . 0 0 $2 , 5 2 6 . 0 0 6. 0 0 $2 , 5 2 6 . 0 0 6. 0 0 $2 , 5 2 6 . 0 0 32 25 0 1 . 5 1 5 15 " RC PI P E AP R O N 2 EA C H $8 4 3 . 0 0 $1 , 6 8 6 . O D 2. 0 0 $1 , 6 8 6 . 0 0 2. 0 0 $1 , 6 8 6 . 0 0 33 25 0 1 . 5 1 5 18 " RC PI P E AP R O N 2 EA C H $1 , 0 0 1 . 0 0 $2 , 0 0 2 . 0 0 2. 0 0 $2 , 0 0 2 . 0 0 2. 0 0 $2 , 0 0 2 . 0 0 34 25 0 1 . 5 1 5 24 " RC PI P E AP R O N 1 EA C H $1 , 2 6 4 . 0 0 $1 , 2 6 4 . 0 0 1. 0 0 $1 , 2 6 4 . 0 0 1. 0 0 $1 , 2 6 4 . 0 0 35 25 0 1 . 6 0 2 TR A S H GU A R D FO R 15 " PI P E AP R O N 2 EA C H $3 ' 1 6 . 0 0 $6 3 2 . 0 0 2. 0 0 $6 3 2 . 0 0 2. 0 0 $6 3 2 . 0 0 36 25 0 1 . 6 0 2 TR A S H GU A R D FO R 18 " PI P E AP R O N 2 EA C H $4 2 1 . 0 0 $8 4 2 . 0 0 2. 0 0 $8 4 2 . 0 0 2. 0 0 $8 4 2 . 0 0 37 25 0 1 . 6 0 2 TR A S H GU A R D FO R 24 " PI P E AP R O N 1 EA C H $5 2 7 . 0 0 $5 2 7 . 0 0 1. 0 0 $5 2 7 . 0 0 1. 0 0 $5 2 7 . 0 0 38 25 0 3 . 5 4 1 15 " RC PI P E SE W E R DE S 30 0 6 CL V 28 LI N FT $4 2 . 1 0 $1 , 1 7 8 . 8 0 32 . 0 0 $1 , 3 4 7 . 2 0 32 . 0 0 $1 , 3 4 7 . 2 0 39 25 0 3 . 5 4 1 18 " RC PI P E SE W E R DE S 30 0 6 CL V 25 LI N FT $4 4 . 3 0 $1 , 1 0 7 . 5 0 26 . 0 0 $1 , 1 5 1 . 8 0 26 . 0 0 $1 , 1 5 1 . 8 0 40 25 0 3 . 5 4 1 24 " RC PI P E SE W E R DE S 30 0 6 CL II I 7 LI N FT $5 2 . 7 0 $3 6 8 . 9 0 8. 0 0 $4 2 1 . 6 0 8. 0 0 $4 2 1 . 6 0 41 25 0 6 . 5 2 2 AD J U S T FR A M E 8 RI N G CA S T I N G 1 EA C H $9 9 4 . 0 0 $9 9 4 . 0 0 42 25 0 6 . 6 0 2 CO N N E C T IN T O EX I S T I N G ST O R M SE W E R RC PI P E 1 EA C H $5 2 7 . 0 0 $5 2 7 . 0 0 1. 0 0 $5 2 7 . 0 0 1. 0 0 $5 2 7 . 0 0 43 25 0 6 . 6 0 2 CO N N E C T IN T O EX I S T I N G ST O R M SE W E R CS PI P E 1 EA C H $4 2 1 . 0 0 $4 2 1 . 0 0 1. 0 0 $4 2 1 . 0 0 1. 0 0 $4 2 1 . 0 0 44 25 0 6 . 6 0 2 CO N N E C T TO EX I S T I N G ST R U C T U R E CS PI P E 1 EA C H $6 3 2 . 0 0 $6 3 2 . 0 0 1. 0 0 $6 3 2 . 0 0 1. 0 0 $6 3 2 . 0 0 45 25 1 1 . 5 0 1 RA N D O M RI P R A P CL A S S II I 25 CU YD $1 0 0 . 0 0 $2 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 60 . 0 0 $6 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 60 . 0 0 $6 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 46 25 2 1 . 6 0 4 3" BI T U M I N O U S DR I V E W A Y 1, 0 0 0 SQ YD $3 3 . 0 0 $3 3 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 82 5 . 0 0 $2 7 , 2 2 5 . 0 0 82 5 . 0 0 $2 7 , 2 2 5 . 0 0 47 25 5 4 . 5 0 9 GU I D E PO S T TY P E B 5 EA C H $5 2 . 7 0 $2 6 3 . 5 0 3. 0 0 $1 5 8 . 1 0 3. 0 0 $1 5 8 . 1 0 48 25 5 4 . 5 2 3 EN D TR E A T M E N T -T A N G E N T TE R M I N A L 4 EA C H $2 , 7 9 7 . 0 0 $1 1 , 1 8 8 . 0 0 4. 0 0 $1 1 , 1 8 8 . 0 0 4. 0 0 $1 1 , 1 8 8 . 0 0 49 25 5 7 . 6 0 3 IN S T A L L FE N C E 65 LI N FT $2 7 . 9 0 $1 , 8 1 3 . 5 0 65 . 0 0 $1 , 8 1 3 . 5 0 65 . 0 0 $1 , 8 1 3 . 5 0 50 25 6 3 . 6 0 1 TR A F F I C CO N T R O L 1 LU M P SU M $1 6 , 0 9 7 . 0 0 $1 6 , 0 9 7 . 0 0 1. 0 0 $1 6 , 0 9 7 . 0 0 1. D 0 $1 6 , 0 9 7 . 0 0 51 25 6 4 . 5 3 1 SI G N PA N E L S TY P E C 24 SQ FT $5 2 . 7 0 $1 , 2 6 4 . 8 0 24 . 0 0 $1 , 2 6 4 . 8 0 24 . 0 0 $1 , 2 6 4 . 8 0 52 25 6 4 . 6 0 2 IN S T A L L SI G N 4 EA C H $1 3 2 . 0 0 $5 2 8 . 0 0 4. 0 0 $5 2 8 . 0 0 4. 0 0 $5 2 8 . 0 0 53 25 7 3 . 5 0 2 SI L T FE N C E , TY P E MS 2, 2 7 3 LI N FT $' 1 . 6 0 $3 , 6 3 6 . 8 0 2, 2 4 0 . 0 0 $3 , 5 8 4 . 0 0 2, 2 4 0 . 0 0 $3 , 5 8 4 . 0 0 54 25 7 3 . 5 3 0 ST O R M DR A I N IN L E T PR O T E C T I O N 7 EA C H $2 1 7 . 0 0 $1 , 5 1 9 . 0 0 7. 0 0 $1 , 5 1 9 . 0 0 7. 0 0 $1 , 5 1 9 . 0 0 PA R T I A L PA Y ES T I M A T E NO . 4 -F I N A L WA T E R T O W N RO A D 8 ST U B B S BA Y RO A D RE H A B I L I T A T I O N CI T Y OF OR O N O , MI N N E S O T A BM I PR O J E C T NO . 01 3 . 1 0 9 3 3 5 WO R K CO M P L E T E D TH R O U G H JU N E 30 . 20 1 6 OR I G I N A L UN I T PR E V I O U S TO T A L CO M P L E T E D IT E M MA T . PL A N OF UN I T BI D PA Y AP P L I C A T I O N S TO DA T E NO . NO . QT Y . ME A S U R E PR I C E AM O U N T QU A N T I T Y AM O U N T QU A N T I T Y AM O U N T SS 25 7 3 . 5 3 3 SE D I M E N T CO N T R O L LO G TY P E ST R A W 55 7 LI N FT $2 . 4 0 $1 , 3 3 6 . 8 0 46 7 . 0 0 $1 , 1 2 0 . 8 0 46 7 . 0 0 $1 , 1 2 0 . 8 0 56 25 7 4 . 5 0 8 FE R T I L I Z E R TY P E 3 81 2 PO U N D $0 . 5 0 $4 0 6 . 0 0 46 3 . 0 0 $2 3 1 . 5 0 46 3 . 0 0 $2 3 1 . 5 0 57 25 7 4 . 5 2 5 CO M M O N TO P S O I L BO R R O W 47 7 CU YD $4 0 . 0 0 $1 9 , 0 8 0 . 0 0 33 4 . 1 5 $1 3 , 3 6 6 . 0 0 33 4 . 1 5 $1 3 , 3 6 6 . 0 0 58 25 7 5 . 5 0 1 SE E D I N G 2 AC R E $3 6 9 . D 0 $7 3 8 . 0 0 1. 7 5 $6 4 5 . 7 5 1. 7 5 $6 4 5 . 7 5 59 25 7 5 . 5 0 2 SE E D MI X T U R E 25 - 1 3 1 51 2 PO U N D $2 . 2 0 $1 , 1 2 6 . 4 0 29 2 . 0 0 $6 4 2 . 4 0 29 2 . 0 0 $6 4 2 . 4 0 60 25 7 5 . 5 0 2 SE E D MI X T U R E 35 - 2 4 1 6 PO U N D $1 5 . 3 0 $9 1 . 8 0 3. 0 0 $4 5 . 9 0 3. 0 0 $4 5 . 9 0 61 25 7 5 . 5 2 3 ER O S I O N CO N T R O L BL A N K E T S CA T E G O R Y 3 1, 9 3 5 SQ YD $1 . 1 0 $2 , 1 2 8 . 5 0 1, 6 5 0 . 5 0 $1 , 8 1 5 . 5 5 1 ;65 0 . 5 0 $1 , 8 1 5 . 5 5 62 25 7 5 . 5 2 5 TU R F RE I N F O R C E M E N T MA T CA T E G O R Y 4 16 8 SQ YD $1 6 . 3 0 $2 , 7 3 8 . 4 0 11 2 . 5 0 $1 , 8 3 3 . 7 5 11 2 . 5 0 $1 , 8 3 3 . 7 5 63 25 7 5 . 5 6 2 HY D R A U L I C MA T R I X TY P E CO M P O S T 6, 9 5 5 PO U N D $1 . 6 0 $1 1 , 1 2 8 . 0 0 3, 9 6 5 . 2 5 $6 , 3 4 4 . 4 0 3, 9 6 5 . 2 5 $6 , 3 4 4 . 4 0 64 25 7 5 . 6 2 1 LA N D S C A P I N G 1 AL L O W A N C E $5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 $5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 65 25 8 2 . 5 0 2 4" SO L I D LI N E WH I T E - E P D X Y 15 , 1 1 2 LI N FT $0 . 2 0 $3 , 0 2 2 . 4 0 16 , 1 9 2 . 0 0 $3 , 2 3 8 . 4 0 16 , 1 9 2 . 0 0 $3 , 2 3 8 . 4 0 66 25 8 2 . 5 D 2 4" DO U B L E SO L I D LI N E YE L L O W - E P D X Y 7, 4 7 2 LI N FT $0 . 5 0 X3 , 7 3 6 . 0 0 6, 9 1 4 . 0 0 $3 , 4 5 7 . 0 0 6, 9 1 4 . 0 0 $3 , 4 5 7 . 0 0 67 25 8 2 . 5 0 3 CR O S S W A L K MA R K I N G - E P D X Y 12 0 SQ FT $9 . 6 0 $1 , 1 5 2 . 0 0 15 0 . 0 0 $1 , 4 4 0 . 0 0 15 0 . 0 0 $1 , 4 4 0 . 0 0 68 25 8 2 . 6 0 3 4" SO L I D LI N E WH I T E - E P D X Y SP E C I A L 18 8 LI N FT $0 2 0 $3 7 . 6 0 69 25 8 2 . 6 0 3 4" DO U B L E SO L I D LI N E YE L L O W - E P D X Y SP E C I A L 95 LI N FT $0 . 5 0 $4 7 . 5 0 EX T R A WO R K WO 1 RA I S E GU A R D R A I L 40 0 LI N FT $8 . 8 0 $3 , 5 2 0 . 0 0 40 0 . 0 0 $3 , 5 2 0 . 0 0 40 0 . 0 0 $3 , 5 2 0 . 0 0 WO 2 FU R N I S H 8 IN S T A L L 27 " CA T C H BA S I N 1 LU M P SU M $3 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 $3 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 1. 0 0 $3 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 1. 0 0 $3 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 WO 3 MO B I L I Z A T I O N FO R EX T R A DR A I N A G E WO R K 1 LU M P SU M $2 , 2 0 0 . 0 0 $2 , 2 0 0 . 0 0 1. 0 0 $2 , 2 0 0 . 0 0 1. 0 0 $2 , 2 0 0 . 0 0 WO 4 AG G R E G A T E BL E N D I N G 1 LU M P SU M $1 , 6 9 9 . 7 5 $1 , 6 9 9 . 7 5 1. 0 0 $1 , 6 9 9 . 7 5 1. 0 0 $1 , 6 9 9 . 7 5 WO 5 CU L V E R T CL E A N I N G 1 LU M P SU M $1 , 9 3 0 . 0 0 $1 , 9 3 0 . 0 0 1. 0 0 $1 , 9 3 0 . 0 0 1. 0 0 $1 , 9 3 0 . 0 0 WO 6 TE M P O R A R Y DI T C H CH E C K 1 LU M P SU M $1 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 $1 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 1. 0 0 $1 , 8 0 0 . 0 0 H: \ O R N O \ C 1 3 1 0 9 3 3 5 V _ C o n s t r u c t i o n l E _ P a y Ap p l i c a t i o n s l P a y Re q u e s t No 4- F I N A L . x I s Mn/DOT SP 1006-28 SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEETS State of Minnesota -Department of Transportation WORK ORDER MINOR EXTRA WORK Contractor: Bituminous Roadways, Inc. Work Order No.: 6 State Project No.: S.A.P. 152-103-003 Address: 1520 Commerce Drive, Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Federal Project No.: -na- Contract No.: -na- Job Location: Watertown Road &Stubbs Bay Road, Orono, MN In accordance with Standard Specifications 1103 and 1403 you are hereUy authorized and instructed to do the work described herein. The original contract provides erosion and sediment control measures to be installed and maintained throughout the project area. However, it has been determined by the Engineer that additional erosion and sediment control measures are needed at the south end of Stubbs Bay Road to provide additional protection adjacent to Lake Minnetonka. Therefore, the contractor shall install and maintain a temporary ditch check at the south end of Stubbs Bay Road, as directed by the Engineer. The contractor shall provide all equipment, material, and labor to complete the work associated with various items described above and listed below. This extra work will be paid for with 100% Non-Participating Funds. In accordance with Mn/DOT Specification 1403, the Engineer issues this Work Order to add the additional work items in accordance with all applicable specifications and as directed by the project supervisor. This work is not expected to become, or affect the Controlling operation. Contract time will not be altered as a result of this work except as provided in Mn/DOT Specification 1806. ESTIMATE OF COST Increase: Item No Item Unit Unit Price Quantity Amount 2573.512 Temporary Ditch Check Lump Sum $1,800.00 1.0 $1,800.00 Total Increase this Work Order = $1,800.00 Received By: Issued By: c , ~ _"" w Contractor Project Engineer/Super isor Date I I J / I SO Title ~ Date *Approved Assistant District Engineer *Required for Work Orders that exceed $25,000.00 Original to Engineer Copy to Contractor Date Copy to Construction and Innovative Contracting REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July 11, 2016 ITEM NO: 9 ______________________________________________________________________________ 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: Watertown Road Phase 2 Rehabilitation – Pay Request No. 1 ______________________________________________________________________________ List of Exhibits A- Recommendation Letter from Bolton & Menk B- Contractor’s Pay Request No. 1 1. Purpose. Gain Council authorization for Pay Request #1 for the Watertown Road Phase 2 Rehabilitation. 2. Background. On April 25th, 2016 the City awarded the Watertown Road Phase 2 Contract to Valley Paving. 3. Cost. Total Cost for the project is $831,069,92 broken down as listed below: Who Work Cost Bolton &Menk, Inc. Design and Bid Engineering $ 155,000.00 Valley Paving Reclaim Watertown Road from Turnham Road to Stubbs Bay Road and from Old Crystal Bay Road to Long Lake City Limits $ 606,568.92 Bolton &Menk, Inc. Construction Oversight $ 69,500.00 TOTAL $ 831,069.92 4. Funding. This project is funded from MSA, the General fund and the Storm Water fund. 5. Status. Valley Paving has completed approximately 42% of the work. Bolton and Menk has reviewed the payment request and confirmed that the work has been completed to standard (Exhibit A&B). To date, the cost split by funding source for construction are: State Aid General Fund Storm Water Fund Total This Pay Request $ 209,938.20 $0 $ 35,813.67 $ 245,751.87 To Date $ 209,938.20 $0 $ 35,813.67 $ 245,751.87 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to approve Pay Request No. 1 to Valley Paving in the amount of $ 245,751.87 for the Watertown Road Phase 2 Rehabilitation project. ORONO POLICE DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: July 11, 2016 Item No: 10 ______________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name: Correy Farniok JML Public Safety Report Title: Police Chief ______________________________________________________________________________ Item Description: Disposal of Forfeited Vehicles ______________________________________________________________________________ DISCUSSION: The Police Department has four forfeited vehicles that are being sold. All vehicles were seized and forfeited by the Orono Police Department from drivers that had multiple violations for Driving While Intoxicated. The Police Department would recommend all vehicles be sent to an Auto Auction. 2000 Oldsmobile Bravada VIN# 1GHDT13WOY2213443 1999 Honda CRV VIN# JHLRD1860XC018973 1998 Toyota Rav4 VIN# JT3GP10V8W7028483 2001 MZ Motorcycle (Scooter) VIN# RFTJP50AX1L000026 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to dispose of four forfeited vehicles through the Auto Auction. Date Application Received: 5/18/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 5/23/16 120-Day Review Period Expires: 9/21/16 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: July 7, 2016 Item No.: 11 ______________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Michael P. Gaffron JML Planning Dept. Title: Senior Planner ______________________________________________________________________________ Item Description: #15-3763a, Christopher W. Bollis, 200-350 Stubbs Bay Road North - Revised Preliminary Plat Review Application Summary: This is a proposed revision of the 7-lot subdivision layout that received preliminary plat approval in September 2015. Planning Commission Recommendation: Planning Commission at its June 20 meeting reviewed the proposed subdivision, heard public comments, and voted 5-0 to recommend denial, finding a lack of sufficient justification to grant variances for the proposed layout. The applicant was given the choice to have the application tabled but requested this be brought forward to the City Council as presented. Staff Recommendation: Because the plat layout creating multiple back lots does not meet City standards for road design, minimum lot area, etc. staff cannot recommend approval as presented. List of Exhibits A – Notice of Planning Commission Action B – Draft Planning Commission Minutes June 20, 2016 C – PC Memo and Exhibits dated June 16, 2016 D – PC Exhibits D & E Please Review the PC Memo, Exhibits, and Draft Minutes for Detailed Information Summary of Proposed Revision The revision is to reduce the number of lots from 7 to 5; instead of accessing all five lots from a private road extension of Kintyre Lane, the proposal is to access three southerly lots via a private shared driveway extending north from Kintyre Lane; and access two northerly lots from a shared driveway extending from the existing driveway corridor serving 350 Stubbs Bay Road N. Proposed Lots 1-2-3, in the east half of the property, each contain in excess of 3 dry buildable acres, giving them somewhat greater flexibility in house placement as compared to the prior approved proposal. Proposed Lots 4-5 each are just barely over 2.0 acres of dry-buildable. Under a standard subdivision process, each proposed lot must contain a minimum of 2.0 acres of contiguous dry buildable land. However, “back lots” must contain a total of three acres. The survey depicts 5 lots; based on the layout and level of improvements proposed, Lots 2-3-4-5 would be considered as back lots; Lots 4 and 5 would not meet the 3-acre back lot requirement. #15-3763a July 7, 2016 Page 2 of 3 Site Layout Issues. Lots 2-3-4-5 do not meet the 200-foot width requirement as measured at the 50’ front setback line. These 4 lots do not abut a public or private road meeting City standards. Determination of which lot lines to consider as ‘front’ and ‘rear’ for setback purposes is not obviously apparent due to the lack of road frontage, so the conventions of Section 82-256(c)(2)b. have been referred to. While these four lots each have a depicted building site, imposition of the back-lot setback requirements will be an issue for the building locations on Lots 3, 4 and 5. The submitted plans show all lot line setbacks as 30 feet, not meeting code requirements for the standard RR-1B setbacks (50’ front and rear, 30’ on the sides) nor the increased back lot setbacks (75’ front and rear, 45’ sides). Exhibit D of the PC memo is a staff sketch depicting the required setbacks based on Lots 2-3-4-5 being defined as back lots. Road Layout & Front Lot/Back Lot Requirements. Subdivision Code Section 82-283(b)(6) states: “(6) Culs-de-sac shall be discouraged; proposed roadways shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be subdivided unless prevented by topography or other physical conditions or unless in the opinion of the city such extension is not necessary or desirable for the coordination of the layout of the subdivision with the existing layout or the most advantageous future development of adjacent tracts.” Section 82-283(h)(2) states that “…A cul-de-sac shall be provided at the end of a permanent dead-end street in accordance with the city’s construction standards and specifications.” Section 82-281(d) states that the typical section for a private residential street serving 3-6 dwelling units is 24’ minimum paved width within a 50-foot wide right-of-way. Rather than extending existing Kintyre Lane and improving Outlot A of Tamarack Hill to a private road standard, applicant’s proposal would simply extend shared driveways to serve proposed homes, and would not provide cul-de-sacs. In staff’s opinion this is inconsistent with the letter and intent of the subdivision code. Subdivision Code Section 82-256(c) established subdivision standards in 1993 for the use of front/back lot divisions. The proposed layout absent the full-width paved roads and cul-de-sacs functionally creates a front lot/back lot configuration. However, Section 82-256(c)(1)b. states that “b. Front/back lot divisions may be used for individual lot splits but may not be used when subdividing a large parcel into numerous lots if creation of a back lot is merely a convenience to the developer rather than supported by unique site factors.” (Emphasis added) In the rural area (2-acre and 5-acre zones) the City only rarely deviates from the code provisions requiring a cul-de-sac when serving three or more homes. Adherence to road design standards is always a goal, intended to avoid the creation of back lots with long driveways. Where such deviations have occurred, identification of unique site factors has been critical in order to support the granting of variances. An example is the recent Mooney Lake Preserve plat, in which a cul-de-sac was shortened and shared driveways lengthened, based on difficult steeply sloped topography and to avoid the destruction of a large swath of trees within a heavily wooded area. Those two factors were seen by the Planning Commission and Council as a valid basis for a variance. The approval was conditioned on each new home having to provide a loop driveway near the home, sufficient for maneuvering by emergency and service vehicles, and a paved shared driveway width of 20 feet the entire length. In recent discussions with Fire Chief Van Eyll, it was indicated that if the approval of the current proposal results in private driveways rather than conforming roads and cul-de-sacs, the same conditions would be required for applicant’s development. #15-3763a July 7, 2016 Page 3 of 3 Applicants’ proposed shared driveways appear to be only 12’-15’ in width, and the shared driveway serving Lots 2 & 5 is in excess of 400 feet in length, while that serving Lots 3 & 4 would be approximately 700 feet. As proposed, these driveways would not be sufficient to provide suitable access for emergency and service vehicles. Applicant should be asked to provide a basis for the narrow shared driveways. Winding a narrow driveway through the group of trees just north of the existing Kintyre Lane cul-de-sac was an apparent goal, but in staff’s opinion there are no other unique factors about this site that justify the narrow roadway and elimination of cul-de-sacs. Staff would recommend that the road design include cul-de-sacs as shown in the sketches attached as Exhibit E of the PC memo. Existing Grades. The developer is proposing site grading to create individual house building pads as part of the subdivision improvements for Lots 2, 4 and 5. Given that the City’s “number of stories” limitation has been repealed, this may be less critical than before; however, if this grading remains as an element of the proposal, it will be acknowledged in the development approval stage as creating ‘new existing grades’. Summary of Issues for Discussion 1. The proposed lot configuration does not meet minimum code requirements for access because it does not include private roads and cul-de-sacs meeting City standards. 2. The proposed configuration results in the creation of back lots, some of which do not meet minimum back lot code standards with regard to lot area. 3. The proposed configuration creates back lots which require 150% of the RR-1B setback standards. The result is that for some lots the proposed house locations will not meet those setback requirements. Public Comments At the June 20 meeting, Planning Commission received two comments from the public. Cheryl Miller, 195 Kintyre Lane, express support for the proposed plan since it reduces impacts to her neighborhood. Tom Fleming, 300 Stubbs Bay Road, stated his house is screened by trees from the northerly outlot driveway corridor and that his concern is going from a 12-foot driveway to a 24-foot road may negatively impact the tree buffer. Staff Recommendation Because the plat layout creating multiple back lots does not meet City standards for road design, minimum lot area, etc. staff cannot recommend approval as presented. Staff would recommend that the road design include cul-de-sacs as shown in the staff sketches. This would eliminate the status of the lots as back lots, would revert the setbacks to the standard RR-1B requirements, would provide flexibility in house placement for Lots 4 & 5, and would provide for adequate emergency and service vehicle access. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Review the proposed application and provide direction to staff and applicant as to whether the plat can be approved as-is; or be modified per staff recommendation; or be denied. If approval or denial is the outcome, a resolution reflecting the Council’s findings and action will be drafted. If Council indicates that modifications should be made, define those modifications and table the application. Note: Applicant has indicated that if this request is denied he will proceed with the previously-approved 7-lot plat. #15-3763a July 7, 2016 Page 2 of 3 Site Layout Issues. Lots 2-3-4-5 do not meet the 200-foot width requirement as measured at the 50’ front setback line. These 4 lots do not abut a public or private road meeting City standards. Determination of which lot lines to consider as ‘front’ and ‘rear’ for setback purposes is not obviously apparent due to the lack of road frontage, so the conventions of Section 82-256(c)(2)b. have been referred to. While these four lots each have a depicted building site, imposition of the back-lot setback requirements will be an issue for the building locations on Lots 3, 4 and 5. The submitted plans show all lot line setbacks as 30 feet, not meeting code requirements for the standard RR-1B setbacks (50’ front and rear, 30’ on the sides) nor the increased back lot setbacks (75’ front and rear, 45’ sides). Exhibit D of the PC memo is a staff sketch depicting the required setbacks based on Lots 2-3-4-5 being defined as back lots. Road Layout & Front Lot/Back Lot Requirements. Subdivision Code Section 82-283(b)(6) states: “(6) Culs-de-sac shall be discouraged; proposed roadways shall be extended to the boundary lines of the tract to be subdivided unless prevented by topography or other physical conditions or unless in the opinion of the city such extension is not necessary or desirable for the coordination of the layout of the subdivision with the existing layout or the most advantageous future development of adjacent tracts.” Section 82-283(h)(2) states that “…A cul-de-sac shall be provided at the end of a permanent dead-end street in accordance with the city’s construction standards and specifications.” Section 82-281(d) states that the typical section for a private residential street serving 3-6 dwelling units is 24’ minimum paved width within a 50-foot wide right-of-way. Rather than extending existing Kintyre Lane and improving Outlot A of Tamarack Hill to a private road standard, applicant’s proposal would simply extend shared driveways to serve proposed homes, and would not provide cul-de-sacs. In staff’s opinion this is inconsistent with the letter and intent of the subdivision code. Subdivision Code Section 82-256(c) established subdivision standards in 1993 for the use of front/back lot divisions. The proposed layout absent the full-width paved roads and cul-de-sacs functionally creates a front lot/back lot configuration. However, Section 82-256(c)(1)b. states that “b. Front/back lot divisions may be used for individual lot splits but may not be used when subdividing a large parcel into numerous lots if creation of a back lot is merely a convenience to the developer rather than supported by unique site factors.” (Emphasis added) In the rural area (2-acre and 5-acre zones) the City only rarely deviates from the code provisions requiring a cul-de-sac when serving three or more homes. Adherence to road design standards is always a goal, intended to avoid the creation of back lots with long driveways. Where such deviations have occurred, identification of unique site factors has been critical in order to support the granting of variances. An example is the recent Mooney Lake Preserve plat, in which a cul-de-sac was shortened and shared driveways lengthened, based on difficult steeply sloped topography and to avoid the destruction of a large swath of trees within a heavily wooded area. Those two factors were seen by the Planning Commission and Council as a valid basis for a variance. The approval was conditioned on each new home having to provide a loop driveway near the home, sufficient for maneuvering by emergency and service vehicles, and a paved shared driveway width of 20 feet the entire length. In recent discussions with Fire Chief Van Eyll, it was indicated that if the approval of the current proposal results in private driveways rather than conforming roads and cul-de-sacs, the same conditions would be required for applicant’s development. #15-3763a July 7, 2016 Page 3 of 3 Applicants’ proposed shared driveways appear to be only 12’-15’ in width, and the shared driveway serving Lots 2 & 5 is in excess of 400 feet in length, while that serving Lots 3 & 4 would be approximately 700 feet. As proposed, these driveways would not be sufficient to provide suitable access for emergency and service vehicles. Applicant should be asked to provide a basis for the narrow shared driveways. Winding a narrow driveway through the group of trees just north of the existing Kintyre Lane cul-de-sac was an apparent goal, but in staff’s opinion there are no other unique factors about this site that justify the narrow roadway and elimination of cul-de-sacs. Staff would recommend that the road design include cul-de-sacs as shown in the sketches attached as Exhibit E of the PC memo. Existing Grades. The developer is proposing site grading to create individual house building pads as part of the subdivision improvements for Lots 2, 4 and 5. Given that the City’s “number of stories” limitation has been repealed, this may be less critical than before; however, if this grading remains as an element of the proposal, it will be acknowledged in the development approval stage as creating ‘new existing grades’. Summary of Issues for Discussion 1. The proposed lot configuration does not meet minimum code requirements for access because it does not include private roads and cul-de-sacs meeting City standards. 2. The proposed configuration results in the creation of back lots, some of which do not meet minimum back lot code standards with regard to lot area. 3. The proposed configuration creates back lots which require 150% of the RR-1B setback standards. The result is that for some lots the proposed house locations will not meet those setback requirements. Public Comments At the June 20 meeting, Planning Commission received two comments from the public. Cheryl Miller, 195 Kintyre Lane, express support for the proposed plan since it reduces impacts to her neighborhood. Tom Fleming, 300 Stubbs Bay Road, stated his house is screened by trees from the northerly outlot driveway corridor and that his concern is going from a 12-foot driveway to a 24-foot road may negatively impact the tree buffer. Staff Recommendation Because the plat layout creating multiple back lots does not meet City standards for road design, minimum lot area, etc. staff cannot recommend approval as presented. Staff would recommend that the road design include cul-de-sacs as shown in the staff sketches. This would eliminate the status of the lots as back lots, would revert the setbacks to the standard RR-1B requirements, would provide flexibility in house placement for Lots 4 & 5, and would provide for adequate emergency and service vehicle access. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Review the proposed application and provide direction to staff and applicant as to whether the plat can be approved as-is; or be modified per staff recommendation; or be denied. If approval or denial is the outcome, a resolution reflecting the Council’s findings and action will be drafted. If Council indicates that modifications should be made, define those modifications and table the application. Note: Applicant has indicated that if this request is denied he will proceed with the previously-approved 7-lot plat. Date Application Received: 5/18/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 5/23/16 120-Day Review Period Expires: 9/21/16 To: From: Date: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Mike Gaf:fron, Senior Planner A� June 16, 2016 / f't::---' Subject:#15-3763-A, Christopher W. Bollis, 200-350 Stubbs Bay Road North -Revised Preliminary Plat -Public Hearing ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------· Zoning District: Property Area: RR-lB, One Family Rural Residential District (2 acres/200' width) 31.01 acres (24.53 ac. dry, 6.48 ac. wetland) Applicati.on Summary: This is a proposed revision of the 7-lot subdivision layout that received preliminary plat approval in September 2015. The revision is to reduce the number of lots from 7 to 5; access three southerly lots via a private shared driveway extending north from Kintyre Lane; and access two northerly lots from a shared driveway extending from the existing driveway corridor serving 350 Stubbs Bay Road N. All lots will be served by individual on-site sewage treatment systems and private wells. Staff Recommendation: Planning Commission should review the staff report and City Engineer's report as well as the submitted documentation. Hold the public hearing and accept public comments. Because the plat layout does not meet City standards for road design, Planning Commission should consider whether there is sufficient justification to grant variances for the proposed layout. Parcels Involved: i Address & PID I 200 Stubbs Bay Rd N 32-118-23 42 0003 '. 350 Stubbs Ba Rd N 32-118-23 42 0006 Owner of Record Christopher & Gail Bollis Christopher W. Bollis Zoning District: RR-lB One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre/200' width) CMP Land Use Designation: Rural Residential - 1 Unit per 2 Acres Existing Property Area: 30.68 ac. (Wetland: 6.58 ac. Dry: 24.1 ac.) I Lot & Outlot Areas I Wetland Total Dry i Ponding Area Total Wet+ Dry+ Ponding (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) i Lot 1 0.15 4.08 0.00 4.23 Lot2 I 0.49 3.34 0.00 3.83 Lot3 4.87 3.25 i 0.00 8.12 Lot4 ! 0.42 2.03 1· I 0.00 2.45 Lots! 0.42 2.03 0.00 2.45 Total in Lots 1-5 ! 6.35 14.72 0.00 21.08 Outlot A (undeveloped) 0.23 8.46 I 0.00 8.69 Outlot B (south shared drive) 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.43 ': Outlot C (north shared drive) i 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 l Stubbs Bay Rd. Right-of-way ! 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.39 ! I ! Item 2Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] I t e m # 0 2 - P C A g e n d a - 0 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 5 - 3 7 6 3 A [ T o t a l P a g e s 5 0 ] I t e m # 0 2 - P C A g e n d a - 0 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 5 - 3 7 6 3 A [ T o t a l P a g e s 5 0 ] I t e m # 0 2 - P C A g e n d a - 0 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 5 - 3 7 6 3 A [ T o t a l P a g e s 5 0 ] I t e m # 0 2 - P C A g e n d a - 0 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 5 - 3 7 6 3 A [ T o t a l P a g e s 5 0 ] I t e m # 0 2 - P C A g e n d a - 0 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 5 - 3 7 6 3 A [ T o t a l P a g e s 5 0 ] I t e m # 0 2 - P C A g e n d a - 0 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 5 - 3 7 6 3 A [ T o t a l P a g e s 5 0 ] I t e m # 0 2 - P C A g e n d a - 0 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 5 - 3 7 6 3 A [ T o t a l P a g e s 5 0 ] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] I t e m # 0 2 - P C A g e n d a - 0 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 5 - 3 7 6 3 A [ T o t a l P a g e s 5 0 ] I t e m # 0 2 - P C A g e n d a - 0 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 5 - 3 7 6 3 A [ T o t a l P a g e s 5 0 ] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] I t e m # 0 2 - P C A g e n d a - 0 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 5 - 3 7 6 3 A [ T o t a l P a g e s 5 0 ] I t e m # 0 2 - P C A g e n d a - 0 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 5 - 3 7 6 3 A [ T o t a l P a g e s 5 0 ] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Date Application Received: 5/18/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 5/23/16 120-Day Review Period Expires: 9/21/16 To: From: Date: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Mike Gaf:fron, Senior Planner A� June 16, 2016 / f't::---' Subject:#15-3763-A, Christopher W. Bollis, 200-350 Stubbs Bay Road North -Revised Preliminary Plat -Public Hearing ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------· Zoning District: Property Area: RR-lB, One Family Rural Residential District (2 acres/200' width) 31.01 acres (24.53 ac. dry, 6.48 ac. wetland) Applicati.on Summary: This is a proposed revision of the 7-lot subdivision layout that received preliminary plat approval in September 2015. The revision is to reduce the number of lots from 7 to 5; access three southerly lots via a private shared driveway extending north from Kintyre Lane; and access two northerly lots from a shared driveway extending from the existing driveway corridor serving 350 Stubbs Bay Road N. All lots will be served by individual on-site sewage treatment systems and private wells. Staff Recommendation: Planning Commission should review the staff report and City Engineer's report as well as the submitted documentation. Hold the public hearing and accept public comments. Because the plat layout does not meet City standards for road design, Planning Commission should consider whether there is sufficient justification to grant variances for the proposed layout. Parcels Involved: i Address & PID I 200 Stubbs Bay Rd N 32-118-23 42 0003 '. 350 Stubbs Ba Rd N 32-118-23 42 0006 Owner of Record Christopher & Gail Bollis Christopher W. Bollis Zoning District: RR-lB One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre/200' width) CMP Land Use Designation: Rural Residential - 1 Unit per 2 Acres Existing Property Area: 30.68 ac. (Wetland: 6.58 ac. Dry: 24.1 ac.) I Lot & Outlot Areas I Wetland Total Dry i Ponding Area Total Wet+ Dry+ Ponding (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) i Lot 1 0.15 4.08 0.00 4.23 Lot2 I 0.49 3.34 0.00 3.83 Lot3 4.87 3.25 i 0.00 8.12 Lot4 ! 0.42 2.03 1· I 0.00 2.45 Lots! 0.42 2.03 0.00 2.45 Total in Lots 1-5 ! 6.35 14.72 0.00 21.08 Outlot A (undeveloped) 0.23 8.46 I 0.00 8.69 Outlot B (south shared drive) 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.43 ': Outlot C (north shared drive) i 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 l Stubbs Bay Rd. Right-of-way ! 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.39 ! I ! Item 2Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] I t e m # 0 2 - P C A g e n d a - 0 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 5 - 3 7 6 3 A [ T o t a l P a g e s 5 0 ] I t e m # 0 2 - P C A g e n d a - 0 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 5 - 3 7 6 3 A [ T o t a l P a g e s 5 0 ] I t e m # 0 2 - P C A g e n d a - 0 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 5 - 3 7 6 3 A [ T o t a l P a g e s 5 0 ] I t e m # 0 2 - P C A g e n d a - 0 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 5 - 3 7 6 3 A [ T o t a l P a g e s 5 0 ] I t e m # 0 2 - P C A g e n d a - 0 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 5 - 3 7 6 3 A [ T o t a l P a g e s 5 0 ] I t e m # 0 2 - P C A g e n d a - 0 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 5 - 3 7 6 3 A [ T o t a l P a g e s 5 0 ] I t e m # 0 2 - P C A g e n d a - 0 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 5 - 3 7 6 3 A [ T o t a l P a g e s 5 0 ] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] I t e m # 0 2 - P C A g e n d a - 0 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 5 - 3 7 6 3 A [ T o t a l P a g e s 5 0 ] I t e m # 0 2 - P C A g e n d a - 0 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 5 - 3 7 6 3 A [ T o t a l P a g e s 5 0 ] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] I t e m # 0 2 - P C A g e n d a - 0 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 5 - 3 7 6 3 A [ T o t a l P a g e s 5 0 ] I t e m # 0 2 - P C A g e n d a - 0 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 5 - 3 7 6 3 A [ T o t a l P a g e s 5 0 ] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #15-3763A [Total Pages 50] Date Application Received: 3/23/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 4/4/16 CMP Amdmt. 60 -Day Review Period Expires: 6/3/16 120-Day Subdivision Review Period Expires: 8/2/16 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: July 7, 2016 Item No.: 12 ______________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Michael P. Gaffron JML Planning Dept. Title: Senior Planner ______________________________________________________________________________ Item Description: 16-3822 Lakewest Development, 3245 Wayzata Boulevard West - Preliminary Plat / RPUD Rezoning ______________________________________________________________________________ List of Exhibits A – New Turn-Lanes & Access Plan received June 20 B – Hennepin County Comments received July 5 C – Incomplete Draft Resolution – Preliminary Plat & General Concept Plan Approval D – Council Minutes of May 9 (final) and June 27 (draft) E – Staff Memos dated May 4 and June 24 F – Council Packet from May 9 Meeting G – Council Packet from June 27 Meeting H – Applicants Narrative and Supplemental Narrative (from May PC Packet) Recap May 9 Council Review. The City Council reviewed this proposed subdivision on May 9 and tabled the application pending staff discussions with Met Council regarding the density issue, developer meeting with Hennepin County to gain a better understanding regarding access to Wayzata Boulevard, and obtain fire department input. June 27 Council Review. Pursuant to that direction, staff conferred with Met Council staff and reported to the City Council at its June 27 meeting that an understanding of how Met Council calculates density has been gained. It is anticipated that the Eisinger Meadow plat will result in Orono’s density calculation being just over the 3.00 threshold, and the CMP amendment is likely to be approved. Council on June 27 adopted Resolution No. 6637 granting preliminary approval for the CMP amendment, which was formally submitted to Metropolitan Council by staff on June 29. On June 27 staff also noted to Council that a meeting with Fire Chief Van Eyll resulted in a number of comments which are included in the staff memo dated June 24. Hennepin County Review. It was also noted at the June 27 meeting that with regard to access to Wayzata Boulevard, staff and applicants met with Hennepin County on May 16. The primary points of discussion were with regard to whether a second access would be allowed, and the parameters for any access such as sight distance, turn lanes vs bypass lanes, and County expectations of the developer. Applicants were advised by the County to complete survey work to establish sight distances and prepare alternative access sketches for consideration. That work was completed and a plan for a single west-end access with turn lanes, and a “T” terminus at the east end, was submitted to the #16-3822 July 7, 2016 Page 2 of 3 County and City on June 20 (Exhibit A). Absent County comment on that plan, the Council did not spend any time reviewing the plat when it approved the CMP amendment on June 27. Hennepin County comments on the June 20 access/turn-lane plan were received on July 5 (Exhibit B) suggesting that while the sight distance does not meet their desirable standard for new development, it does meet their minimum requirements. They indicated that if the second phase multi-family project goes forward, a dedicated westbound left turn lane will be required if not already completed as part of the 2020 turnback construction upgrades for this section of Wayzata Boulevard. Current Review Status The July 5 Hennepin County communication appears to solidify that only the westerly access will be approved, leaving the easterly terminus of the internal private road as either a cul-de-sac or a “T” or hammerhead configuration. Noting that Van Eyll’s preference would be a hammerhead, it was also discussed with Hennepin County as to the possibility of establishing emergency-only accessibility from the T directly to Wayzata Boulevard, which staff would support. This should be included in the preliminary plat requirements for this subdivision. Applicants have not submitted a set of revised overall preliminary plat drawings reflecting the hammerhead and turn lane configurations. These should be required prior to granting preliminary plat approval. Additionally, preliminary plat approval when granted should be contingent on Met Council confirmation of approval of the Comp Plan Amendment, which has not been received as of this writing. Staff is in the process of drafting a Preliminary Plat & General Concept Plan Approval resolution which as of this writing is incomplete and in draft state only, but attached as Exhibit C for Council’s initial review. A list of items for Council discussion or clarification with page references to the Draft Resolution includes: 1. The Conservation Design Master Plan is lacking certain detailed information which will be necessary to have fleshed out before final plat approval (Page 4) 2. Council to confirm acceptance of “average” FAR of 0.782 – how or whether to define for individual lots; (Please review applicants Supplementary Narrative, Exhibit H) (Page 6) 3. Confirm Council acceptance of average hardcover of 35% (some lots will be over 50% RPUD limit) (Page 7) 4. Street widths (28’ E-W, 32’ N-S), private vs public, acceptance of T configuration (Page 7) 5. Confirm acceptance of no Trail Easement along Wayzata Blvd (Page 8) 6. Review Stormwater Fee calculation method (Page 8) 7. Discuss any other topics that need to be addressed for preliminary plat approval Staff Recommendation Based on the County comments indicating a single access point will be allowed, applicants should be providing a revised set of plans showing reflecting the hammerhead configuration, and any other aspects of the preliminary plat that will change as a result. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Council should review the topics for discussion as noted above, providing staff and applicants with any additional direction necessary to allow for preliminary plat approval. Direct staff to draft a resolution for preliminary plat approval, incorporating appropriate conditions. The #16-3822 July 7, 2016 Page 3 of 3 resolution would include language noting that approval of the rezoning to RPUD is preliminarily approved and will be formally approved at the time of final plat approval. Page 1 of 20 Draft #1 – 7/7/16 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GENERAL CONCEPT PLAN AND GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST - FILE NO. 16-3822 WHEREAS, Lakewest, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (hereinafter the "Developer") is owner of the property located at 3245 Wayzata Boulevard West within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A (attached) (hereinafter the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Developer has requested General Concept Plan and Preliminary Plat Approval for development of the Property. Proposed is a rezoning from RR-1B, One Family Rural Residential District to RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development District for construction of 27 single-family homes; and WHEREAS, the Developer has concurrently requested an amendment of the 2008- 2030 Orono Community Management Plan (“CMP”) to allow said development at a density of approximately 5.5 dwelling units per acre, rather than the 10-15 units per acre for which the Property is guided in the CMP; and WHEREAS, on April 4, 2016 the Developer filed a complete formal application with the City for Comprehensive Plan amendment, rezoning, and concept plan & preliminary plat approval for a 27-lot residential subdivision of the Property; and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing for the application and reviewed it on April 18, 2016, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on April 18, 2016 recommended on a vote of 4-1 that the Council grant the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment; on a vote of 5-0 that the Council approve the rezoning to RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development District; and on a vote of 5-0 that the Council grant general concept plan and preliminary plat approval subject to a number of conditions and recommendations; and Page 2 of 20 WHEREAS, the Orono City Council was given the opportunity to review sketch plans for the Property in regular meetings in September 2014 and January 2016, and has reviewed the formal application at its regular meetings on May 9 and July 11, 2016; and WHEREAS, on June 27, 2016 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6637 granting preliminary approval for Amendment #5 of the 2008-2030 Community Management Plan, and sid Amendment was forwarded to the Metropolitan Council on June 29, 2016 for review and approval; and WHEREAS, the City Council hereby makes the following findings in regard to this application for RPUD General Concept Plan and Preliminary Plat approval, CMP amendment, and rezoning: FINDINGS A. Community Management Plan Conformity; CMP Amendment 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #16-3822. 2. The Property is currently zoned RR-1B One Family Rural Residential Zoning District, requiring a minimum residential lot size of 2.0 acres. The property contains approximately 29 gross acres exclusive of Wayzata Boulevard right-of way, but of which only approximately 5 acres is developable, the remainder consisting of wetlands and a closed landfill. 3. The proposed use of the Property for residential development at a density of 5.5 units per acre is inconsistent with the Orono 2008-2030 CMP guiding of the Property for residential development at a density of 10-15 units per acre. The Developer has applied for an amendment of the CMP to reguide the Property to allow development at a density of 5.5 units per acre. 4. The proposed development is within the area west of Old Crystal Bay Road, south of Wayzata Boulevard and north of Highway 12. This area has been zoned RR-1B, 2-acre minimum lot size (0.5 units/acre) since 1975. In the 2008-2030 CMP the Property was reguided to allow an overall density of 10- 15 units per acre, which likely would only be achievable via a mix of attached townhomes and larger multi-family buildings. The rationale for the density increase at this site was primarily the location sandwiched between two high-traffic roadways; the potential availability of municipal utility services; and the remote location from single family residential development. Page 3 of 20 5. In part the density increase was established to meet Metropolitan Council goals by guiding carefully-selected parcels at densities that would potentially allow for more affordable housing options. Met Council guidelines require an overall new sewered development density of at least 3 units per acre. In order to meet these goals, certain parcels within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) were guided for densities significantly higher than 3 units/acre – to allow those shoreland areas in the MUSA historically zoned and planned for low density, to develop at the 1-acre and 2-acre lot sizes desired by the City. 6. The City Council has reviewed the development proposal with regards to the CMP and finds that it meets a number of goals for housing as established within the Housing element of the CMP, including: - Provides opportunities for housing types, locations, and cost ranges which will meet the needs and provide adequate housing for a broader range of ages, family groups, lifestyle needs and levels of income to the greatest extent practical. - Provides housing types and residential densities consistent with environmental and land use plans and with the availability of public services and facilities. 7. The City Council has granted preliminary approval for the amendment per the findings contained within Resolution No. 6377 adopted June 27, 2016, and it has been forwarded to the Metropolitan Council for review and approval. B. Rezoning from RR-1B to RPUD 8. The Property is located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and is intended to be developed using municipal sewer and water. Municipal sewer and water are planned to be extended to serve the property. 9. Because the property is proposed to be reguided in the CMP for single family residential use at a density of 3-7 units per acre, use, the property should be rezoned consistent with the intended and guided use. The most appropriate zoning for the intended use is RPUD, Residential Planned Unit Development District. 10. The property contains approximately 29 gross acres exclusive of Wayzata Boulevard right-of way, but of which only approximately 5 acres is developable, the remainder consisting of wetlands and a closed landfill. The property meets the conditions of Zoning Code Section 78-626(1) for rezoning to RPUD because it exceeds five acres in area. While a small portion of the Property is within the designated Shoreland Overlay District, the Council finds that the RPUD requirement that the property be outside the Shoreland District should be waived since a majority of the area to be developed is not within said District. Page 4 of 20 11. Rezoning the property to RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development is appropriate based on the medium-density residential nature of the proposal, which meets the following general purposes of the RPUD District: a) incorporates flexibility in land development and redevelopment in order to utilize new techniques of building design, construction and land development; b) provides lifecycle housing with the potential to meet affordable and moderate cost housing needs; c) incorporates energy conservation through the clustering of buildings and land uses; d) preserves desirable site characteristics and open space and protects sensitive environmental features, including sensitive wetland areas, while avoiding the portions of the property which are encumbered by a closed landfill; e) provides design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned; f) results in a sensitive development in the transitional area located between low- density single family uses to the north and south, taking into account the location between two arterial highway corridors as well as the agriculturally used property to the east guided for future medium-high density residential use; and g) yields development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan guiding for higher density than the typical urban and rural residential development in Orono. C. Environmental Considerations; Site Planning & Amenities; Transportation; 12. Conservation Design. SECTION TO BE DRAFTED 12. Wetlands on Site and/or Impacted. The property contains 2 distinct areas that have been delineated as Preserve wetland. No wetlands are proposed to be impacted. Buffer averaging is proposed subject to MCWD rules and requiring that agency’s approval. The reported MCWD base buffer width requirement is reported as 75 feet, with a minimum of 67 feet. Applicants have proposed a buffer Page 5 of 20 avregae of 71 feet, ranging in actual buffer width of 40 feet adjacent to the north portion of wetland area and 85 feet adjacent to the east and west portions. The proposed buffer plan results in approximately 167,200 s.f. of buffers, slightly over the minimum MCWD requirement of 166,400 s.f. The City code requires a minimum structure setback of 35’ from the wetland boundary, plus 10’ additional where the 35’ setback would be less than 10’ from a MCWD required buffer. The City will require a Conservation and Flowage Easement over the wetlands being preserved. 13. Tree and/or Woodland Impacts. SECTION TO BE DRAFTED 14. Landscaping. The proposed landscaping plans (Sheets B15 thru B19) will be evaluated for compliance with the very detailed RPUD landscaping requirements. 15. Conformity with Zoning District Standards. In relation to the RPUD standards, there are specific guidelines for detached single family development in Zoning Code Section 78-626(8). The RPUD standards as written for detached single family use do not accommodate the type of smaller, narrow lot style of development that is proposed. However, the concept of a planned unit development process is to allow flexibility in design. Section 78-626(16) provides for flexibility in RPUD standards, as follows: (16) Flexibility. The uniqueness of each RPUD requires that specifications and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and subdivisions may be subject to modification from the city ordinances ordinarily governing them. The city council may therefore approve streets, utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements, if it finds that strict adherence to such standards or requirements is not required to meet the intent of this section or to protect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the RPUD, the surrounding area or the city as a whole. This proposed development concept requires a significant departure (flexibility) from the RPUD district lot standards for individual homesites. The table below identifies specific standards which require flexibility, which the City Council finds acceptable: Page 6 of 20 RPUD District Minimum SFR Standard Proposed Lot Standards Flexibility Required? Minimum lot size: 15,000 square feet 4,614 s.f. – 11,928 s.f. Yes Minimum lot width at setback line: 90 feet Varies – Typ. 40’+ Yes Minimum lot depth: 125 feet Varies – most are 90+ Yes Minimum front building setback (to internal streets): 25 feet Varies – 10’-25’ Yes Minimum rear or side setback to Wayzata Boulevard: 50 feet 40 feet typ. Yes Minimum side setback to internal street: 25 feet Lot 9 Bl. 1: 10’ Others OK Yes Minimum side yard setback: 10 feet 5’ for most lots Yes Minimum rear yard setback: Lesser of 40’ or 20% of lot depth Varies widely Yes Wetland building setback: Greater of 35 feet or MCWD buffer plus 10 feet Greater of 35 feet or MCWD buffer plus 10 feet No Building height: Maximum of 30 feet, 2-1/2 stories Depending on topography, some sites will require basements that would be defined as stories, hence there may be some 3-story homes Yes All dwelling units, including manufactured homes, shall have a depth of at least 20 feet for at least 50 percent of their width. All dwelling units, including manufactured homes, shall have a width of at least 20 feet for at least 50 percent of their depth. No 16. Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Zoning Code Section 78-1403 limits Lot Coverage by Structures for lots less than 2 acres in area to 15%. For this development the 15% Lot Coverage limitation shall not be applicable. Per the RPUD standards an individual lot Floor Area Ratio (FAR = gross area of all floors divided by gross lot area) of 0.5.would normally be applicable. Applicants have requested flexibility with regards to the FAR, requesting an average FAR of 0.782 based on the extremely small lot sizes averaging 6,661 s.f. The Council finds that this is acceptable given that the individual lots have been reduced in size by excluding wetland buffer areas from the individual lots. This is further justified by resulting in buffer maintenance to be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association rather than individual lot owners. The average FAR calculation of 0.782 shall include the square footage of all enclosed spaces including garage space, basement, interior rooms and enclosed porches. Page 7 of 20 17. Hardcover. By virtue of the RPUD zoning, per 78-1701(4)(a) the property is assigned to Hardcover Protection Tier 4, which allows up to 50% hardcover of the gross lot area. Only the smallest of the proposed lots would appear to approach that limit. The average hardcover estimated by the applicant is based on a 1,660 s.f. house footprint and 700 s.f. driveway, resulting in a 35% hardcover average. With approximately only 20% of the lots being less than 5,000 s.f., the average overall hardcover maximum of 50% should be achieveable. 18. Streets. All 27 lots will be served by a new internal private road system to be platted as outlots and be constructed by the developer to City standards, with the east-west segment having a minimum paved road width of 28 feet (back of curb to back of curb). The north-south segment shall be paved ata aminimum width of 32 feet (back of curb to back of curb) and established to public street standards, in anticipation of possible future multi-family development within the landfill area.. All 27 lots will have driveways accessing the new internal road system, and none shall have direct driveway access to Wayzata Boulevard. The easterly end of the development shall end in a “T” backup configuration subject to Fire Department dimension approval. The developer is advised to create a surmountable access for emergency vehicle use only from the T to Wayzata Boulevard. 19. Access to Wayzata Boulevard. Hennepin County has indicated preliminary approval for one access point to Wayzata Boulevard at the westerly end of the site. The preliminary indications are that no additional right-of-way for Wayzata Boulevard will be required, although turn lanes will be required. , with a “T” configuration rather than a cul-de-sac that no additional right-of-way for Wayzata Boulevard is required. With the internal road system being privately owned and maintained, the standard City underlying road easements and maintenance covenants will be required. 20. Easements Required. Standard perimeter drainage and utility easements around all property boundaries as well as conservation and flowage easements over the delineated wetlands will be required. Drainage easements will also be required overa all stormwater management facilities. 21. Future Road Extensions. The westerly terminus of the north-south road ending at a parking area with back-up apron has the potential to be extended to serve future development. To avoid future neighborhood confusion, barriers and signage shall Page 8 of 20 be established indicating the road potentially will be extended in the future. 22. Lighting. Internal street lighting should be at a low level consistent with the surrounding rural residential character while providing the necessary level of security, and will be maintained by the homeowners association. Private street lighting will be provided by the developer, then maintained through standard agreement between the homeowners association and the appropriate public utility company. 23. 10% Private Park RPUD Requirement. The private recreation area of ‘10% of the platted property’ required under the RPUD standards will be satisfied via a neighborhood park near the west end of the development, plus a trail system throughout the perimeter of the landfill area as shown in the attached Trail Plan. 24. Park and Trail Dedication. There are no identifiable public parkland needs at this location. However, development of the proposed housing will generate additional use of existing City park facilities in the area. The Council finds that no park lands need to be dedicated and the park dedication should be in the form of a Cash Contribution in Lieu of Lands as allowed by the Municipal Code. FOR DISCUSSION: Additionally, the Council finds that although no public trails along the property boundaries are planned, it would be prudent to obtain a trail easement over the northerly 10 feet of the property for potential future trail use, such easement to coincide with the required 10’ drainage and utility easement in that same location. 25. Stormwater Management. Stormwater management is proposed to be provided by a stormwater pond area at the west end of the site, which will ultimately discharge to the major wetland on the site. The stormwater facilities will be subject to standard drainage easements. In addition to the City of Orono, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District have approval authority over the applicants’ stormwater management plan. Final stormwater plans will be subject to the recommnedations and approval of the City Engineer. 26. Stormwater and Drainage Improvements & Fees. The property will be subject to the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee. Recent Council action to revise the Trunk Fee provisions would result in a fee (for development at greater than 4.0 units per acre) of $8,490 per acre (2016 Fee Schedule), based on non-wetland acreage. The area of the landfill shall not be included in the acreage char ged. The Page 9 of 20 acreage charge shall be calculated based on the area of individual platted lots plus the area of road (Outlot B) and private park (Outlot C) and to be consistent with the provisions of the ordinance, shall include wetland buffer areas adjacent to the individual lots. (CALCULATION METHOD FOR DISCUSSION) 27. Utility Locations/Availability/Assessments/Connection Fees. Municipal sewer and water utilities are planned to be extended westward from the intersection of Old Crystal Bay Road and Wayzata Boulevard in 2017 to serve development at this site and properties further east. The property has not been previously assessed for sewer and water, Sewer and water connection charges (“local SAC and WAC”) have been preliminarily determined based on the estimated costs of construction of the extensions and apportioned between the three properties expected for future development. Preliminary connection charges for the applicants’ site are estimated at $307,878 for municipal water and $220,567 for municipal sanitary sewer. 28. The applicant has provided General Concept Plans and Preliminary Plat Drawings attached to this Resolution as Exhibits B-1 through B-24 including: HIGHLIGHTED ITEMS SUBJECT TO REVISION B1 - Plat Map B2 - Comp Plan Map B3 - Plans Sheet 1 – Cover Sheet B4 - Plans Sheet 2 – Existing Conditions B5 - Plans Sheet 3 – Preliminary Plat B6 - Plans Sheet 4 – Preliminary Plat Enlarged B7 - Plans Sheet 5 – Sewer & Water Mains B8 - Plans Sheet 6 – Street & Storm Sewer B9 - Plans Sheet 7 – Grading Plan B10 - Plans Sheet 8 – SWPPP B11 - Plans Sheet 9 – Tree Inventory B12 - Plans Sheet 10 – Details B13 - Plans Sheet 11 – Details B14 - Plans Sheet 12 – Details B15 - Planting Plan L-1 – Trees B16 - Planting Plan L-2 – Shrubs B17 - Planting Plan L-3 – Cross Section & Details Page 10 of 20 B18 - Planting Plan – Aerial B19 - Streetscape B20 - Home Layouts B21 - House Plan A Elev & Floor Plans B22 - House Plan B Elev & Floor Plans B23 - House Plan C Elev & Floor Plans B24 - Trail Plan Council finds that the plans submitted are generally sufficient to indicate the intent of the developer and the potential impacts of the project. 29. City Engineer Comments. The City’s consulting engineer has provided comments and recommendations regarding all aspects of the development plans, in a letter dated April 11, 2016. Those comments are attached hereto as Exhibit C. General Development Plans and Final Plat approvals will be reviewed for conformity with these recommendations. 30. The City Council finds that the development of this property must set a high standard for the quality, character, context and compatibility of development desired by the City for medium density development in Orono. The Council finds that the proposed comprehensive plan reguiding, rezoning and proposed development of the property for medium density single-family residential use is appropriate for the property, will not have negative impacts on the surrounding properties when all Concept Plan Approval conditions are met, and is in keeping with the goals, policies and philosophies of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the General Concept Plan and Preliminary Plat for development of the property at 3245 Wayzata Boulevard West subject to the following declarations and conditions: 1. This approval is subject to the prior approval by the Metropolitan Council of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to reguide the property from High Density Residential (10-15 units per acre) to Medium Density Residential (3-7 units per acre), and this approval shall not take effect until such time that Metropolitan Council approval is granted. Page 11 of 20 2. The City of Orono will approve rezoning of the property to RPUD as described herein upon City Council finding of satisfactory completion of the Conditions for Development Plan approval. 3. Conditions for Development Plan Approval are as follows: A. RPUD Development Standards and General Conditions. 1) The total number of residential dwelling units shall be 27 single-family homes generally as configured on the preliminary site plan attached as Exhibits B5 and B6. 2) Developer shall provide a final Development Plan for the development that conforms to all standards of the RPUD District except as modified herein, and shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Council that all RPUD standards have been met and shall demonstrate where such standards have not been met, and shall satisfy the City Council that non-compliance with said standards is remedied in a manner acceptable to the Council. 3) Developer shall provide a final landscaping plan meeting all of the requirements of the RPUD District and addressing the elements of Conservation Design to the satisfaction of the City Council. Final landscaping plans will be reviewed for conformity with the RPUD standards. 5) Street lighting if proposed shall be provided by the Developer and shall be of a style, number, height and location approved by the City Council. Street lighting shall be downcast, fully shielded and at a low level consistent with the surrounding rural residential character while providing the necessary level of security. 6) Building footprints and styling shall be generally per the examples included in the attached Exhibit B-20 thru B-23. Developer shall make every attempt to ensure that identical dwelling units are not placed side-by-side. 7) Flexibility shall being granted for the lot area, width and setback standards of the RPUD District and with regards to hardcover and FAR as noted in the Findings section above. Page 12 of 20 9) Development shall be subject to adherence to a Basic Conservation Design Master Plan which shall be submitted for approval prior to final plat approval. 10) Significant trees to be preserved to the extent possible and as shown on the landscaping plans. 11) Applicant to confirm with SHPO that that there are no archaeological sites within the property. 12) For discussion: Applicant shall dedicate an easement for potential future public trail purposes over the northerly 10 feet of the property. B. Transportation - HIGHLIGHTED ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 1) The new road serving the development shall be platted as a private road outlot as shown on the Preliminary Plat drawing (Exhibit ___). The road shall have a platted corridor width of 40’ and a paved width (back of curb to back of curb) of 28’ in the east-west segment. Within the north south segment, the corridor width shall be 50 feet with a 32’ paved width 2) Concrete curb & gutter will be required. Individual driveway approaches within the private right-of-way shall be of concrete. 3) All curve radii shall be reviewed to ensure that moving vans, garbage trucks, firetrucks, etc. are accommodated. The Long Lake Fire Department shall review the interior road system, and any revisions required for fire-protection purposes shall be made by the Developer. 4) Appropriate traffic control signage within and pertinent to the site shall be installed by the Developer subject to the City Engineer's review and approval. C. Utilities; Stormwater Management 1) Sewer and water mains shall be installed by the Developer per the Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Plan attached hereto as Exhibit _____, subject to the modifications noted in the City Engineer’s comments in Exhibit ______. Page 13 of 20 2) The City will own and maintain the sanitary sewer and water mains within the development. The City will inspect these systems during their construction to ensure proper installation. Drainage and Utility Easements shall be granted to the City of Orono over all sewer and water main lines and facilities that are not within dedicated public rights-of-way in order to facilitate future system maintenance. 3) The Developer shall install stormwater management facilities generally as shown on the various attached plans. Developer shall provide suitable evidence of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) approval of the stormwater management plan before Development Plan and Final Plat Approval will be granted. The Developer shall provide sufficient drainage and utility easements as necessary to allow for future City maintenance access for stormwater management facilities. The stormwater drainage facilities will be maintained by the Homeowners Association. D. Wetland Impacts 1) Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Council that all requirements of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District as administrator of the WCA regulations on Orono’s behalf, are complied with. E. Grading, Erosion Control 1) Erosion control shall adhere to "Best Management Practices for Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" and to the approved SWPPP. All erosion controls as required by the City and the MCWD shall be in place prior to commencing excavation on the site. All such erosion control measures shall be maintained in working order until the site is revegetated. 2) The construction limits shall be clearly marked with adequate fencing to prevent any construction damage or disturbance of any trees and vegetation outside of the construction limits area. Developer shall identify trees to be preserved on site, shall mark them on a site plan, and shall take extraordinary measures such as fencing, signage, etc. to ensure they are not disturbed. Page 14 of 20 F. Other General Conditions. 1) Monument signs may be provided by the developer at each entrance to the RPUD development site. The signage shall be limited to a development name and/or logo on the monument signs. Final design/materials of monument signage shall be provided as part of the final development plan submittals and shall be subject to approval by the City Council. 2) The applicable general engineering comments and or conditions provided by City Engineer Robert Bean dated April 11, 2016 in relation to the original Concept Plan review and attached hereto as Exhibit_____ shall be suitably addressed by applicant in the development plan submittal. 3) Developer shall provide copies of proposed covenants and documents describing the structure, rights and responsibilities of the homeowners association to be reviewed by the City Attorney. G. Plans and Specifications. The following plans and specifications shall be submitted for review and approval by the City and other appropriate jurisdictions: 1) Final plans and specifications for all proposed utility lines and services, including any proposed revisions to existing service facilities. Proposed plans shall be provided to the City for final review and approval with the Final Plan set. The Public Works Department and any other pertinent reviewing agencies shall review and approve all utility improvements. Final sanitary sewer and watermain plans shall be provided and are subject to approval by the Public Works Department and City Engineer. 2) Final Road and Sidewalk Plans. 3) Final Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan and SWPPP showing existing and proposed contours, building locations, elevations, stormwater facilities and calculations, utilities and erosion control measures to be used during construction. General Development Plan Approval will not be granted until the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has approved the stormwater plans. Page 15 of 20 4) Final Landscaping Plan with planting schedules including numbers and species, in accordance with the landscaping requirements of the RPUD zoning district, and the recommendations contained within the Conservation Design Master Plan. 5) Detailed monument signage and street lighting plans if any. 6) Any additional plans and specifications deemed necessary by the City as review progresses. H. Platting Process. Applicant shall complete all requirements for Final Plat Approval as follows. The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator 2 weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month. These submittals are as follows: 1. Record plat drawings in the form of two (3) mylar copies (one copy for the City's records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (1) copy reduced to 1" = 200'. Drawing to include: A. Lot lines platted per preliminary plat survey/drawing by Campion Engineering Services dated ____________ attached hereto as Exhibit B5 & B6, except as modified herein. B. Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" 10' along exterior property lines and 5' along the interior property lines.. C. Dedication of areas shown as wetlands. D. Dedication of “Drainage Easements” over all drainageways E. Naming of plat. 2. Legal documents required: A. Title opinion addressed to the City or a title insurance policy in favor of the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. B. The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. Page 16 of 20 C. Signed Conservation and Flowage Easement to be granted over all delineated wetlands on the plat. D. Signed Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit for construction of improvements. The City Engineer shall establish the amount to be provided in the Letter of Credit. E. Signed Trail Easement over the northerly 10 feet of the property. 3. Final plat approval fee to be paid: Total due: $ 700.00 I. Development Agreement. Development Approval is contingent upon the successful execution of a Development Agreement between the applicant and the City. Such Agreement shall address all specific City requirements for the development. J. Financial Guarantee. The Development Agreement shall include a financial guarantee by the applicant to ensure the completion of site improvements. The City Engineer shall complete an estimate of improvement costs, including but not limited to public and private streets, curb & gutter, sidewalks, storm sewers, landscaping, grading, erosion control, utilities, driveways and parking areas, trails, sidewalks, retaining walls and stormwater management facility construction, and the applicant shall provide to the City a financial guarantee of 150% of the improvement costs. K. Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee. FOR DISCUSSION – SEE PAGES 8-9 L. Park Dedication The City Code requires dedication of 8% of the land as public park, or payment of the equivalent value in cash. The City Council has determined there is no need for dedication of land from the proposed development. Therefore, payment of the standard Park Dedication fee for 27 new building lots will be required; the current fee ranges from a minimum of $3,250 and a maximum of $5,550 per lot, for a potential total fee of $87,750 to $149,850.* The Park Dedication Fee is due at the time of final plat approval. * As of the date of this writing, the City Assessor has not established a fair market value for the property pre-development. The figures shown reflect the minimum and maximum potential amount of the Park Fee. Page 17 of 20 M. Sewer and Water Connection Charges. Municipal sewer and water utilities are planned to be extended in 2017 to serve development at this site and properties further east. Based on the estimated costs of construction of the extensions and apportioned between the three properties expected for future development, preliminary connection charges for the applicants’ site are estimated at $307,878 for municipal water and $220,567 for municipal sanitary sewer. These amounts will be due and payable at the time of final plat approval. 4. This General Concept Plan and Preliminary Plat approval is based upon the known issues that may affect this project, but this approval does not limit the City from revising or amending these conditions as the review process continues. 5. This General Concept Plan Approval resolution approves the development concept subject to the applicant meeting the requirements of this resolution and all other requirements of the City. This resolution does not constitute approval of the rezoning. Such approval shall only be considered when the City Council finds that all “Conditions for Development Plan Approval” as identified herein have been met. 6. This General Concept Plan Approval shall be effective until ________________, 2017 per the provisions of Zoning Code Section 78-628. If General Development Plan and Final Plat Approval is not granted by that date, the terms and conditions of this resolution shall be null and void. The City Council at its sole discretion may extend this effective period. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this _____ day of ____________, 2016. ATTEST: _________________________________ Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor ____________________________________ Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Page 18 of 20 ____________________________________ Applicant (for Lakewest LLC) STATE OF MINNESOTA } } ss. COUNTY OF ___________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of __________, 2016, by __________________________, the _________________ of Lakewest LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the limited liability company. ____________________________________ Notary Public Date Application Received: 3/23/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 4/4/16 CMP Amdmt. 60 -Day Review Period Expires: 6/3/16 120-Day Subdivision Review Period Expires: 8/2/16 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: May 4, 2016 Item No.: 10 ______________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Michael P. Gaffron JML Planning Dept. Title: Senior Planner ______________________________________________________________________________ Item Description: 16-3822 Lakewest Development, 3245 Wayzata Boulevard West - Preliminary Plat / RPUD Rezoning / Comprehensive Plan Amendment ______________________________________________________________________________ Summary of Request: Applicant requests the following approvals for a proposed 27-lot single- family residential development: 1) Amendment of the Orono Comprehensive Plan (Community Management Plan or “CMP”) to allow development of the property at a density of approximately 5.5 units per developable acre for this property which is guided in the CMP for development at a density of 10-15 units per acre, and to allow single family dwellings in place of the multi- family dwellings currently guided in the CMP; 2) Preliminary plat approval for a 27-lot single-family residential subdivision; and 3) Rezoning to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). Existing Zoning District: RR-1B One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre/200’ width) Proposed Zoning District: RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development CMP Land Use Designation: High Density Residential, 10-15 units per acre Proposed Land Use Designation: Medium Density Residential, 3-7 units per acre Parcel Area: Gross Site Area 30.5 ac. Wayzata Blvd. (CR112) R-O-W - 1.6 ac. Delineated Wetland - 13.3 ac. Net “potentially buildable” area 15.6 acres Proposed Development Density: Gross Site Area 30.5 ac. Wayzata Boulevard - 1.6 ac. Outlot A (Wetlands, Buffers*, Landfill) - 24.0 ac. Net Developable Area 4.9 ac. Proposed Units 27 Units NET DENSITY 5.5 Units/Acre *Met Council guidelines allow wetland buffers to be excluded from net developable acreage calculations. Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] #16-3822 May 4, 2016 Page 2 of 8 Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission reviewed this application and held a public hearing at its April 18 meeting. Planning Commission recommended as follows: - On a motion to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Vote: 4 For 1 Against - On a motion to recommend approval of rezoning of the entire site to RPUD with flexibility as requested, noting that future development of the large outlot would require a future approval process. Vote: 5 For 0 Against - On a motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat subject to a number of conditions (see below): Vote: 5 For 0 Against Park Commission Recommendation: The Park Commission reviewed this application at its May 2 meeting and recommended that a 10’ trail easement along the northerly property boundary be granted for potential future trail use. Park Commission tabled the question as to whether land for park purposes should be dedicated instead of a park dedication fee, pending individual further review and analysis of the site and City park needs. Staff Recommendation: Due to specific concerns raised by the Planning Commission and very recent indications from Hennepin County that only one vehicle access point will be allowed onto Wayzata Boulevard, there are likely going to be significant revisions to the site layout. Staff is requesting Council comment on the current plan, but no formal action on it. Confirmation that the Council will approve the rezoning to RPUD is requested. Rezoning would be formalized only upon completion of the final plat approval process. Regarding the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Staff requests Council direction for moving forward. The next step would be preparation and adoption of a resolution for preliminary approval of a Comp Plan Amendment, for submittal to Metropolitan Council, based on the proposed density of 5.5 units per acre; and revised development standards to allow single-family homes as opposed to the currently guided multi-family buildings. Please review the Planning Commission memo and exhibits and the draft April 18 PC minutes. List of Exhibits A – Notice of Planning Commission Action dated 5/3/16 B – Draft Planning Commission Minutes of 4/18/2016 C – Planning Commission Memo & Exhibits dated 4/14/16 D – Supplementary Conservation Design Report excerpts received 4/30/16 Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] #16-3822 May 4, 2016 Page 3 of 8 Summary of Review Activity to Date Sketch Plan Reviews. This property was the subject of a sketch plan review by the Planning Commission in August 2014 followed by sketch plan reviews by the City Council in September 2015 and again in January 2016. The initial proposal for 27 single-family lots has undergone a number of minor revisions but the basic scheme remains – single family homes on individual lots, either side of a center road running east-west on the high ground along Wayzata Boulevard. Minutes from the sketch plan reviews are included in the April 2016 PC Packet attached. Comp Plan Amendment, Rezoning & Preliminary Plat - Planning Commission Review, 4/18/2016. This application for the required Comprehensive Plan Amendment, rezoning, and preliminary plat approval was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its April 18 meeting. Elements of the proposal are described in detail in the attached PC memo and Exhibits dated April 14. The Planning Commission voted 4-1 to recommend approval of the Comp Plan Amendment; voted 5- 0 to recommend approval of the rezoning to RPUD, noting that RPUD is the only feasible zoning available to accommodate the proposed density and style of development; and voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the preliminary plat; subject to the following conditions and recommendations: 1. It was noted that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment relies on Metropolitan Council approvals, and that density is anticipated to be a potential issue, as it relates to the pending need for providing additional lands for higher density to meet Met Council expectations. 2. Recommendation to approve the rezoning from RR-1B to RPUD, noting that the project as proposed requires a high degree of flexibility which is only feasible via rezoning to RPUD. 3. Recommendation to approve the preliminary plat, subject to a number of conditions as well as concerns that need to be resolved in order for the application to move forward: a. It is critical that a final determination be obtained from Hennepin County as to whether two access points to Wayzata Boulevard will be allowed. If not, that can have significant impacts on the site layout and internal circulation. b. The internal road system is proposed as private, which makes sense given that only a 40’ road outlot corridor is proposed with a 28’ paved width (50’ corridor and 32’ paved width would be required for a public road). However, PC suggests that if the westerly access is approved, with the potential for future development within the landfill area, that north-south section of road should be 32’ paved width, even if it remains in a 40’ corridor (but this further impacts the short driveways for Block 3… can those homes be moved further west?) c. Given the Council’s desire for a trail easement along Wayzata Boulevard for the Orono Preserve development further east, PC noted that a trail easement deserves additional discussion, while the applicant noted that construction of a public trail within the northerly 10’ of the property will have severe impact on the northerly tier of homes. d. The 10% private park RPUD requirement for this site should be adequately met by the private park (pool and play area) proposed in Outlot C and the private trail that follows the perimeter of the landfilled area. Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] #16-3822 May 4, 2016 Page 4 of 8 e. Planning Commission suggests that flexibility in number of stories is warranted, since while most homes proposed will have two stories above a basement or walkout, the topography along the southern lots overlooking the wetland is such that some walkout levels may be defined as stories based on the current definition relating to percentage of wall exposure. f. It is acknowledged that site grading will likely remove all existing trees and vegetation from Wayzata Boulevard to the wetlands in order to accommodate this development, and that lowering the grade adjacent to Wayzata Boulevard is likely to drastically change the visual appearance of this site as viewed from the County road. g. With regard to the potential second-phase multi-family building which would make use of a portion of the landfill, Planning Commission suggests that the entire site be rezoned to RPUD, with separate standards for that building being established with a separate “Phase 2” development review process if/when that building is proposed. It would also be appropriate to note in the initial approvals that such use would require replatting Outlot A into a building site. Additional comments from the Planning Commission’s perspective can be found in the April 18 minutes. Park Commission Review and Comments, 5/2/16 The Park Commission reviewed the project plans at their May meeting and were asked to address two specific items – whether a trail easement should be granted along Wayzata Boulevard, and whether there is any desire to acquire land for park use as opposed to collecting a Park Dedication Fee for this development. On a vote of 5-0 the Commission indicated that a trail easement should be required, but they acknowledged the difficulty and potential costs of actually constructing and maintain a continuous trail along Wayzata Boulevard make it unlikely the easement will be used. With regard to the land versus fee question, the Commission voted 5-0 to table pending further review of the site by the members and consideration of whether there is a need for park land at this location. Based on the Fair Market Value of the property, the park dedication fee to be collected at the time of final plat approval is anticipated to be within the range of $87,750 to $149,850. Revised/Updated Conservation Design Report A revised Conservation Design Report has been submitted and the revised pages are attached as Exhibit D. Hennepin County Comments A copy of the preliminary plat was forwarded to Hennepin County for comment on April 26. While no formal comments have been received as of this writing, staff has received an indication via voicemail that the County likely will limit the site to one access point, which will potentially result in a revised plat layout. It also appears that the County will require right and left turn lanes, and would like to further discuss the issue of trails along Wayzata Boulevard. City Engineer Comments As noted in the Planning Commission memo, City Consulting Engineer Robert Bean has reviewed the submitted plans and his comments generally pertain to engineering matters that can be resolved in due course. Those comments are included as Exhibit E of the Planning Commission packet. Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] #16-3822 May 4, 2016 Page 5 of 8 Fire Department Comments A review of the plat by the Fire Chief is pending, subject to a final road system layout. The property is planned to be served with municipal water. Dwelling Unit Design The applicant presented a number of dwelling designs (Exhibit J of PC packet) which were reviewed by the Planning Commission. As noted above, applicant is requesting flexibility with regard to the 2-1/2 story limit due to the topography and orientation of the units facing the wetland. Additionally, as indicated in the table on page 5 of the April PC memo, flexibility to many of the single-family lot standards is requested. Public Comments The only public comments received to date are those made at the public hearing by Allan Engleman of 315 Old Crystal Bay Road North, who suggested that turn lanes on Wayzata Boulevard should be required. He also commented on the proximity of the Met Council sewer force main in the right-of-way, and runoff treatment relative to the dump location. Summary of Issues for Consideration Staff suggests that the primary focus for consideration and discussion by the Council should include the following topics: Comprehensive Plan Amendment In reviewing the amendment, Council should attempt to set aside the details of the proposed development and look at the broader picture, consider the following: 1. Does the amendment further the City’s goals for development of higher density housing? 2. Are there specific aspects of this site that support a reduction of the density from the current guided density? 3. Are there any negative aspects to reguiding this site for lower density? 4. Aside from numerical density concerns, does Council have any concerns about revising the development parameters for this site from multi-family use in one or two buildings to single family individual homes? 5. The developers have suggested the possibility of developing a multi- family building within the landfill site, which would require extensive mitigation (remove landfill contents in area being developed). That is not part of their current request. Does Council find that adding a multi-family building would be desirable if it helps increase density on the property? 6. Are there specific conditions that should be established as part of an approval of the reguiding? 7. With the proposed amendment, the City’s overall development density is expected to drop below 3.0 units per acre. The City will need to identify more opportunities for higher density housing. Rezoning from RR-1B to RPUD Council should confirm that RPUD is the appropriate rezoning option for this development. Staff and Planning Commission believe RPUD is the only viable available option for development of this parcel in the manner proposed by the applicants. RPUD Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] #16-3822 May 4, 2016 Page 6 of 8 allows for the level of flexibility necessary to accomplish the proposed development. For discussion: 1. Should Block 3 be reconfigured so that no parts of the proposed building lots are within 250’ of the OHWL of Lake Classen in order to meet this RPUD condition? This likely will require additional survey work to establish the location of the OHWL on the north side of Wayzata Boulevard. Options are to reconfigure the building sites, or consider a variance to the RPUD 250’ separation requirement. (Planning Commission did not have an issue with varying from the 250’ limitation) 2. Should the entire site be rezoned to RPUD, or just the area being developed (i.e. rezone everything except Outlot A)? (Planning Commission suggested that the entire site should be rezoned to RPUD, but any future Phase 2 development be subject to a separate review process if/when that is proposed) Preliminary Plat Review 1. Does Council agree that the road should be private? It was noted by the Planning Commission that the westerly north-south road be constructed to a 32’ public road standard width (rather than 28’) within the 40’ proposed right-of-way corridor, given the potential to serve a future multi-family building. This would also impact the homes on Block 3 which have relatively short driveways, suggesting lot layout revisions may be appropriate. 2. Given the likelihood that a second access will be denied by Hennepin County, how will the developer revise the deign layout? 3. The general design and orientation of dwelling units proposed and the minimal lot sizes and setbacks as compared to the RPUD standards requires a significant level of development flexibility. Does Council have any concerns about the lot widths, setbacks, Floor Area Ratio (FAR), number of stories or other RPUD standards for which flexibility is required in this proposal? Does the Council have any concerns or questions regarding the design of the proposed dwelling units? 4. A small number of lots will have relatively short “back yards” where the home will be no more than 10-15 feet from a wetland buffer. Are these acceptable? The lots in these situations are typically smaller because the wetland buffer will be part of the commons area. 5. The proposed front setbacks to the street are a result of the ‘zig-zag’ lot configuration which allows for off-street parking. Is this configuration acceptable? 6. Do the private park and trail system satisfy the 10% private recreation area requirements of the RPUD District? 7. The grade changes and removal of existing trees along Wayzata Boulevard will significantly change the visual character of that section of Wayzata Boulevard, while also placing homes nearer the elevation of the highway at a distance of 50-60 feet from the traveled road. Does this present any specific concerns? The perimeter vegetation plan should be reviewed – is there a need for additional buffering of the homes from Wayzata Boulevard? Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] #16-3822 May 4, 2016 Page 7 of 8 8. The revised Conservation Design Master Plan (CDMP) has been revised to include more complete recommendations and direction to address the topics of Invasive Species, Protection of Significant Tree Stands, and Protection of Wetlands. Are there any other concerns regarding environmental protection of this property as it develops? 9. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation The site plan for this application would appear to be in flux given the County indications that a second access point is not going to be allowed. How that impacts the internal road layout is of concern, and even more so regarding a potential future multi-family dwelling option. There are a variety of topics noted above for which Council discussion would assist the developer in moving forward. Briefly, these include: - Acceptability of proposed density, desirability of Phase 2 multi-family building - Whether flexibility will be granted for lot area, lot width, setbacks, FAR, hardcover, etc. - Public vs private road status, paved widths - Sufficiency of proposed 10% private recreational spaces to meet RPUD standards - Acceptance of portions of Block 3 within 250’ of Lake Classen OHWL - Determination of need for trail easement along Wayzata Boulevard - Pending Park Commission review, any desire to take land for park vs park fee - Acceptance of the conceptual house plans and elevations as proposed - Acceptance of expected grade changes and vegetation removal along Wayzata Blvd - Additional topics as noted in this memo Staff would recommend the following course of action: a. Council direct staff to draft a resolution for conditional approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for adoption in two weeks. The amendment would then be immediately forwarded to Metropolitan Council for review and approval. In the interim pending that approval, Council should attempt to identify alternate sites in the City for higher density development. b. Given the anticipated site plan revisions, Council may conclude that the preliminary plat for this development as presented is not ready for preliminary plat approval. The application could be tabled for revisions. At such time that Council determines the plan is generally acceptable, then direct staff to draft a resolution for preliminary plat approval, incorporating appropriate conditions. The resolution would include language noting that approval of the rezoning to RPUD is preliminarily approved and will be formally approved at the time of final plat approval. Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] #16-3822 May 4, 2016 Page 8 of 8 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Review the attached materials, hear the presentation by the applicant, and consider whether all issues of concern have been addressed. Provide staff with direction for moving forward as noted above. Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] I t e m # 1 0 - C C A g e n d a - 0 5 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 2 2 [ T o t a l P a g e s 1 7 8 ] I t e m # 1 0 - C C A g e n d a - 0 5 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 2 2 [ T o t a l P a g e s 1 7 8 ] I t e m # 1 0 - C C A g e n d a - 0 5 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 2 2 [ T o t a l P a g e s 1 7 8 ] I t e m # 1 0 - C C A g e n d a - 0 5 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 2 2 [ T o t a l P a g e s 1 7 8 ] I t e m # 1 0 - C C A g e n d a - 0 5 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 2 2 [ T o t a l P a g e s 1 7 8 ] I t e m # 1 0 - C C A g e n d a - 0 5 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 2 2 [ T o t a l P a g e s 1 7 8 ] I t e m # 1 0 - C C A g e n d a - 0 5 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 2 2 [ T o t a l P a g e s 1 7 8 ] I t e m # 1 0 - C C A g e n d a - 0 5 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 2 2 [ T o t a l P a g e s 1 7 8 ] I t e m # 1 0 - C C A g e n d a - 0 5 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 2 2 [ T o t a l P a g e s 1 7 8 ] I t e m # 1 0 - C C A g e n d a - 0 5 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 2 2 [ T o t a l P a g e s 1 7 8 ] I t e m # 1 0 - C C A g e n d a - 0 5 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 2 2 [ T o t a l P a g e s 1 7 8 ] I t e m # 1 0 - C C A g e n d a - 0 5 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 2 2 [ T o t a l P a g e s 1 7 8 ] I t e m # 1 0 - C C A g e n d a - 0 5 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 2 2 [ T o t a l P a g e s 1 7 8 ] I t e m # 1 0 - C C A g e n d a - 0 5 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 2 2 [ T o t a l P a g e s 1 7 8 ] I t e m # 1 0 - C C A g e n d a - 0 5 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 2 2 [ T o t a l P a g e s 1 7 8 ] I t e m # 1 0 - C C A g e n d a - 0 5 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 2 2 [ T o t a l P a g e s 1 7 8 ] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] I t e m # 1 0 - C C A g e n d a - 0 5 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 2 2 [ T o t a l P a g e s 1 7 8 ] I t e m # 1 0 - C C A g e n d a - 0 5 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 2 2 [ T o t a l P a g e s 1 7 8 ] I t e m # 1 0 - C C A g e n d a - 0 5 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 2 2 [ T o t a l P a g e s 1 7 8 ] I t e m # 1 0 - C C A g e n d a - 0 5 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 2 2 [ T o t a l P a g e s 1 7 8 ] I t e m # 1 0 - C C A g e n d a - 0 5 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 2 2 [ T o t a l P a g e s 1 7 8 ] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] I t e m # 1 0 - C C A g e n d a - 0 5 / 0 9 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 2 2 [ T o t a l P a g e s 1 7 8 ] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 05/09/2016 File #16-3822 [Total Pages 178] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 06/27/2016 File #16-3822 - Exhibits A-I [Total Pages 26] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 06/27/2016 File #16-3822 - Exhibits A-I [Total Pages 26] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 06/27/2016 File #16-3822 - Exhibits A-I [Total Pages 26] I t e m # 1 0 - C C A g e n d a - 0 6 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 2 2 - E x h i b i t s A - I [ T o t a l P a g e s 2 6 ] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 06/27/2016 File #16-3822 - Exhibits A-I [Total Pages 26] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 06/27/2016 File #16-3822 - Exhibits A-I [Total Pages 26] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 06/27/2016 File #16-3822 - Exhibits A-I [Total Pages 26] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 06/27/2016 File #16-3822 - Exhibits A-I [Total Pages 26] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 06/27/2016 File #16-3822 - Exhibits A-I [Total Pages 26] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 06/27/2016 File #16-3822 - Exhibits A-I [Total Pages 26] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 06/27/2016 File #16-3822 - Exhibits A-I [Total Pages 26] I t e m # 1 0 - C C A g e n d a - 0 6 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 2 2 - E x h i b i t s A - I [ T o t a l P a g e s 2 6 ] I t e m # 1 0 - C C A g e n d a - 0 6 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 2 2 - E x h i b i t s A - I [ T o t a l P a g e s 2 6 ] I t e m # 1 0 - C C A g e n d a - 0 6 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 2 2 - E x h i b i t s A - I [ T o t a l P a g e s 2 6 ] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 06/27/2016 File #16-3822 - Exhibits A-I [Total Pages 26] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 06/27/2016 File #16-3822 - Exhibits A-I [Total Pages 26] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 06/27/2016 File #16-3822 - Exhibits A-I [Total Pages 26] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 06/27/2016 File #16-3822 - Exhibits A-I [Total Pages 26] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 06/27/2016 File #16-3822 - Exhibits A-I [Total Pages 26] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 06/27/2016 File #16-3822 - Exhibits A-I [Total Pages 26] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 06/27/2016 File #16-3822 - Exhibits A-I [Total Pages 26] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 06/27/2016 File #16-3822 - Exhibits A-I [Total Pages 26] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 06/27/2016 File #16-3822 - Exhibits A-I [Total Pages 26] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 06/27/2016 File #16-3822 - Exhibits A-I [Total Pages 26] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 06/27/2016 File #16-3822 - Exhibits A-I [Total Pages 26] Item #10 - CC Agenda - 06/27/2016 File #16-3822 - Exhibits A-I [Total Pages 26] Date Application Received: 5/16/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 6/10/16 120-Day Review Period Expires: 10/9/16 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: July 7, 2016 Item No. 13 ____________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Michael P. Gaffron JML Planning Title: Senior Planner _____________________________________________________________________________ Item Description: #16-3834, Michelle & Edward Dau, 220 Northgate Road and Northgate Two Homeowners Association, Outlot C - Subdivision: Lot Line Rearrangement - Resolution - Lot Coverage Variance - Resolution - Partial Easement Vacation and Rededication - Resolution _____________________________________________________________________________ Zoning District: R-1A PRD - Single Family Residential District Planned Residential Development @ 1 unit/acre density Lot Area: 7,462 s.f. (0.17 acre) Lot Width: 92.5 feet Application Summary: This is a lot line rearrangement involving Lot 1, Block 7, Northgate Two and part of Outlot C, Northgate Two. Applicants wish to swap a 75 s.f. (0.002 acre) portion of their property for an identically-sized portion of the Northgate Two commons outlot, in order to allow construction of an addition to the existing residence. The addition also requires a variance for structural lot coverage. Additionally, the application involves the vacation of a portion of an existing Open Space Easement granted to the City over Outlot C. Planning Commission Recommendation: Planning Commission at its June 20 meeting voted 5-0 to recommend approval. List of Exhibits A – Updated Survey & Enlargement B – Resolutions: 1. Lot Line Rearrangement 2. Lot Coverage Variance 3. Easement Vacation C – Notice of PC Action 7/1/16 D – Draft PC Minutes 6/20/16 E – PC Memo & Exhibits dated 6/16/16 Summary Lot Line Rearrangement. The Daus have purchased the home at 220 Northgate Road and propose to construct an addition at the rear of the attached garage. Because Northgate Two was platted in 1979 as a Planned Residential Development (PRD) the standards for setbacks, lot sizes, etc. are established within the original plat approval resolution. The plat created 7 single family building pads, plus two recreation outlots (Outlots A and B), a road outlot (Outlot D) and a commons open-space outlot (Outlot C). The building pads were established with the intent that #16-3834 - 220 Northgate Road July 7, 2016 Page 2 new homes could be constructed within the confines of each pad, and to the boundaries of each pad, without any setback or lot coverage limitations. Because the house was constructed slightly skewed on the pad, the proposed addition would encroach a few feet into the Commons Outlot, hence the proposed lot line rearrangement. Structural Lot Coverage Variance. Since 1989 the individual lots have technically been subject to the structural lot coverage standards of Zoning Code Section 78-1403 which allows lot coverage of 1500 s.f. for any lot less than 10,000 s.f. in area, but limits lot coverage to 15% for lots of 10,000 s.f. or greater and less than 2 acres. The existing house, garage and pool area comprise approximately 3,328 s.f. and the proposed addition will add 216 s.f., yielding a final lot coverage of approximately 3,544 s.f. or 47.5%. Note: As an aside, staff recommends that the lot coverage ordinance be amended to not be applicable to existing and new PRD developments in which the building pad lots are sized to match the approximate perimeter of the proposed homes, where yards are part of the common space. Open Space Easement. The covenants for Northgate Two established an Open Space Easement over the entirety of Outlot C in favor of the City of Orono. The easement prohibits construction of “signs, billboards, accessory buildings, hardcover or roads of any nature whatsoever, or any other structure or improvement inconsistent with the natural state of the Affected Lands.” In order to avoid future issues for the property owners, this lot line rearrangement process includes the vacation and rededication of the Open Space Easement, vacating it from the portions of Outlot C being acquired by applicants, and adding to it the portion of Lot 1 Block 7 the applicants are trading to the HOA. For additional information, please review the Planning Commission Memo and Exhibits. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the lot line rearrangement, the lot coverage variance, and the easement vacation/rededication per the three attached resolutions. The property owners will be required to file new deeds based on the new legal descriptions. Staff will work with the property owners and the City Attorney to ensure that the necessary documents are prepared and filed. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolutions: 1. A Resolution Approving a Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement at 220 Northgate Road and Outlot C, Northgate Two - File No. 16-3834 2. A Resolution Granting a Variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1403 for Property Located at 220 Northgate Road - File No. 16-3834. 3. A Resolution Vacating an Open Space Easement Within Outlot C, Northgate Two, Hennepin County, Minnesota - File No. 16-3834. Date Application Received: 5/16/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 6/10/16 120-Day Review Period Expires: 10/9/16 To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Mike Gaffron, Senior Plann� June 16, 2016 #16-3834, Michelle & Edward Dau, 220 Northgate Road and Northga te Two Homeowners Association, Outlet C - Subdivision: Lot Line Rearrangement -Lot Coverage Variance -Partial Easement Vacation -Public Hearing Zoning District: R-lA PRD -Single Family Residential District Lot Area: Lot Width: Planned Residential Development @ I unit/acre density 7,462 s.f. (0.17 acre) 92.5 feet Application Summary: This is a lot line rearrangement involving Lot 1, Block 7, Northgate Two and part of Outlet C, Northgate Two. Applicants wish to swap an approximately 120 s.f. (0.003 acre) portion of their property for an identically-sized portion of the Northgate Two commons outlot, in order to allow construction of an addition to the existing residence. The addition also requires a variance for structural lot coverage. Also, the application involves the vacation of a portion of an existing Open Space Easement granted to the City over Outlet C Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the lot line rearrangement, structural lot coverage variance, and easement vacation. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Exhibit B. Exhibit C. Exhibit D. Exhibit E. Exhibit F. Exhibit G. ExhibitH Exhibit I Exhibit J. Application Survey -Proposed Lot Line Rearrangement Original Plat of N orthgate Two ( 1979) Final Plat Approval Resolution Ko. 1086 ( 1979) Existing Open Space Easement (Excerpt from Northgate Two Covenants) Building Elevation Views Airphotos of Site Practical Difficulty Worksheet Plat Map & Property Owners List Northgate Two HOA Notification and Acknowledgements Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Section S2c. 78-1403. -Let cmre:roge �ml. massi.;g sbmd.rn·ds. In all zoning districts other than the I-Industrial district, all lots that have a gross acreage of less than two acres shall comply with the following massing standards for structures: Item 4Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3834 [Total Pages 29] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3834 [Total Pages 29] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3834 [Total Pages 29] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3834 [Total Pages 29] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3834 [Total Pages 29] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3834 [Total Pages 29] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3834 [Total Pages 29] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3834 [Total Pages 29] I t e m # 0 4 - P C A g e n d a - 0 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 3 4 [ T o t a l P a g e s 2 9 ] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3834 [Total Pages 29] I t e m # 0 4 - P C A g e n d a - 0 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 3 4 [ T o t a l P a g e s 2 9 ] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3834 [Total Pages 29] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3834 [Total Pages 29] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3834 [Total Pages 29] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3834 [Total Pages 29] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3834 [Total Pages 29] I t e m # 0 4 - P C A g e n d a - 0 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 3 4 [ T o t a l P a g e s 2 9 ] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3834 [Total Pages 29] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3834 [Total Pages 29] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3834 [Total Pages 29] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3834 [Total Pages 29] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3834 [Total Pages 29] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3834 [Total Pages 29] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3834 [Total Pages 29] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3834 [Total Pages 29] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3834 [Total Pages 29] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3834 [Total Pages 29] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3834 [Total Pages 29] Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3834 [Total Pages 29] Date Application Received: 5/18/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 6/14/16 60-Day Review Period Expires: 08/13/16 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: July 7, 2016 Item No.: 14 ______________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Michael P. Gaffron JML Planning Dept. Title: Senior Planner ______________________________________________________________________________ Item Description: #16-3836, Rick Anderson & David Lind, 3585 Sixth Avenue North - Conditional Use Permit & Holding Tank Approval - Resolution ______________________________________________________________________________ Zoning District: RR-1B, One Family Rural Residential, 2.0 acre/200’ width Lot Area: 104,585 s.f. (2.4 ac.) Gross Area; Approx. 1.8 ac. net of wetland Lot Width: 274 feet at 50’ setback line List of Exhibits A – Resolution for Adoption B – Notice of PC Action 6/27/16 C – Draft PC Minutes of 6/20/16 D – Planning Commission Memo and Exhibits dated 6/16/16 Application Summary: The applicants are requesting approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) in order to install a full bathroom, including shower or tub, within the existing accessory barn structure on the property. Additionally, applicants request approval for use of a holding tank rather than a septic system due to lack of drain field capability on the site. 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 June 20th meeting, and voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the conditional use permit as proposed, subject to: 1) the standard covenant conditions prohibiting use of the building as a dwelling, and 2) installation of a holding tank alarm system that includes a remote notification system (as well as the standard on-site alarm system) to advise owners of pending or occurring tank overflow. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval per the PC recommendations. A Resolution for approval is attached for Council consideration and adoption. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt or amend the attached resolution entitled A Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit Pursuant to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-418(6) and 78-1437 and Approving Use of a Holding Tank per Municipal Code Section 58-51 – File No. 16-3836. Item 6Item #06 - CC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3836 [Total Pages 31] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3836 [Total Pages 31] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3836 [Total Pages 31] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3836 [Total Pages 31] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3836 [Total Pages 31] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3836 [Total Pages 31] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3836 [Total Pages 31] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3836 [Total Pages 31] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3836 [Total Pages 31] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3836 [Total Pages 31] I t e m # 0 6 - C C A g e n d a - 0 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 3 6 [ T o t a l P a g e s 3 1 ] I t e m # 0 6 - C C A g e n d a - 0 6 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 6 F i l e # 1 6 - 3 8 3 6 [ T o t a l P a g e s 3 1 ] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3836 [Total Pages 31] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3836 [Total Pages 31] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3836 [Total Pages 31] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3836 [Total Pages 31] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3836 [Total Pages 31] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3836 [Total Pages 31] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3836 [Total Pages 31] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3836 [Total Pages 31] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3836 [Total Pages 31] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3836 [Total Pages 31] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3836 [Total Pages 31] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3836 [Total Pages 31] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3836 [Total Pages 31] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3836 [Total Pages 31] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3836 [Total Pages 31] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3836 [Total Pages 31] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3836 [Total Pages 31] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3836 [Total Pages 31] Item #06 - CC Agenda - 06/20/2016 File #16-3836 [Total Pages 31] REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July 11, 2016 ITEM NO: 15 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Jeremy Barnhart JML Planning Title Community Development Director Item Description: City of Orono, Text Amendment: Temporary Family Health Care Application Summary The ordinance as drafted “opts out” the City of Orono from recently passed legislation pertaining to Temporary Family Health Care units. The statute allows property owners to place a temporary trailer on the property so they may provide health care to users (intended to be family members) for up to 12 months. The statute imposes several conditions, including that the structure be connected to electricity and water via the main home, and that all local ordinances are followed. Since City Ordinances currently prohibit dwellings in trailers or accessory structures, the ordinance restates the prohibition. The Planning Commission report and exhibits are incorporated by reference. The staff report is attached as Exhibit B. Staff was directed by the Council to draft this ordinance during the May 23rd work session. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission reviewed the draft ordinance at their meeting on June 20th. The Planning Commission noted that the ordinance could clarify the city’s regulation, in light of the recent new law. Action Requested: Adopt, by motion, the ordinance as presented. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Draft Ordinance Exhibit B. PC report dated June 20, 2016 Exhibit C. Draft PC Minutes 1 ORDINANCE NO. ___, THIRD SERIES CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO DWELLINGS IN ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND TEMPORARY FAMILY HEALTH CARE DWELLINGS THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 78-1372 shall be amended by adding text to read as follows: Sec. 78-1372. - Dwelling use prohibited. No cellar, basement, tent, trailer or accessory building shall at any time be used as an occupied dwelling unless otherwise approved as Guest Houses. a. Minnesota State Statute 462.3593 authorizes and defines Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings. b. Minnesota State Statute allows a municipality to opt out of the requirements of Section 462.3593. Because Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings are inconsistent with the density objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and the character established and protected by the City Ordinances, the City of Orono hereby opts out of the Temporary Family Health Care Dwelling Section. 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. Council Exhibit A 16-3840 July 11, 2016 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Jessica Loftus, City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: June 20, 2016 Subject: #16-3840, City of Orono, Text Amendment: Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings Public Hearing List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Draft Ordinance Exhibit B. Applicable state law Background During the 2016 legislative session, the Minnesota legislature enacted a law allowing “Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings” (TFHCD, or drop houses) in Minnesota. These Dwellings are 300 sq. ft., usually on a trailer, are connected to the houses electricity and water sources, contain a sewage tank for pumping, and can be placed anywhere on the property. The legislature noted that these drop houses provide a viable housing option for patients needing care provided by others, but not necessarily in a hospital or nursing facility. The legislature also wanted to allow these structures to be placed quickly, noting that an extended review period would negate the benefits of the temporary structure. The law states that if the applicant meets 9 conditions, the city must decide on a permit within 15 days of receipt of a permit application. One of the conditions imposed by the statute is that the accessory building must meet all city codes and ordinances. City Ordinance Section 78-1372 prohibits the use of a trailer or accessory building to be used as an occupied dwelling. Guest Houses are allowed in certain districts, meeting certain size requirements, as a conditional use. The statute also allows a city to ‘opt-out’ of the requirements of this statute. To alleviate possible confusion and to avoid situations where a property owner may place a Temporary Family Health Care Dwelling as a guest house, the proposed ordinance opts out of the statute. Application Summary: The proposed ordinance formally confirms that Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings are not permitted in the city of Orono. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as drafted. Council Exhibit B 16-3840 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July 11, 2016 ITEM NO: 16 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Jeremy Barnhart JML Planning Title Community Development Director Item Description: #16-3838, Al Musech, applicant/Thom and Laura Clapp, 215 Hollander Rd, Easement Vacation Application Summary The property owners, through their agent Al Musech, request vacation of an existing drainage and Utility easement through their property. The property owners propose to provide a new drainage and utility easement along the north property line. It is necessary to vacate the easement to facilitate the construction of a new septic system. There are no known utilities within the easement. The Planning Commission report and exhibits dated June 20, 2016 are incorporated by reference. The staff report is provided as Exhibit D. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission reviewed the request at their meeting on June 20th. The Planning Commission felt the application was pretty straightforward and noting the replacement easement for possible future uses, recommended approval. Public Comment Staff has fielded calls from the neighborhood with questions. After explanation, most neighbors sounded comfortable with the proposal, no written comments for or against the application have been received. Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the easement vacation as proposed. Action Requested: Adopt, by resolution, the easement vacation as proposed. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Draft Resolution Exhibit B. Easement before Exhibit C. Easement after Exhibit D. Planning Commission Action Notice Exhibit E. PC Staff Report dated June 20, 2016. Exhibit F. Draft PC Minutes June 20, 2016 Page 1 of 2 A RESOLUTION VACATING DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT OVER PARTS OF LOTS 3 AND 4, HOLLY ACRES 2ND ADDITION HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA FILE NO. 16-3838 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Thomas W. Clapp and Laura Z. Clapp, , husband and wife, are the owners (hereinafter the “Owners”) of parts of 3 and 4, Holly Acres 2nd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, also identified as Hennepin County PIN #25-118-23-44-0013 within the City of Orono; and WHEREAS, the aforesaid property is subject to certain Drainage and Utility Easement in favor of the public noted on the plat of Holly Acres 2nd Addition; and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the Orono, Minnesota, City Code, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 20, 2016 regarding said vacation and all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, on June 20, 2016 the Orono Planning Commission reviewed the application and on a vote of 5-0 recommended approval of said vacation of the drainage and utility easement; and WHEREAS, the Orono Council finds the vacation as proposed is in keeping with the public interest and in consideration of the following findings: 1. The easement in question was part of the original plat of Holly Acres 2nd addition. Since then, the lot lines have been adjusted. The easement will be replaced with a new easement along the north property line of the subject property. 2. Electric, gas, telephone and cable utilities have been notified of the proposed vacation. Page 2 of 2 3. The City of Orono has no municipal water or storm sewer facilities within the easement area. 4. The City Council finds that the existing Drainage and Utility Easement has no apparent present or future benefit to the public. 5. The City Council finds that: a) The vacation does not affect access to or use of any adjoining property. b) The vacation does not impede the ability of the subject nor any other property to move water through drainage systems or grading, nor does it impede the ability for utilities to serve area properties. c) The unimproved Easement area as it exists serves no public purpose. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the vacation of the Drainage and Utility Easement over Part of Lot 3 and Lot 4, Holly Acres 2nd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota is hereby granted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this 11th day of July, 2016, such vacation to be effective upon City receipt of a replacement utility easement from the Owners. ATTEST: ________________________ __________________________ Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4620 ZONING FILE: #16-3838 DATE OF NOTICE: 20 June 2016 TO: Al Musech Al.musech@kylehuntpartners.com COPIES via email: Thom and Laura Clapp Oorah1046@gmail.com TYPE OF REQUEST: Easement Vacation DATE OF MEETING: 20 June 2016 The Orono Planning Commission voted on a motion to recommend approval of the Easement Vacation as requested. The Commission had no concerns with vacating the easement, and no public spoke for or against the proposal. VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant’s next meeting is tentatively scheduled as: Monday, July 11th This is a City Council meeting. The meeting begins at 7 PM If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please contact Community Development Director, Jeremy Barnhart at jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us or 952.249.4626. Council Exhibit D 16-3838 Date Application Received: May 18, 2016 Date Application Considered as Complete: May 26, 2016 60-Day Review Period Expires: July 26, 2016 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Jessica Loftus, City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: June 20, 2016 Subject: #16-3838, Al Musech, applicant/Thom and Laura Clapp, 215 Hollander Rd, Easement Vacation Public Hearing List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Survey (before) Exhibit C. Survey (after) Background The subject property was originally parts of lot 3 and 4 Holly Acres 2nd Addition. When the boundary lines were adjusted to reflect the current configuration, the easements remained, now running through the middle of the property. This easement now impacts the development of a septic system, necessary to replace a substandard system. The applicants propose to provide a drainage and utility easement along the north property line. Statute allows the action “The governing body of a municipality may vacate any publicly owned utility easement or any portion thereof, which are not being used for sewer, drainage, electric, telegraph, telephone, gas and steam purposes or for boulevard reserve purposes.” There are no known utilities within the easement, which a Gopher One Call response confirmed. The shifting of the easement should have no impact on adjacent properties. Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the easement vacation as proposed. Application Summary: The applicant is requesting vacation of a drainage and utility easement that remained after a boundary line adjustment some years prior. The application proposes to replace the vacated easement with a 10 foot d/u easement along the property line. There are no known utilities within the easement. Staff Recommendation: With the replaced easement, Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the easement vacation request. Council Exhibit E 16-3838 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 20, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 8. #16-3838 AL MUSECH ON BEHALF OF THOM AND LAURA CLAPP, 215 HOLLANDER ROAD, EASEMENT VACATION, 7:59 P.M. – 8:04 P.M. Al Musech, Applicant, was present. Barnhart stated the applicant is requesting vacation of a drainage and utility easement that remained after a boundary line adjustment was made some years prior. The applicant proposes to replace the vacated easement with a10-foot drainage and utility easement along the property line. There are no known utilities within the easement. Barnhart displayed the existing easement on the overhead and pointed out how the existing easement goes right through the property. Originally the property consisted of two lots. Typically in new subdivisions easements are platted along the property line. Barnhart illustrated the location of the new easement. Staff recommends approval of the easement vacation as proposed and does not see it as having any negative impacts on any property in the area. Lemke asked if an easement is required to be provided on that property. Barnhart stated it is not, but generally it is not known when an easement will be needed so the City will typically ask for it up front. Thiesse noted the easement goes from 10 feet to 5 feet but that it has to transition at some point. Thiesse indicated he is comfortable with the location. Al Musech, Applicant, stated as Staff has stated, the purpose of the easement swap is to put in a septic system to replace the failing septic system. Musech stated at the time he purchased the property, they knew the system was failing and the perc tests found a suitable site in the front yard. The new mound system will blend in somewhat with the existing topography. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. Council Exhibit F 16-3838 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 20, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. Leskinen stated the application is as straight forward as it gets. Leskinen moved, Olson seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3838, Al Musech on behalf of Thom and Laura Clapp, 215 Hollander Road, granting of an easement vacation subject to a 10-foot drainage and utility easement being granted along the north property line. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Date Application Received: 05/13/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 05/13/16 60-Day Review Period Expires: 07/12/16 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 6 July 2016 Item No. 17 Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Melanie Curtis mcc JML Planning Title: Planner Item Description: #16-3833, John & Cyndy Bowlsby, 1025 Spring Hill Road - Variances Application Summary: The applicants are seeking lake setback and average lakeshore setback variance approvals construct an in- ground pool approximately 25 feet lakeward into the average lakeshore setback and 9 feet into the 100 foot lake setback, or 91 feet from the OHWL. Planning Commission Recommendation On June 20, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the application including the evidence submitted. The Planning Commission staff memo and exhibits dated 06/14/16 are incorporated herein by reference. Following the public hearing the Commission voted 5 to 0 in favor of a motion to approve the variances. 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. Site Plan Exhibit B. Draft Resolution Exhibit C. PC Action Notice Exhibit D. Draft PC Minutes Exhibit E. PC Memo Exhibit F. PC Exhibits NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4620 ZONING FILE: #16-3833 DATE OF NOTICE: 20 June 2016 TO: John Bowlsby 1025 Spring Hill Road Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES via email: John Bowlsby TYPE OF REQUEST: Variances DATE OF MEETING: 20 June 2016 The Orono Planning Commission voted on a motion to recommend approval of the variances as requested. VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant’s next meeting is tentatively scheduled as: Monday, July 11th This is a City Council meeting. The meeting begins at 7 PM If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please contact Planning & Zoning Coordinator, Melanie Curtis at mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us or 952.249.4627. Date Application Received: 05/13/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 05/13/16 60-Day Review Period Expires: 07/12/16 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Jessica Loftus, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 14 June 2016 Subject: #16-3833, John Bowlsby, 1025 Spring Hill Road, Variances Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting variances in order to construct an in-ground pool within the average lakeshore setback and within the required 100’ setback from Long Lake. Staff Recommendation: Planning Staff recommends approval of the setback variances for the pool. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Proposed Survey/Site Plan Exhibit D. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit E. Resolution No. 6519 Exhibit F. Resolution No. 6544 Exhibit G. Property Owners List Exhibit H. Plat Map Background This property owner was before the Planning Commission in 2015 seeking approvals for variances to allow additions to the home as well as an in-ground pool located within the 75-foot setback area. Long Lake is classified as a recreational development (RD) lake for setback purposes; properties served by City sewer on RD lakes have a required 75-foot structural setback from the OWHL (944.3’). This property is served by a private septic system and must meet a 100-foot structural setback. Initially the property owners sought an extension of the City sewer to their property which would have changed the setback status. That sewer request has been withdrawn. The variances for the additions to the home were approved on June 22, 2015 via Resolution No. 6519 (Exhibit F), the variance for the pool location within the 75-foot setback was denied. Resolution 6544 (Exhibit G) adopted on November 28, 2015 amended the approvals granted by Resolution No. 6519 modifying the configuration of the additions to the home; the pool at that time was shown to be in a location meeting the average lakeshore and 100-foot lake setback. At this time the applicants seek setback variance approvals to rotate the pool location 90 FILE # 16-3833 14 June 2016 Page 2 of 5 degrees and move it approximately 25 feet lakeward into the average lakeshore setback and 9 feet into the 100 foot lake setback, or 91 feet from the OWHL. Being 6 months removed from denial, the property owner is eligible to reapply for a variance for the pool. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-305 and 78-1279 - Setbacks: LR-1A Required Proposed Rear 50’ +100’ East Side 30’ +200’ West Side 30’ +200’ Lakeshore 100’ (non-sewered lot) 91’ Average Lakeshore The proposed pool will be located 25 feet lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line. Section 78-305 - Lot Area/Width: LR-1A Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2 acres) 200’ Actual 258,818 s.f. (5.94 acres) ±680’ @ OHWL & ±700’@ 100’ SB Structural Coverage: The property exceeds 2.0 acres therefore structural coverage limitations do not apply. Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 1 258,818 s.f. 64,704 s.f. (25 %) 27,706 s.f. (10.7%) w/in 75’ ≈300 s.f.* 27,833 s.f. (10.7%) w/in 75’ ≈471 s.f. Applicable Regulations: Lake Setback and Average Lakeshore Setback Variances (Code Section 78-1279) The average lakeshore setback line divides the home almost in half; the neighboring homes are over 400 feet away and are separated visually by existing vegetation and/or topographic differences. The proposed in-ground pool will have minimal visual impact from the lake and will have minimal impact the existing views of the lake from the adjacent homes. Properties on Long Lake are subject to a 100-foot setback for structures when served by private septic systems; a 75-foot setback is required for sewered properties. Currently the subject property is served by a private septic system. The in-ground pool is proposed to be constructed in line with the home, approximately 91 feet from the OHWL and 25 feet ahead of the average lakeshore setback. FILE # 16-3833 14 June 2016 Page 3 of 5 Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The variances to allow construction of an in-ground pool are in harmony with the zoning code; the requested setback variances on this Property are generally consistent with the intent of the ordinance. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. This statement is true; the requested variances are in line with the residential goals within the comprehensive plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; the variance requests are residential in nature and are reasonable considering the unique nature of the neighborhood with significant separation between the properties as well as the elevation difference between the pool location and the lake. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; the location of the home and the site configuration was not created by the owner, the elevation of the pool area in relation to the surface of Long Lake greatly impedes visual impact onto the Lake; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The visual impacts of the pool will be minimal from the lake due to the topography as well as from adjacent properties due to the physical distance separation. The pool location will not alter the character of the neighborhood. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The size and shape of the property is similar to a number of the immediate properties along Spring Hill Road within the LR- 1A district. 5. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The home is located within the 100 foot structural setback from the FILE # 16-3833 14 June 2016 Page 4 of 5 OHWL and is on the top of a bluff. Most of the neighboring homes with the exception of the property to the east have homes which meet the 100-foot setback. 6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The pool is a traditional accessory structure in residential areas. The pool located as proposed better serves the intent and goals of the ordinance by minimizing visual impacts to the lake, maintaining maximum distance from adjacent properties, and is located out of drainage ways. 7. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. The proposed project will not impair the health, safety, comfort, or morals of the public. 8. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Granting of the variances will resolve and alleviate a demonstrated practical difficulty. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Septic System Status The septic system on the property is non-conforming and needs to be replaced. Until very recently, the property owner was exploring a possible connection to the City’s sewer system; that request has since been withdrawn. An escrow in the amount of $15,000 was provided by the property owner to guarantee compliance with the City’s septic regulations. The property owner will be proceeding with the design and installation of a new conforming septic system this summer. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis Staff finds that the location of the existing home which currently encroaches into the 100-foot setback makes it difficult to make modifications or additions to and around the home. The property is large and wide; there is a 23 foot elevation difference between the lake level and the home which offers a feeling of spaciousness and screening from any visual impacts resulting from the location of the home. The applicant’s proposal to construct an in-ground pool on the west side of the home where previously an octagonal portion of the home existed will be 25 feet lakeward of the average lakeshore setback and 9 feet into the 100-foot setback. Due to the elevation change from the lake level to the home level the in-ground pool will not be visually apparent when viewed from the lake. Further, it does not appear that the adjacent property owners will be adversely impacted by the pool. Staff finds that there are special conditions relating to the existing home and property which support granting the requested lake setback and average lakeshore setback variances for the pool. Engineer Comments The City engineer has not reviewed the currently proposed plan but will do so prior to the building FILE # 16-3833 14 June 2016 Page 5 of 5 permit issuance. Public Comments There have been no public comments received regarding this proposal. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance (s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested var iance(s)? Is vegetative screening necessary? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval. Date Application Received: 05/18/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 05/31/16 60-Day Review Period Expires: 07/30/16 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: July 11, 2016 Item No. 18 Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Melanie Curtis mcc JML Planning Title: Planner Item Description: #16-3835, Michael Gallus Const. Inc., o/b/o Guy Milliren, 1991 Fagerness Pt Rd, Variances Application Summary: The applicant is making improvements to the roof to improve the ventilation for the home. In the process they intend to modify the roofline to improve the aesthetics. The eaves will be shortened by approximately 9 inches and the gables will be extended by 18 inches. The extension of eaves into required yards is permissible, up to 2 feet, provided the building maintains the required setback. However because the majority of the home on the peninsula is lakeward of the 75-foot and average lakeshore setbacks, variances are required. Planning Commission Recommendation On June 20, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the application including the evidence submitted. Following the public hearing the Commission voted 5 to 0 on a motion to approve the variances. 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. Proposed Survey & Proposed Plans Exhibit B. Draft Resolution Exhibit C. PC Action Notice Exhibit D. Draft PC Minutes Exhibit E. PC Staff Report Exhibit F. PC Exhibits NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4620 ZONING FILE: #16-3835 DATE OF NOTICE: 20 June 2016 TO: Dan Gallus Michael Gallus Const 6306 Ehler Ave Delano, MN 55328 COPIES via email: Guy Milliren Dan Gallus TYPE OF REQUEST: Variances DATE OF MEETING: 20 June 2016 The Orono Planning Commission voted on a motion to recommend approval of the variances as requested. VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant’s next meeting is tentatively scheduled as: Monday, July 11th This is a City Council meeting. The meeting begins at 7 PM If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please contact Planning & Zoning Coordinator, Melanie Curtis at mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us or 952.249.4627. Date Application Received: 05/18/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 05/31/16 60-Day Review Period Expires: 07/30/16 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Jessica Loftus, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 15 June 2016 Subject: #16-3835, Michael Gallus Const. Inc., o/b/o Guy Milliren, 1991 Fagerness Pt Rd, Variances Public Hearing List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Existing Survey Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit F. Aerial Photos Exhibit G. City Code Section 78-1405 Exhibit H. Property Owners List Exhibit I. Plat Map Background The applicant is making improvements to the roof to improve the ventilation for the home. In the process they intend to modify the roofline to improve the aesthetics. The eaves will be shortened by approximately 9 inches and the gables will be extended by 18 inches. The extension of eaves into required yards is permissible, up to 2 feet, provided the building maintains the required setback. However because the majority of the home on the peninsula is lakeward of the 75-foot and average lakeshore setbacks, variances are required. Application Summary: The applicant is requesting approval of variances in order to change the roof eaves and overhangs over the existing home within the setbacks. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. FILE # 16-3835 15 June 2016 Page 2 of 5 LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-350 - Setbacks: LR-1C Required Existing/Proposed West Lakeshore 75’ 23’ house 14’ deck East Lakeshore 75’ 47’ North Side 10’ 9.4’ Average Lakeshore The adjacent home on the lakeshore property to the north (1989 Fagerness Pt Rd) is located approximately ±84’ from the lake on the east and ±54 feet on the west. The applicant’s home is closer to the lake on both sides. Section 78-350 - Lot Area/Width: LR-1C Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acre) 100’ Actual 23,369 s.f. (0.53 acre) The property is configured on a peninsula and has lakeshore on three sides. The cumulative length of all lakeshore is well over 100’. Section 78-1403- Structural Coverage: The applicant’s proposal will not increase structural coverage above the existing level. Staff has estimated the structural coverage to be ≈13% based on the submitted hardcover calculations. However staff has not measured the height of the western deck and there is a deck on the south side of the garage that is not listed on the hardcover calculation sheet. Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 23,369 s.f. (0.53 acre) Allowed: 3,505 s.f. (15%) Existing: ±2,955 s.f. (≈12.6%) Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations: The majority of the property is located within the 75-foot setback from the lake. Staff has not asked the applicant to separate 75-foot hardcover from non- 75-foot hardcover for this application. Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 1 23,369 s.f. 5,842 s.f. (25 %) 5,284 s.f. (22.6%) No change FILE # 16-3835 15 June 2016 Page 3 of 5 Applicable Regulations: Lake Setback and Average Lakeshore Setback Variances (Code Section 78-1279); Side Yard Setback Variance (Code Section 78-350) Due to the property’s location at the point of Fagerness Point Road, the applicant’s home is almost entirely within the average lakeshore setback and within the 75 foot setback from the lake on all sides; a corner portion of the northeast part of the home encroaches up to 7 inches into the side yard. The applicant’s plan to expand the overhangs on the gable ends by 18 inches requires variances because of the nonconforming location of the existing home. The Survey and Building Elevation Exhibits, Exhibits C and D respectively, have been color coded to illustrate where the expanded overhangs will be located. Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The proposed expansions of the roof overhangs on the gable ends are reasonable and typically a permitted encroachment. The variances are in harmony with the intent of the Ordinance. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The requested variances are in line with the residential goals within the comprehensive plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; the variance requests are residential in nature and are reasonable considering the unique nature of this property as a point into the lake. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; the location of site on the point was not created by the owner, and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The visual impacts resulting from the additional 18” of overhang on the gable ends will not alter the character of the neighborhood. Rather, the home will appear to be aesthetically consistent with the adjacent neighbors. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: FILE # 16-3835 15 June 2016 Page 4 of 5 4. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The property’s location on the point of Fagerness Point Road is unique to the property; and the application of the setback requirements causes a practical difficulty. 5. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The property’s location on the point of Fagerness Point Road is unique and applies primarily to this property; The application of the setback requirements virtually eliminates the ability to improve the property without a variance, a practical difficulty. 6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Granting the variances to make modifications to the roof to allow for increased roof ventilation and water runoff off of the roof is necessary for the preservation of the owner’s property rights. 7. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. The proposed project will not impair the health, safety, comfort, or morals of the public. 8. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Granting of the variances will resolve and alleviate a demonstrated practical difficulty caused by the application of the lake and average lakeshore setbacks applied to the property. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Septic System Status The property is served by City sewer. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis The applicant’s plan to modify the roof eaves and overhangs on the gable ends requires variances where normally changes to the roof or overhangs would be considered a nonencroachement to a setback per City Code Section 78-1405. Normally the home would be constructed up to the setback, the nonencroachement provision allows for overhangs to extend up to two feet further into the setback. Because the house exists within the setback this provision is not applicable therefore the variances are necessary. Public Comments No public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? FILE # 16-3835 15 June 2016 Page 5 of 5 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance (s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval. Date Application Received: 05/18/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 06/01/16 60-Day Review Period Expires: 07/31/16 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: July 11, 2016 Item No. 19 Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Melanie Curtis mcc JML Planning Title: Planner Item Description: #16-3837 – J Brunello LLC – 570 Orono Orchard Rd S – Variances – Resolution Application Summary: The owner is proposing to demolish the existing home and construct a new residence on the property. They are requesting a number of variances in order to do so. The subject property is a nonconforming lot of record with just over a half of an acre in area and approximately 100 feet of width on Orono Orchard Road South; the RR-1B zoning district requires 2.0 acres in area and 200 feet of width. The owner is requesting side setback variances from both the north and south lot lines, therefore the Lot of Record provision in the code does not apply and lot area and lot width variances are also required. The proposed two-story home will be situated 17 feet from the north side lot line and 15 feet from the south side lot line where 30-foot setbacks are required; front and rear setbacks and all other zoning requirements will be met. Planning Commission Recommendation On June 20, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the application including the evidence submitted. Following the public hearing the Commission voted 5 to 0 in favor of a motion to approve the variances with the condition that the owner will comply with the forthcoming recommendations from the City engineer regarding the grading plan. 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. Proposed Survey and Building Plans Exhibit B. Draft Resolution Exhibit C. PC Action Notice Exhibit D. Draft PC Minutes Exhibit E. PC Staff Report Exhibit F. PC Exhibits NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4620 ZONING FILE: #16-3837 DATE OF NOTICE: 20 June 2016 TO: Jeff Jaglo 16890 80th Pl N Maple Grove, MN 55311 COPIES via email: John Brunello Jeff Jaglo TYPE OF REQUEST: Variances DATE OF MEETING: 20 June 2016 The Orono Planning Commission voted on a motion to recommend approval of the variances as requested. VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant’s next meeting is tentatively scheduled as: Monday, July 11th This is a City Council meeting. The meeting begins at 7 PM If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please contact Planning & Zoning Coordinator, Melanie Curtis at mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us or 952.249.4627. Date Application Received: 05/18/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 06/01/16 60-Day Review Period Expires: 07/31/16 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Jessica Loftus, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 13 June 2016 Subject: #16-3837, Jeff Jaglo o/b/o J Brunello LLC, 570 Orono Orchard Rd S, Variances Public Hearing List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Existing Survey Exhibit D. Proposed Survey/Site Plan Exhibit E. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit F. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit G. Aerial Photos Exhibit H. Property Owners List Exhibit I. Plat Map Background The property owner is proposing to demolish and construct a new residence on the property at 570 Orono Orchard Road South and is requesting a number of variances in order to do so. The subject property is a nonconforming lot of record with just over a half of an acre in area and approximately 100 feet of width on Orono Orchard Road South; the RR-1B zoning district requires 2.0 acres in area and 200 feet of width. The owner is requesting side setback variances from both the north and south lot lines, therefore lot area and lot width variances are also required. The proposed two-story home will be situated 17 feet from the north side lot line and 15 feet from the south side lot line; front and rear setbacks will be met. Application Summary: The applicant is requesting lot area, lot width, and side yard setback variances in order to redevelop the property. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. #16-3837 13 June 2016 Page 2 of 5 LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-420 - Setbacks: RR-B Required Proposed Front 50’ 51.5’ Rear 50’ 162’ North Side 30’ 17’ South Side 30’ 15’ Section 78-240 - Lot Area/Width: RR-1B Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0acres) 200’ Actual 26,711 s.f. (0.61 acre) 99.89’ Section 78-1403- Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 26,711 s.f. (0.61 acre) Allowed: 4,006 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 2,844 s.f. (10 %) Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 3 26,711 s.f. 9,348 s.f. (35 %) 3,399 s.f. (12.7 %) 4,542 s.f.* (17 %) *adjusted by staff to exclude the proposed retaining wall from HC calculations. Applicable Regulations: Side Yard Setback Variances (Sec. 78-420) The applicant is proposing to construct a ±2,300 square foot home with an attached 3-stall garage. The home will be approximately 64 feet wide with side setbacks proposed to be 15 feet (south) and 17 feet (north) where 30-foot side setbacks are required. Lot Area and Lot Width Variances (Sec. 78-420) Zoning Code Section 78-72 provides options for the redevelopment of lots which do not meet the minimum area or width requirements for the respective zoning district. Substandard properties within the Shoreland Overlay District, like the subject lot, are able to be redeveloped without variances if specific standards are met; such as: 1. All setback requirements can be met; 2. A Type 1 sewage treatment system consistent with Minnesota Rules, chapter 7080, can be installed or the lot is connected to a public sewer; and 3. The impervious surface coverage meets all hardcover location and square footage #16-3837 13 June 2016 Page 3 of 5 restrictions of this chapter and the total square footage of hardcover does not exceed 25 percent of the entire lot area. 4. All other zoning district standards can be met. The applicant’s request for side setback variances results in the property’s inability to conform to #1 above. Therefore, lot area and width variances are required in order to redevelop the property. Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The lot area, lot width variances requested are consistent with the general intent of the Ordinance. There is adequate space for light air and open space between the proposed home and the 15 foot+ setbacks requested. The variances are in harmony with the Ordinance. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances resulting in a permit for construction of a single family residence in a residential zone are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The request to permit construction of portions of the proposed home within the 30 foot side setback area appears to be reasonable as the owners of the adjacent properties do not appear to be adversely impacted; the mature vegetation and topography separate the subject property from the adjacent neighbors. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The sub-standard size of the subject property was not the result of actions by the landowner. The neighboring homes are set back sufficiently to allow for light, air, and open space between the homes; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed home will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The existing home plus detached garage to be replaced with the new residence have a frontage width of approximately 52 feet. The structures on adjacent lots are set back 62 feet #16-3837 13 June 2016 Page 4 of 5 for the home and 27-feet for the detached garage to the north; and the home to the south is over 84 feet from the property line. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The nonconforming lot area and lot width of the property are not uncommon in the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant is building in the general location of the existing home due to the topography and the heavily wooded eastern portion of the property. However, the existing substandard setback to the north lot line will be improved (setback increased) with the proposed home. 5. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The proposed home will be generally in line with the neighboring homes with respect to size and setback. 6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the requested variances will not adversely impact health, safety, comfort, or morals; nor will it be contrary to the intent of the Code. 8. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The size and width of the property and the topography create practical difficulties affecting the subject property; the variances are necessary and not merely serve as a convenience to the owners. Septic System Status The property is served by City sewer. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis Staff finds that there are demonstrable practical difficulties supporting the lot area and lot width variance as well as the side setback variance requests. Engineer Comments The City’s engineer briefly reviewed the proposed site plan with planning staff. A suggestion was made by the engineer to have the house or drainage plan updated to include any proposed gutters and downspouts for the building permit review. Public Comments No public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Plan ning Commission find that the variance (s), if granted, will not alter #16-3837 13 June 2016 Page 5 of 5 the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variances conditioned upon compliance with the City Engineer’s comments on the grading site plan at the time of building permit. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July 11, 2016 ITEM NO: 20 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Jessica Loftus JML City Administrator's Report Title City Administrator Item Description: Prosecuting Attorney – Request for Proposal (RFP) Four (4) submittals were received for the prosecuting attorney Request for Proposals (RFP). On June 27th the City Council interviewed four firms: • Carson, Clelland & Schreder • Kenneth Potts, P.A. • Gregerson, Rosow, Johnson & Nilan, Ltd. • Tallen and Baertschi The next step in the proposed timeline is to select a firm and to begin negotiating a contract. A contract could be presented for your consideration in the fall. Proposed Timeline: City Council Approval of RFP Discussed in January/Policy approved in February. Advertise and Distribute RFP March 28, 2016 RFP Submittal Deadline April 29, 2016 Review of Proposals May 2016 Interviews June 27, 2016 Selection of Prosecuting Attorney July 11, 2016 Appointment/ Contract Approval Fall of 2016 Start Date January 1, 2017 or as negotiated to assure a smooth transition. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion selecting a firm for Prosecuting Attorney Services and authorize the City Administrator and Attorney to begin negotiating a contract. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: July 11, 2016 ITEM NO: 21 ______________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Ron Olson RJO JML City Administrator’s Report Title Finance Director _____________________________________________________________________________ Item Description: Golf Course Donations _____________________________________________________________________________ In an effort to raise funds for the ongoing improvements at the Orono Public Golf Course, a group of citizens recently mailed out a fundraising letter. This fundraising effort is part of their Stay the Course initiative which was created to help maintain and preserve the course. Authority for cities to accept donation is granted by Minnesota Statute 465.03 which authorizes Minnesota cities to “accept or devise of real or personal property and maintain such property for the benefit of its citizens in accordance with the terms prescribed by the donor.” All donations must be accepted by resolution with a 2/3 vote of the Council. The following new donations have been received: William Dworsky Harriet Osborn 50.00 350.00 This year to date, sixteen donations totaling $5,588.50 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. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT GOLF COURSE DONATIONS WHEREAS, The City of Orono is generally authorized to accept donations of real and personal property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 465.03 for the benefit of its citizens; and WHEREAS, The following persons have offered to contribute the cash amounts set forth below to the city: Name of Donor Amount William Dworsky Harriet Osborn 50.00 350.00 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 July 11, 2016. Attest: Approved: Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili McMillan, Mayor REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: July 11, 2016 Item No. : 22 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 105437 to 105531, totaling $384,980.79. Noteworthy payments include: Hennepin County Treasurer $ 79,000.00 2nd Half payment for the 2016 Assessing year. Total paid for the contract year is $165,000. Kustom Signals $ 16,404.00 Payment for the Speed Trailer that was purchased with the State Farm Safe Driving Grant. Safe Assure $ 4,067.76 Payment for the annual employee Safety Training contract. While focused on Public Works, it also provides required training for administrative personnel. 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: 6/28/2016 - 7/11/2016 Jul 07, 2016 10:32AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Advanced Imaging Solutions 07/11/2016 105437 105640 101-42110-413 toner shipping Police Department 10.91 Advanced Imaging Solutions 07/11/2016 105437 106016 101-41900-413 toner shipping Central Services 39.91 Advanced Imaging Solutions 07/11/2016 105437 106032 101-41900-413 toner shipping Central Services 10.57 Total 105437:61.39 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 07/11/2016 105438 307635912 101-41900-413 copier lease 6/20 to 7/20 and overage Central Services 2,008.64 Total 105438:2,008.64 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 07/11/2016 105439 307674515 101-42110-413 pd copier lease 6/20 to 7/20 Police Department 335.40 Total 105439:335.40 ANCOM TECHNICAL CENTER 07/11/2016 105440 60929 406-48720-575 chargers and ear jack for new radios 2,106.00 Total 105440:2,106.00 BCA FORENSIC SCIENCE LAB 07/11/2016 105441 297735 101-42110-311 CJDN connect and operation charge Police Department 510.00 Total 105441:510.00 BIFFS INC 07/11/2016 105442 601264 101-45200-415 Bederwood park Parks 160.00 BIFFS INC 07/11/2016 105442 601265 101-45200-415 Summit beach Parks 160.00 BIFFS INC 07/11/2016 105442 601266 101-45200-415 Hackberry Beach Parks 125.00 BIFFS INC 07/11/2016 105442 601267 101-45210-415 Golf Course Golf Course 62.79 BIFFS INC 07/11/2016 105442 601268 101-45200-415 Crystal Bay Playground Parks 62.50 BIFFS INC 07/11/2016 105442 601269 101-45200-415 Navarre Playground Parks 160.00 BIFFS INC 07/11/2016 105442 601270 101-45200-415 French Creek Park Preserve Parks 62.50 Total 105442:792.79 BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC 07/11/2016 105443 10199 234-45680-530 Lurton Park 17,250.00 Total 105443:17,250.00 BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF 07/11/2016 105444 70516 101-21706 Health insurance 5,333.50 BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF 07/11/2016 105444 70516 101-15998 Cobra 3,803.98 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 2 Check Issue Dates: 6/28/2016 - 7/11/2016 Jul 07, 2016 10:32AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105444:9,137.48 BOLTON & MENK INC.07/11/2016 105445 190859 601-49400-304 Watermain imp Water 1,198.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.07/11/2016 105445 190859 602-49450-304 Sewer eng Sewer 423.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.07/11/2016 105445 190859 101-43170-304 Casco Pt ROW Engineering 1,153.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.07/11/2016 105445 190859 651-49910-304 Pond assessments Storm Water 672.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.07/11/2016 105445 190859 651-49910-304 Watertown Road culvert Storm Water 936.00 Total 105445:4,382.00 BUDGET PRINTING 07/11/2016 105446 1971 101-42110-352 domestic assault guides Police Department 116.11 Total 105446:116.11 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/11/2016 105447 CF52016 101-42110-439 food for meeting-Lunds Police Department 15.29 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/11/2016 105447 JL060116 101-41300-489 flowers-Posey Patch Administration 64.12 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/11/2016 105447 JL62716 101-41110-439 food for worksession-Jimmy Johns Mayor & Council 61.20 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/11/2016 105447 RO70616 101-41900-201 ipad case-GC Central Services 38.52 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/11/2016 105447 SO52316 101-45200-225 park benches-Barco Parks 1,216.50 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/11/2016 105447 SO52516B 101-43000-240 shop supplies-Northern Tool Public Works Department 11.56 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/11/2016 105447 SO61616 101-41900-223 paper towels/can liners-Office Depot Central Services 646.22 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/11/2016 105447 SO61716 101-43000-489 ice-SA Public Works Department 9.98 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/11/2016 105447 SO61716B 101-43000-489 pizza-Dominos Public Works Department 27.87 Total 105447:2,091.26 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 07/11/2016 105448 62316 601-49400-381 5/19 to 6/20 Water 467.60 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 07/11/2016 105448 62316 602-49450-381 5/19 to 6/20 Sewer 173.67 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 07/11/2016 105448 62316 101-41900-381 5/19 to 6/20 Central Services 94.47 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 07/11/2016 105448 62316 101-42110-381 5/19 to 6/20 Police Department 34.02 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 07/11/2016 105448 62316 101-45210-381 5/19 to 6/20 Golf Course 23.73 Total 105448:793.49 CENTURY LINK 07/11/2016 105449 61916 101-45210-321 GC phone/dsl Golf Course 198.39 Total 105449:198.39 CHRIS FISCHER 07/11/2016 105450 70616 101-42110-439 reimb Westonka meetings Jan-Jun Police Department 55.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 3 Check Issue Dates: 6/28/2016 - 7/11/2016 Jul 07, 2016 10:32AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105450:55.00 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 07/11/2016 105451 13897 101-42110-402 #241 oil change, tire repair Police Department 57.05 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 07/11/2016 105451 13908 101-42110-402 #243 oil change Police Department 42.74 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 07/11/2016 105451 13913 101-42110-402 #240 oil change Police Department 45.79 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 07/11/2016 105451 13917 101-42110-402 #229 oil change Police Department 45.79 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 07/11/2016 105451 13928 101-42110-402 #233 oil change, tire rotation Police Department 74.03 Total 105451:265.40 CITY OF LONG LAKE 07/11/2016 105452 201377 101-42260-318 3rd Qtr 2016 fire contract Fire Protection Services 91,155.25 Total 105452:91,155.25 CITY OF MINNETONKA 07/11/2016 105453 588 101-43000-224 salt brine Public Works Department 183.18 Total 105453:183.18 CIVIC SYSTEMS LLC 07/11/2016 105454 14432 101-41900-416 software support 7-16 to 12-16 Central Services 1,032.13 CIVIC SYSTEMS LLC 07/11/2016 105454 14432 601-49400-416 software support 7-16 to 12-16 Water 774.09 CIVIC SYSTEMS LLC 07/11/2016 105454 14432 602-49450-416 software support 7-16 to 12-16 Sewer 1,032.13 CIVIC SYSTEMS LLC 07/11/2016 105454 14432 603-49500-416 software support 7-16 to 12-16 774.09 CIVIC SYSTEMS LLC 07/11/2016 105454 14432 651-49910-416 software support 7-16 to 12-16 Storm Water 692.56 Total 105454:4,305.00 CLEVELAND GOLF/SRIXON 07/11/2016 105455 4698333 101-45210-095 golf balls Golf Course 169.28 Total 105455:169.28 COMMERCIAL ASPHALT 07/11/2016 105456 160615 101-43000-224 street materials Public Works Department 1,462.05 Total 105456:1,462.05 COMPASS MINERALS AMERICA 07/11/2016 105457 71492976 101-43000-224 treated salt Public Works Department 1,728.45 COMPASS MINERALS AMERICA 07/11/2016 105457 71497584 101-43000-408 road salt Public Works Department 2,147.95 Total 105457:3,876.40 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 4 Check Issue Dates: 6/28/2016 - 7/11/2016 Jul 07, 2016 10:32AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount CONNELLY INDUSTRIAL ELEC 07/11/2016 105458 10139 601-49400-405 Well #1 repair Water 1,915.20 Total 105458:1,915.20 CONTINENTAL RESEARCH CO 07/11/2016 105459 435837 101-43000-212 grease and grease tubes Public Works Department 1,665.00 Total 105459:1,665.00 DELANO RENTAL 07/11/2016 105460 11909 101-45200-404 skidsteer rental-French Creek/Livingston Parks 161.84 Total 105460:161.84 DEPUTY REGISTRAR 07/11/2016 105461 62916 231-45650-441 2000 Olds Bravada case15-10960 20.75 DEPUTY REGISTRAR 07/11/2016 105461 62916 231-45650-441 1998 Toyota Rav4 Case 15-12295 20.75 DEPUTY REGISTRAR 07/11/2016 105461 62916 231-45650-441 2001 motorcycle Case 15-8163 20.75 DEPUTY REGISTRAR 07/11/2016 105461 62916 231-45650-441 1999 Honda CRV Case 15-7877 20.75 Total 105461:83.00 DIANE TIEGS 07/11/2016 105462 70616 101-41410-240 reimb election supplies Elections 126.00 Total 105462:126.00 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 07/11/2016 105463 352741 101-41900-352 legal ads Central Services 172.84 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 07/11/2016 105463 355997 601-16500 North Well bid ads 260.32 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 07/11/2016 105463 359119 101-41900-352 2016 Mill & overlay ad Central Services 120.12 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 07/11/2016 105463 362662 101-41900-352 legal ads Central Services 141.94 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 07/11/2016 105463 366675 101-41900-352 legal ads Central Services 458.92 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 07/11/2016 105463 366676 101-41900-352 legal ads Central Services 113.24 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 07/11/2016 105463 366677 101-41900-352 legal ads Central Services 59.60 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 07/11/2016 105463 372783 101-41900-352 legal ads Central Services 113.24 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 07/11/2016 105463 513918 101-41900-352 legal ads Central Services 110.00 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 07/11/2016 105463 62616 101-41900-352 finance charges Central Services 11.45 Total 105463:1,561.67 FOTOHAUS 07/11/2016 105464 62416 101-42110-319 PD photos Police Department 1,056.00 Total 105464:1,056.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 5 Check Issue Dates: 6/28/2016 - 7/11/2016 Jul 07, 2016 10:32AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount G & K SERVICES 07/11/2016 105465 1006742259 101-43000-221 towels Public Works Department 6.38 G & K SERVICES 07/11/2016 105465 1006742259 101-43000-226 uniform Public Works Department 27.30 G & K SERVICES 07/11/2016 105465 1006742259 601-49400-226 uniform Water 13.64 G & K SERVICES 07/11/2016 105465 1006742259 602-49450-226 uniform Sewer 13.65 G & K SERVICES 07/11/2016 105465 1006753654 101-43000-221 towels Public Works Department 6.38 G & K SERVICES 07/11/2016 105465 1006753654 101-43000-226 uniform Public Works Department 27.29 G & K SERVICES 07/11/2016 105465 1006753654 601-49400-226 uniform Water 13.65 G & K SERVICES 07/11/2016 105465 1006753654 602-49450-226 uniform Sewer 13.65 G & K SERVICES 07/11/2016 105465 1006764981 101-41900-404 mat Central Services 14.40 G & K SERVICES 07/11/2016 105465 1006764981 101-43000-221 towels Public Works Department 6.38 G & K SERVICES 07/11/2016 105465 1006764981 101-43000-226 uniform Public Works Department 27.30 G & K SERVICES 07/11/2016 105465 1006764981 601-49400-226 uniform Water 13.65 G & K SERVICES 07/11/2016 105465 1006764981 602-49450-226 uniform Sewer 13.64 G & K SERVICES 07/11/2016 105465 1006764996 101-45210-404 GC mats Golf Course 18.34 G & K SERVICES 07/11/2016 105465 1006776283 101-43000-221 towels Public Works Department 6.38 G & K SERVICES 07/11/2016 105465 1006776283 602-49450-226 uniform Sewer 13.65 G & K SERVICES 07/11/2016 105465 1006776283 601-49400-226 uniform Water 13.65 G & K SERVICES 07/11/2016 105465 1006776283 101-43000-226 uniform Public Works Department 27.29 Total 105465:276.62 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 07/11/2016 105466 316778 101-43000-222 repair parts Public Works Department 43.63 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 07/11/2016 105466 321651 101-43000-221 fitting Public Works Department 2.03 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 07/11/2016 105466 321653 602-49450-221 wiper blade Sewer 16.17 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 07/11/2016 105466 321848 101-43000-221 supplies Public Works Department 1.98 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 07/11/2016 105466 322951 101-43000-221 supplies Public Works Department 4.69 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 07/11/2016 105466 324010 101-45200-221 battery Parks 114.00 Total 105466:182.50 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 07/11/2016 105467 6060622 601-49400-489 locates Water 353.03 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 07/11/2016 105467 6060622 602-49450-489 locates Sewer 353.02 Total 105467:706.05 GRAFIX SHOPPE 07/11/2016 105468 108469 101-42110-550 #244, 245, 246 graphics Police Department 2,355.00 Total 105468:2,355.00 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LT 07/11/2016 105469 670774 651-49910-227 Ferndale Rd culverts Storm Water 1,748.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 6 Check Issue Dates: 6/28/2016 - 7/11/2016 Jul 07, 2016 10:32AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105469:1,748.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TE 07/11/2016 105470 1000078245 101-41900-319 network support Central Services 50.00 Total 105470:50.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF 07/11/2016 105471 1000077977 101-41600-309 jail charges Law/Legal Services 50.04 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF 07/11/2016 105471 1000078344 101-41600-309 jail charges Law/Legal Services 539.07 Total 105471:589.11 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASUR 07/11/2016 105472 1000077469 101-15503 2nd Half 2016 Assessing Services 79,000.00 Total 105472:79,000.00 INSTANT LAWN INC 07/11/2016 105473 803212 651-49910-406 sod Storm Water 170.00 Total 105473:170.00 INTEGRA TELECOM 07/11/2016 105474 13961571 101-42110-321 Phone service Police Department 287.20 INTEGRA TELECOM 07/11/2016 105474 13961571 101-41900-321 Phone Service Central Services 402.07 INTEGRA TELECOM 07/11/2016 105474 13961571 601-49400-321 Phone Service Water 67.01 INTEGRA TELECOM 07/11/2016 105474 13961571 602-49450-321 Phone Service Sewer 201.04 Total 105474:957.32 JESSICA WERDER 07/11/2016 105475 62916 101-42110-437 reimb meal for training Police Department 26.67 JESSICA WERDER 07/11/2016 105475 62916 101-42110-437 reimb mileage training Police Department 51.84 Total 105475:78.51 JJ TAYLOR DIST LF MN JJ TAYL 07/11/2016 105476 2510568 101-45210-091 beer Golf Course 257.00 Total 105476:257.00 KENNETH N POTTS PA 07/11/2016 105477 70116 101-41600-306 prosecution services Jun Law/Legal Services 3,000.00 Total 105477:3,000.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 7 Check Issue Dates: 6/28/2016 - 7/11/2016 Jul 07, 2016 10:32AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount KUSTOM SIGNALS INC 07/11/2016 105478 529542 101-42110-580 Speed trailer Police Department 16,404.00 Total 105478:16,404.00 KYLE RUSSETH 07/11/2016 105479 63016 101-42110-331 reimb for parking Police Department 29.00 Total 105479:29.00 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TR 07/11/2016 105480 62116 703-49960-379 private data claim 2,500.00 Total 105480:2,500.00 LOGIS 07/11/2016 105481 41883 101-41900-401 GC modem reset Central Services 55.00 LOGIS 07/11/2016 105481 41883 101-41900-401 service startup errors Central Services 55.00 LOGIS 07/11/2016 105481 41938 101-42110-310 police records Police Department 6,017.00 LOGIS 07/11/2016 105481 41938 101-41900-329 internet 5/16 Central Services 194.50 LOGIS 07/11/2016 105481 41938 101-42110-329 internet 5/16 Police Department 194.50 LOGIS 07/11/2016 105481 41938 101-41900-319 backups Central Services 980.00 Total 105481:7,496.00 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 07/11/2016 105482 B337973 101-45200-223 supplies Parks 47.08 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 07/11/2016 105482 B337986 101-43000-224 supplies Public Works Department 16.40 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 07/11/2016 105482 B338556 101-41900-223 solar salt Central Services 119.80 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 07/11/2016 105482 B338751 101-43000-224 supplies Public Works Department 32.28 Total 105482:215.56 LUNDBERG, MIKE 07/11/2016 105483 70116 101-22205 Escrow refund 2016-00427 2,000.00 Total 105483:2,000.00 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 07/11/2016 105484 511138 101-43000-212 Diesel Public Works Department 489.39 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 07/11/2016 105484 511139 101-42110-212 Fuel PD Police Department 2,096.00 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 07/11/2016 105484 513535 101-43000-212 Diesel Public Works Department 428.92 Total 105484:3,014.31 MCPA C/O BCA CRIME WATCH 07/11/2016 105485 MCCOY2016 101-42110-433 2017 Membership Police Department 60.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 8 Check Issue Dates: 6/28/2016 - 7/11/2016 Jul 07, 2016 10:32AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105485:60.00 Mediacom 07/11/2016 105486 62116 614-49840-329 internet Cable Franchise 589.84 Mediacom 07/11/2016 105486 62116 101-41900-329 internet Central Services 294.91 Mediacom 07/11/2016 105486 62116 101-42110-329 internet Police Department 294.91 Total 105486:1,179.66 MEDIACOM 07/11/2016 105487 62616 101-45210-415 GC cable Golf Course 7.34 Total 105487:7.34 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTA 07/11/2016 105488 63016 101-20809 Sac 7,455.00 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTA 07/11/2016 105488 63016 101-39610 SAC credit 74.55- Total 105488:7,380.45 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTA 07/11/2016 105489 1057556 602-49450-383 Aug wastewater service Sewer 32,877.48 Total 105489:32,877.48 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLI 07/11/2016 105490 188096919 101-45210-092 beverages Golf Course 474.00 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLI 07/11/2016 105490 188097418 101-45210-092 beverages Golf Course 188.40 Total 105490:662.40 MIDWEST TURF SPECIALISTS 07/11/2016 105491 6566 101-45200-404 3907 Cherry Ave mowing Parks 195.00 Total 105491:195.00 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 07/11/2016 105492 45075 101-43000-240 chain saw oil Public Works Department 15.75 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 07/11/2016 105492 45495 101-45210-221 parts for weed whip/sharpening Golf Course 45.94 Total 105492:61.69 MINNESOTA EXTERIORS INC 07/11/2016 105493 62716 101-32510 permit refund 2016-00741 92.89 Total 105493:92.89 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 9 Check Issue Dates: 6/28/2016 - 7/11/2016 Jul 07, 2016 10:32AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount MINNESOTA PIPE & EQUIPMEN 07/11/2016 105494 356385 601-49400-227 adapter Water 185.00 Total 105494:185.00 MINUTEMAN PRESS 06/29/2016 105435 62916 101-41900-322 summer newsletter Central Services 775.88 Total 105435:775.88 MINUTEMAN PRESS 07/11/2016 105495 17971 101-41900-352 summer newsletter Central Services 1,465.87 Total 105495:1,465.87 MN DEPT OF LABOR & INDUST 07/11/2016 105496 63016 101-20802 #25050053170 2nd Qtr 8,490.37 MN DEPT OF LABOR & INDUST 07/11/2016 105496 63016 101-39610 25050053170 2nd Qtr Surcharge credit 339.61- Total 105496:8,150.76 MN DEPT OF LABOR & INDUST 07/11/2016 105497 632404-2016 101-42400-433 R. Peitso license renewal Building & Zoning 80.00 Total 105497:80.00 MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SERVIC 06/29/2016 105434 62916 101-42110-441 2016 Dodge Ram tax/license Police Department 1,743.24 Total 105434:1,743.24 MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SERVIC 07/11/2016 105498 842HAC-201 101-42110-402 2011 Ford 842 HAC Police Department 162.00 Total 105498:162.00 MN NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS 07/11/2016 105499 6732716 101-21710 Pera life 7/16 224.00 Total 105499:224.00 NAVARRE HARDWARE 07/11/2016 105500 294728 601-49400-227 supplies Water 1.49 NAVARRE HARDWARE 07/11/2016 105500 295002 101-43000-240 wasp spray Public Works Department 23.88 NAVARRE HARDWARE 07/11/2016 105500 295008 101-42110-221 supplies Police Department 20.06 NAVARRE HARDWARE 07/11/2016 105500 295107 101-45200-403 supplies Parks 38.85 NAVARRE HARDWARE 07/11/2016 105500 295125 101-43000-489 supplies Public Works Department 11.96 NAVARRE HARDWARE 07/11/2016 105500 295163 101-45200-223 mulch Livingston Park Parks 23.94 NAVARRE HARDWARE 07/11/2016 105500 295246 101-45210-240 supplies Golf Course 53.94 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 10 Check Issue Dates: 6/28/2016 - 7/11/2016 Jul 07, 2016 10:32AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105500:174.12 NORTHLAND BUSINESS SYSTE 07/11/2016 105501 67100 101-42110-440 replacement transcripiton pedal/ear pieces, software Police Department 1,038.38 Total 105501:1,038.38 O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 07/11/2016 105502 53116 101-42110-402 car wash Police Department 60.50 Total 105502:60.50 O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 547 07/11/2016 105503 53116 101-42110-402 car washes Police Department 272.61 Total 105503:272.61 OFFICE DEPOT 07/11/2016 105504 8424243710 101-42110-201 office supplies Police Department 20.61 OFFICE DEPOT 07/11/2016 105504 8465543400 101-42110-201 office supplies Police Department 71.57 OFFICE DEPOT 07/11/2016 105504 8465544020 101-42110-201 office supplies Police Department 31.65 Total 105504:123.83 OFFICE DEPOT 07/11/2016 105505 8465126230 101-41410-240 office supplies Elections 82.05 OFFICE DEPOT 07/11/2016 105505 8465126230 101-41900-201 office supplies Central Services 90.78 OFFICE DEPOT 07/11/2016 105505 8465126230 101-41900-201 office supplies Central Services 29.99 OFFICE DEPOT 07/11/2016 105505 8465126630 101-41410-240 office supplies Elections 73.26 OFFICE DEPOT 07/11/2016 105505 8465126640 101-41900-201 office supplies Central Services 36.08 Total 105505:312.16 PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR 07/11/2016 105506 16520 231-45650-436 Mercedes E320 140.00 Total 105506:140.00 PLUNKETT S 07/11/2016 105507 5456885 101-41900-404 pest contol Central Services 223.60 Total 105507:223.60 POSTMASTER 06/29/2016 201300 62916 101-41900-322 Summer Newsletter Central Services 775.88 POSTMASTER 06/29/2016 201300 62916 101-41900-322 Summer Newsletter Central Services 775.88- City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 11 Check Issue Dates: 6/28/2016 - 7/11/2016 Jul 07, 2016 10:32AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 20130077:.00 PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC 07/11/2016 105508 1445 234-45680-404 Lurton Park Buckthorn removal 857.50 Total 105508:857.50 QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC 07/11/2016 105509 32111 602-49450-406 LS 4 repair Sewer 5,960.00 Total 105509:5,960.00 SAFE ASSURE 07/11/2016 105510 1018 101-43000-437 safety training Public Works Department 1,355.92 SAFE ASSURE 07/11/2016 105510 1018 601-49400-437 safety training Water 1,355.92 SAFE ASSURE 07/11/2016 105510 1018 602-49450-437 safety training Sewer 1,355.92 Total 105510:4,067.76 SELECT ACCOUNT 07/11/2016 105511 62816 101-21719 FLEX 170.00 Total 105511:170.00 SELECT ACCOUNT 07/11/2016 105512 70516 101-21719 FLEX 93.52 Total 105512:93.52 SELECT ACCOUNT 07/11/2016 105513 63016 101-21720 HRA contribution-2nd half 8,125.00 Total 105513:8,125.00 SIRCHIE FINGER PRINT LABS 07/11/2016 105514 258947 101-42110-240 tape Police Department 19.50 Total 105514:19.50 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 07/11/2016 105515 70616 101-21710 Life Insurance July 1,160.20 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 07/11/2016 105515 70616 101-21713 LTD July 1,210.55 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 07/11/2016 105515 70616 101-21714 STD July 397.21 Total 105515:2,767.96 TESSMAN COMPANY 07/11/2016 105516 236475 101-45210-223 supplies Golf Course 28.97 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 12 Check Issue Dates: 6/28/2016 - 7/11/2016 Jul 07, 2016 10:32AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105516:28.97 THE HOME DEPOT 07/11/2016 105517 62016 101-41900-404 finance charge Central Services 23.14 Total 105517:23.14 THORPE DIST CO 07/11/2016 105518 1100074 101-45210-091 beer Golf Course 239.50 Total 105518:239.50 TOTMAN, DANIEL 07/11/2016 105519 70116 101-22205 Escrow refund 2015-00337 2,500.00 Total 105519:2,500.00 TREECARE 07/11/2016 105520 985 101-43000-408 tree trimming 3405 Watertown Rd Public Works Department 481.25 TREECARE 07/11/2016 105520 998 101-43000-408 tree trimming Spates Ave & Russel Public Works Department 525.00 Total 105520:1,006.25 UNITED FARMERS COOPERATI 07/11/2016 105521 2133664 101-43000-240 supplies Public Works Department 62.99 UNITED FARMERS COOPERATI 07/11/2016 105521 34339 101-45200-223 roundup Parks 45.99 UNITED FARMERS COOPERATI 07/11/2016 105521 34339 101-43000-224 grass seed Public Works Department 121.99 UNITED FARMERS COOPERATI 07/11/2016 105521 34339 101-43000-404 solar salt Public Works Department 21.95 Total 105521:252.92 VACKER INC 07/11/2016 105522 1546 101-45200-223 French Creek Park info sign Parks 602.00 Total 105522:602.00 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTE 07/11/2016 105523 46217 101-41900-407 Janitorial service Central Services 1,435.50 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTE 07/11/2016 105523 46217 101-42110-407 Janitorial service Police Department 1,039.50 Total 105523:2,475.00 VESSCO INC 07/11/2016 105524 66469 601-49400-405 supplies Water 8.33 Total 105524:8.33 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 13 Check Issue Dates: 6/28/2016 - 7/11/2016 Jul 07, 2016 10:32AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount WASHUTA, KENNETH 07/11/2016 105525 70116 101-22205 escrow refund 2014-01447 10,000.00 Total 105525:10,000.00 WILLIAMS TOWING 07/11/2016 105526 141943 231-45650-436 16-006386 2000 Impala 155.00 Total 105526:155.00 WINDSTREAM 07/11/2016 105527 59511327 601-49400-321 water plant phone Water 56.67 Total 105527:56.67 XCEL ENERGY 07/11/2016 105528 507039893 101-41900-381 5/19 to 6/20 Central Services 1,814.98 XCEL ENERGY 07/11/2016 105528 507039893 101-42110-381 5/19 to 6/20 Police Department 1,220.88 XCEL ENERGY 07/11/2016 105528 507039893 101-42110-381 5/19 to 6/20 Police Department 36.93 XCEL ENERGY 07/11/2016 105528 507039893 101-43000-381 5/19 to 6/20 Public Works Department 147.31 XCEL ENERGY 07/11/2016 105528 507039893 101-43000-381 5/19 to 6/20 Public Works Department 2,039.13 XCEL ENERGY 07/11/2016 105528 507039893 101-45200-381 5/19 to 6/20 Parks 35.25 XCEL ENERGY 07/11/2016 105528 507039893 601-49400-381 5/19 to 6/20 Water 6,543.09 XCEL ENERGY 07/11/2016 105528 507039893 602-49450-381 5/19 to 6/20 Sewer 2,514.13 XCEL ENERGY 07/11/2016 105528 507039893 101-45210-381 5/19 to 6/20 Golf Course 880.13 Total 105528:15,231.83 YAMAHA GOLF & UTILITY INC 07/11/2016 105529 01-164171 101-45210-415 May-June cart rental Golf Course 2,820.00 YAMAHA GOLF & UTILITY INC 07/11/2016 105529 01-164172 101-45210-415 June cart lease Golf Course 330.00 Total 105529:3,150.00 ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS 07/11/2016 105530 0160573 651-49910-402 #460 repair Storm Water 88.88 Total 105530:88.88 ZHUK, ROMAN 07/11/2016 105531 70116 101-22205 escrow refund 2011-01503 600.00 Total 105531:600.00 Grand Totals: 384,980.79 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 14 Check Issue Dates: 6/28/2016 - 7/11/2016 Jul 07, 2016 10:32AM 186904v1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: July 11, 2016 Item No. : 23 Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Soren Mattick JML City Attorney’s Title: City Attorney Report _____________________________________________________________________________________ Item Description: Hazardous Property – 3907 Cherry Avenue Background The residential property located at 3907 Cherry Avenue is a problem property which constitutes a hazard to public health and safety and needs to be cleaned. The property around the home is used to store miscellaneous junk and debris, an unlicensed boat, special mobile equipment, and unlicensed and/or inoperable vehicles. As a result of long-term outdoor storage, there has also developed an accumulation of tall grass and weeds and piles of dead vegetation. The City has received numerous complaints regarding the exterior of the property. Although the property owner appears to visit the property occasionally, mostly to store additional items, he has taken no steps to remedy the existing issues on the property. The City first attempted to contact the property owner in 2013 to remedy these issues, but a letter sent to the property was returned as undeliverable. Staff has no alternative contact information for the property owner. The home on the property has been boarded up and is vacant. Inspections inside the home revealed large-scale storage of personal items, including propane and acetylene tanks, tires, paint, power equipment, construction materials, and household and commercial goods in storage bins stacked to the ceiling throughout the home, blocking exit/entry and movement within. The roof leaks and water has leaked throughout the back portion of the Subject Building, causing all of the gypsum board to fall from the ceiling and causing the roof rafters to rot on the ends that touch exterior walls. There are structural deficiencies throughout the home, including deterioration of the foundation, with additional deterioration appearing since 2015, the pointing on the interior foundation has cracked and is falling off of the fieldstone, the foundation has become extremely bowed in areas and portions have collapsed, one portion of the foundation is being undermined by water from rain events, and there is structural failure of the ceiling / floor assembly. 186904v1 Because the issues existing on the exterior of the property constitute a hazard to public health and safety, and because the issues existing on the interior of the home constitute a fire hazard or a hazard to public health and safety, the City has the option of initiating a lawsuit pursuant to Minn. Stat. 463 to declare the property and building “hazardous.” Through this process, a court would issue an Order allowing the City to go onto the property, clean and remove all exterior issues, raze and remove the home and all property therein, grade the property, and assess the cost of cleanup against the property. Additionally, all costs associated with this action, including staff and attorney fees, can be collected as a special charge against the real estate, to be collected with the other taxes. Completing notice to the property owner of the hazardous building action will likely require service via publication. DISCUSSION City staff recommends approval of a Resolution Ordering Abatement of Hazardous Condition of Hazardous Property. ACTION Motion to approve Resolution Ordering Abatement of Hazardous Condition of Hazardous Property. 1 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ RESOLUTION ORDERING ABATEMENT OF HAZARDOUS CONDITION OF HAZARDOUS PROPERTY AND HAZARDOUS BUILDING WHEREAS, the Building Official of the City of Orono has attempted without success to have the owner of certain property at 3907 Cherry Avenue, Orono, Minnesota, in the County of Hennepin (“Subject Property”), remedy the hazardous condition of the property and building located thereon; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Subject Property constitutes a public health and safety hazard and is therefore a hazardous property within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 463.15, subd. 3, and the residential building located on the Subject Property (“Subject Building”) constitutes a fire hazard or a hazard to public safety or health and is therefore a hazardous building within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 463.15, subd. 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota: 1. The City has fully considered all evidence relating to the hazardous condition of the Subject Property. Said evidence includes (i) Property Report indicating ownership of the Subject Property; (ii) February 5, 2013 letter to property owner, (iii) July 6, 2015 Inspection Notice; (iv) August 21, 2015 letter to property owner; (v) photographs date stamped 10/30/15, 04/20/16, and 06/20/16; and (vi) Memorandum by Roger Peitso, Building Official, dated June 28, 2016. 2. After fully considering all of the photographs, documents, and other evidence pertaining to the hazardous condition of the Subject Property and Subject Building, the City of Orono finds: a. Gerald M. Clark III is the owner of the Subject Property. b. In January of 2013, City staff received a complaint regarding exterior storage at the Subject Property. Following an inspection, the City sent the property owner a letter at the Subject Property, identifying 18 violations of the City Code and setting a compliance date of February 19, 2013. The letter was returned as undeliverable with no forwarding address. c. A July 6, 2015 site visit to the Subject Property showed no change in condition. 2 3. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ a. On August 21, 2015, the City sent the property owner a letter at the Subject Property, reiterating the violations of the City Code and setting a compliance date of August 31, 2015. b. October 30, 2015 and April 20, 2016 site visits to the Subject Property showed no change in condition. The Subject Building is boarded up and vacant. Existing violations on the Subject Property include outside storage of miscellaneous junk and debris, unlicensed boat, special mobile equipment, and unlicensed and/or inoperable vehicles, and accumulation of tall grass and weeds and piles of dead vegetation. The site visits also suggested a number of health and safety concerns existing inside the Subject Building. c. The Subject Property has not been maintained in a clean, safe, secure, and sanitary manner and is adversely affecting the public health and safety in violation of the Orono City Code Section 58-1 and International Property Maintenance Code, 2006 edition, Section 301.3, as adopted in the Minnesota State Fire Code, Minnesota Administrative Rule 7511.0090. d. Because of the inadequate maintenance, unsanitary condition, and abandonment noted above, the Subject Property constitutes a hazard to public health and safety and is therefore a Hazardous Property within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 463.15, subd. 3. e. Pursuant to administrative search warrants, the City conducted internal inspections of the Subject Building on May 20, 2016, and June 20, 2016. These inspections revealed the following: Storage of propane and acetylene tanks, tires, paint, power equipment, construction materials, and household and commercial goods in storage bins stacked to the ceiling throughout the entire Subject Building, blocking exit/entry and movement within. The roof leaks and water has leaked throughout the back portion of the Subject Building, causing all of the gypsum board to fall from the ceiling and causing the roof rafters to rot on the ends that touch exterior walls. 3 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ f. There are structural deficiencies throughout the home, including deterioration of the foundation, with additional deterioration appearing since 2015, the pointing on the interior foundation has cracked and is falling off of the fieldstone, the foundation has become extremely bowed in areas and portions have collapsed, one portion of the foundation is being undermined by water from rain events, and there is structural failure of the ceiling / floor assembly. i. Because of the inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, physical damage, unsanitary condition, and abandonment noted above, the Subject Building constitutes a fire hazard or a hazard to public safety or health and is therefore a Hazardous Building within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 463.15, subd. 3. 4. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 463.15 et seq., the City hereby adopts and approves the Order to Correct or Remove Hazardous Conditions on Property and to Correct or Remove Hazardous Conditions in Building or Raze or Remove Hazardous Building attached hereto as Exhibit A. 5. The City’s legal counsel, Campbell Knutson, P.A., Grand Oak Office Center I, 860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290, Eagan, Minnesota 55121, is directed to serve the Order to Correct or Remove Hazardous Conditions on Property and to Correct or Remove Hazardous Conditions in Building or Raze or Remove Hazardous Building and to proceed with enforcement in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 463.15 et seq. ADOPTED this _______ day of _____________, 2016, by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota. CITY OF ORONO By: _______________________________ Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Diane Tiegs, City Clerk EXHIBIT A 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE TYPE: Other Civil Court File No. ______________ IN RE: ORDER TO CORRECT OR REMOVE HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS ON PROPERTY The Matter of a Hazardous Property AND TO CORRECT OR REMOVE HAZARDOUS Located at 3907 Cherry Avenue, City CONDITIONS IN BUILDING OR RAZE OR of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota REMOVE HAZARDOUS BUILDING TO: Owners and lienholders of the above real estate: Gerald M. Clark III, 3907 Cherry Avenue, Orono, Minnesota 55364 PLEASE BE ADVISED that pursuant to order of the Orono City Council and by authority of Minnesota Statutes § 463.15 et seq., you have twenty (20) days from the date of service of this Order upon you, to remedy the fire, health, and safety hazards and the hazardous condition of the property at 3907 Cherry Avenue, Orono, Minnesota 55364 located in the County of Hennepin, and legally described as follows: Lots 1 and 2, Block 6, “Crystal Bay View”, according to the map or plat thereof on file or of record in the Office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota. and the residential building located thereon. On April 20, 2016, City staff inspected the exterior of the above described property and identified multiple violations of the Orono City Code which independently and together constitute a condition hazard to public safety or health, making the property a hazardous property under Minn. Stat. § 463.15. To date, no progress has been made toward correcting or removing the hazardous condition. The following violations must be remedied or removed, and inspected within twenty (20) days from the date of service of this Order: EXHIBIT A 2 1. Outside storage and accumulation of all miscellaneous junk and debris, including, but not limited to, scrap metal, landscape materials, tarps, dimensional lumber and scrap wood, metal shelving, scaffolding, snow plows blades, boat lift, dilapidated hot tub, and hazardous materials, in violation of Orono City Code Section 78- 1577(6). 2. Outside storage of an unlicensed boat, which is filled with water and debris, in violation of Orono City Code Section 78-1577(4) and (6). 3. Outside storage of special mobile equipment, in violation of Orono City Code Section 78-1577(5). 4. Outside storage of the following unlicensed and/or inoperable vehicles, in violation of Orono City Code Section 78-1577(3): a. Maroon Dodge van, MN Plate No. RGA513, b. Red Chevrolet truck, MN Plate No. G3161, c. Red Chevrolet truck, MN Plate No. C8438, d. White Chevrolet van, MN Plate No. 709AUV. 5. Remove tall grass and weeds and piles of dead vegetation which have accumulated around stored items, as they are a violation of Orono City Code Section 58-1. On June 20, 2016, City staff inspected the interior of the residential building located on the above described property and identified multiple violations of the Orono City Code which independently and together constitute a fire hazard or a hazard to public safety or health, making the building a hazardous building under Minn. Stat. § 463.15. To date, no progress has been made toward correcting or removing the hazardous condition. The following violations must be remedied or removed, and inspected within twenty (20) days from the date of service of this Order: 1. Interior storage of flammables, junk, and debris, in violation of Minnesota State Fire Code Sections 314.3 and 1030.3. 2. Leaking roof and sheetrock inside the building has deteriorated and has fallen from the ceiling, in violation of Minnesota State Building Code Section 1300.0225. 3. Damaged foundation and structural deficiencies, in violation of Minnesota State Building Code Section 1300.0225. If you fail to remedy the hazardous conditions on the property and in the building, the City will seek permission from the District Court for the City to repair or remove the hazardous condition of the property and building, including demolition of the building, destruction and EXHIBIT A 3 removal of all personal property within the building, destruction and removal of all personal property located on the property, and grading of the property. The City will move the District Court for summary enforcement of this Order pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 463.19 unless you remedy the situation within said twenty (20) day period or unless an answer is filed within twenty (20) days of service of this Order upon you pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 463.18. Upon enforcement of the Order by the City, all costs expended by the City will be assessed against the real property and collected as other taxes as provided in Minn. Stat. §§ 463.21 & 463.22. Dated: ______________, 2016 CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association By: ________________________________ Soren M. Mattick (#27785X) Orono City Attorney Grand Oak Office Center I 860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Telephone: (651) 452-5000 ACKNOWLEDGMENT The City of Orono, by and through its undersigned attorney, acknowledges that costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney and witness fees may be awarded to the opposing party or parties pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 549.211, subd. 1. Dated: ______________, 2016 __________________________________ Soren M. Mattick