Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08-08-2016 Council Packet
Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, August 8, 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 July 25, 2016* 3. Council Work Session of July 25, 2016* Presentation 4. Golf Course AED Presentation- Orono Lions Donation and CenterPoint Grant Public Comments – (Limit 5 Minutes per Person) This is an opportunity for the public to address matters not on the agenda. The council will not engage in discussion or take action on items presented at this time. However, the council may refer issues to staff for follow up or consideration at a future meeting. Speakers should state their name and home address at the podium before speaking. Public Works/City Engineer Report 5. MnDOT Partnership Contract 6. Fox Street Feasibility Report 7. Watertown Road and Stubbs Bay Road Rehabilitation – Pay Request No. 2 8. 2016 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project Award Public Safety Report Planning Department Report – Planning Commission Representative – Bruce Lemke 9. Phillips Woodland Terrace – Phillips Drive Ownership Consent 10. 16-3839, Revision LLC, o/b/o Sharon Olson-Nesbitt, 865 Ferndale Road W, Variances 11. 16-3845, Tim & Julie Druk o/b/o Jan & Leonard Kennen - 1240 Arbor Street – Variances 12. 16-3846, Gregg Katchmark, 140 Leaf Street – Variances Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, August 8, 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 13. 16-3847 Charles Cudd, LLC o/b/o DDK, LLC, 2525, 2535 & 2545 Shadywood Road, Preliminary Plat, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and Rezoning Mayor/Council Report City Administrator's Report 14. School Subcommittee 15. Accept Donation – Livingston Park 16. Claims/Bills * City Attorney's Report Adjournment Upcoming Events 2016 8/2–8/16 – Candidate Filing Dates for Orono City Council 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. 09-05-16 – City Hall Closed in Observance of Labor Day Holiday 09-06-16 – Park Commission Meeting, Tuesday 6:30 p.m. 09-12-16 – City Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 09-19-16 – Planning Commission Meeting, 7:00 p.m. (Council Liaison – Dennis Walsh) 09-26-16 – City Council Work Session, 5:00 p.m. 09-26-16 – City Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 25, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 8 ROLL CALL The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor 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, Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, Senior Planner Michael Gaffron, Public Works Director/City Engineer Adam Edwards, City Attorney Soren Mattick, and Recorder Jackie Young. McMillan noted the City is experiencing some technical difficulties today and that there will be no audio or live streaming of tonight’s meeting. 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. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10 were added to the Consent Agenda. Walsh requested the formation of a school committee be added to tonight’s agenda and that he would recommend Council Member Printup and himself be appointed to serve on the committee. McMillan noted the City has not had a school committee in the past. Walsh stated it was his understanding the City did have one in the past and that he has raised this item at a previous City Council meeting. Walsh stated he would like the Council to discuss it tonight and then vote on it. Walsh moved, Printup seconded, to add the formation of a school committee to tonight’s agenda, with Council Members Printup and Walsh being appointed to serve on the committee. McMillan stated she would like to add it to a City Council agenda in the future and that she does not feel it is appropriate to add it tonight’s agenda since Staff and the Council has not had the opportunity to really look into it. Walsh requested that this item be put on the next work session or the next City Council meeting agenda. Walsh moved, Printup seconded, to amend the motion and add the formation of a school committee to the August 8 City Council agenda. McMillan requested Council Member Walsh provide the City Administrator more information about the details of the requested committee. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 25, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 8 APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 11, 2016 Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of July 11, 2016, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jay Nygard, 1386 Rest Point Road, stated he was going to give a presentation on an investigation that was undertaken by the Anoka County Sheriff’s Office for possible perjury by Council Member Walsh but that he will defer the presentation until the City’s technical problems have been resolved. Nygard indicated he will give the presentation at a future Council meeting. Pam Meyers, Westonka Historical Society, updated the City Council on the activities of the Westonka Historical Museum. Meyers stated the museum recently had a grand reopening that was held the first week of June to help celebrate the improvements to their building and that approximately 100 people were in attendance. Meyers stated in addition to the grand reopening, the Westonka Historical Museum has had the National Street Rodders Association tour their facility and that the Red Hats Society will be touring the museum later this summer and then visiting the Narrows Café. Meyers indicated the Westonka Historical Society also worked with the Orono Park Commission regarding the history of Saga Hills. Meyers stated they learned that back in 1915, Orono Township worked with other nearby townships to form the first area high school. Meyers distributed some newsletters to the City Council on the museum. Walsh thanked Ms. Meyers for coming to tonight’s Council meeting and providing an update. Walsh stated the Westonka Historical Museum is a great facility and a great asset to the community. Walsh commented he is glad he is able to lend his support to the museum. Meyers noted the Historical Society will be hosting a House of Moy dinner at the end of September. Katherine Kalweit, 4265 Forest Lake Drive, stated she currently has Frontier Communications for her phone service, which is different from the majority of Orono, and that she and several of her acquaintances have experienced difficulties and outages with their phone service over the years. Kalweit stated two weeks ago she was totally without service for four days and that she is wondering why they pay Orono taxes when a small area is not allowed to have another choice in phone providers. City Administrator Loftus stated from a background perspective, Frontier has a nonexclusive franchise, which means there is nothing to prevent another phone company from entering that area and that it would be a free market decision by the phone provider. Loftus stated if Century Link or another company expressed interest in providing service in Orono, the City would allow them, and that the various phone companies base their decisions to expand on the density of the area. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 25, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 8 PUBLIC COMMENTS (continued) Kalweit indicated she did attempt to speak with Frontier over those four days and that she kept getting a busy signal. McMillan suggested Ms. Kalweit call her and that she will attempt to work with her to get the issues resolved. PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER REPORT 3. OLD CRYSTAL BAY TURN LANE – RESOLUTION NO. 6651 Public Works/City Engineer Edwards stated before the City Council tonight is a resolution to partner with the Orono School District on the construction of a turn lane into the high school off of Old Crystal bay Road. The resolution would authorize the City contributing up to $25,000 to develop a turn lane on the southbound section into the school parking lot. Edwards stated the school contacted him last Friday and indicated that they will not be able to commence this project prior to the start of school this fall and that he will be working with them to come up with some bid alternates. McMillan stated she is glad the school had some studies performed to determine which project should be a priority. Edwards stated a northbound turn lane is also desirable, but given the traffic levels, the school felt a southbound turn lane would provide more benefit, particularly given the issue of backups onto County Road 6. Council Member Walsh noted the school has done quite a bit over the years to improve internal traffic circulation and is being proactive by looking at other improvements. Walsh moved, Levang seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6651, a Resolution to Partner with the Orono School District for the Construction of a Turn Lane on Old Crystal Bay Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER REPORT, CONTINUED Edwards reported on the following items: • Right-of-way mowing has been completed • Tree removal has been done in response to the recent storm • Trash removal has been performed on Tonka View and the Navarre Municipal parking lot • Watertown Road phase two is currently underway • Culvert repair has been performed on Lyric • 2016 sewer cleaning is currently underway • Well No. 4 site preparation is currently underway • The privacy screen at Summit has been rebuilt • The information sign at French Creek has been installed MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 25, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 8 PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT None PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT – JOHN THIESSE, REPRESENTATIVE *4. #15-3740 FUNK AND ROGOSHESKE, PRELIMINARY PLAT EXTENSION – RESOLUTION NO. 6652 Levang moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6652, a Resolution Granting an Extension of the Preliminary Approval of a Subdivision for Property Located at 540 Old Crystal Bay Road South, File No. 15-3740. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *5. #15-3749 PAUL CAMERON, CHAMERLAIN CAPITAL, LLC, 185-225 OLD CRYSAL BAY ROAD NORTH, PRELIMINARY PLAT EXTENSION – RESOLUTION NO. 6653 Levang moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6653, a Resolution Granting an Extension of the Preliminary Approval of a Class III Subdivision for Property Located at 185-225 Old Crystal Bay Road South, File No. 15-3749. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *6. #16-3849 ABLE ENERGY COMPANY ON BEHALF OF TOM ROBB, 570 BIG ISLAND, VARIANCES – RESOLUTION NO. 6654 Levang moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6654, a Resolution Approving Variances from Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-570 and 78-1279 for the Property Located at 570 Big Island, File No. 16-3849. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 7. #16-3822 LAKEWEST DEVELOPMENT, 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST, PRELIMINARY PLAT/RPUD REZONING – RESOLUTION NO. 6655 Senior Planner Gaffron stated one of the things before the Council tonight is a letter from the Metropolitan Council approving the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for this development. The Metropolitan Council did note in the letter that the City has now reached the 3.0 units per density level. Gaffron indicated the Comprehensive Plan Amendment will be brought forward as a separate resolution at a future meeting. Also before the Council tonight is a resolution for preliminary plat approval. Gaffron noted the applicants have had Staff’s memo since last Friday and that he did mention to them toward the middle of last week that Staff has had some discussions regarding the easterly access point with Hennepin County. Initially the applicants proposed two access points, which Hennepin County indicated they were not in favor of. As a result, the applicants then proposed either a T-intersection or a cul-de-sac. Gaffron indicated the T-intersection is the one that the Fire Department preferred, but in discussions with the City Engineer, City Attorney and Staff, the potentials for that T-intersection were reviewed in relation to how it would function for regular use. Gaffron stated the problem with having a T-intersection is the difficulty for delivery trucks that are going to be coming to the neighborhood on a regular basis to maneuver. Consequently, the recommendation of Staff is that it should be a cul-de-sac. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 25, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 8 7. #16-3822 LAKEWEST DEVELOPMENT, 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST, PRELIMINARY PLAT/RPUD REZONING – RESOLUTION NO. 6655 (continued) The applicants have also submitted a variety of drawings that show the westerly access point now being straightened out and included in a separate outlot. Because there is potential future development for the landfill area, the road has been straightened out and put into a separate outlot. Both the north/south and east/west street segments will be maintained by the homeowners association subject to a maintenance agreement. That agreement allows the City to choose to maintain the road as a public road at a future date depending on future development within the landfill area. Gaffron noted the stormwater drainage trunk fee is approximately $52,000. The applicants have included in their plans a trail easement along the northern property boundary as requested by the City Council. Per Council agreement, the developer is allowed to put landscaping within that easement with the understanding that the landscaping may be removed at some point in the future should a trail ever be constructed. Gaffron stated at this point the likelihood of a trail ever being there is pretty remote. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. McMillan noted on Page 7, Item 17, it states the proposed individual site plans shall be reviewed for conformity with the conceptual plans attached. McMillan asked if that is referring to the house layouts the applicant provided. Gaffron indicated those are the actual house plans that have been created for this development and that the applicant has provided two or three different house plans. Gaffron stated the reason for including that language in the agreement is at the time of building permit Staff will need to make sure the house plan is conforming to the lot and generally matches the style of development that was shown in those depictions. McMillan asked whether the City has any control regarding the quality of materials used in the development. Gaffron stated the City could only have a limited involvement in that. McMillan noted at the last Council meeting she had mentioned that if the City was going to allow for a larger floor area ratio, she wanted to make sure the development was of good quality and not a “cookie cutter” development. McMillan stated this development has lots that are similar in size and shape and that she would like to ensure quality materials are used. McMillan commented that there are not too many standardized developments in Orono and that she wants to avoid it becoming an eyesore. Walsh noted it was discussed that general building standards should be included in the covenants and that his recollection is that the developer was okay with that. Walsh noted there is not a lot of room for the property owners to maneuver a house on the lots and that they will likely go with one of the proposed house styles. Gaffron noted Item F (3) on Page 15 states that the “developer shall create a homeowners association and covenants establishing development design standards as well as responsibilities for maintenance of roads, etc.” Gaffron stated the City Council will have the opportunity prior to final plat approval to review those documents and make changes. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 25, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 8 7. #16-3822 LAKEWEST DEVELOPMENT, 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST, PRELIMINARY PLAT/RPUD REZONING – RESOLUTION NO. 6655 (continued) Walsh stated in his view that will address the issue. McMillan noted on Page 8, Item 22, it says that the City may take over maintenance of the road. McMillan suggested the language spell it out a little more specific and perhaps say if future development occurs. Gaffron indicated Staff can make that change. Gaffron stated the intent of the language is that the City will not take it over until or unless development in the landfill area occurs. McMillan indicated she is fine with that. Levang asked whether anything was lost in the area with the pool and the park amenities when the road was straightened out. Gaffron stated not to his knowledge and that the area may have actually increased slightly in size. Levang moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6655, a Resolution Approving the General Concept Plan and Granting Preliminary Plat Approval for Property Located at 3245 Wayzata Boulevard West, File No. 16-3822, with Item 21 on Page 8 being changed to include language specifying that the City may take over future maintenance of the road at the time future development in the landfill area occurs. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *8. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SIGN PERMIT #2016-00769, KOTTEMAN ORTHODONTICS, 2765 KELLEY PARKWAY Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the sign permit as proposed and to authorize the Development Review Committee to approve future sign amendments provided they are consistent with the provisions of Section 78-1468 regarding B-1 requirements which are applied to B-6 properties. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Council Member Printup reported the Fire Advisory Committee had a meeting last week and that the majority of the time was spent talking about issues relating to Big Island and Lake Minnetonka as well as the budget. Printup stated the Fire Chief will be attending the Council work session in August to discuss some of their priorities for the coming year. Printup noted at tonight’s work session the Council discussed some issues with the Metropolitan Council and that Staff will be putting together a list of cities that operate under the Metropolitan Council that are starting to request the Metropolitan Council be reformed. Printup stated in his view that is an important first step for the City to take in looking at this matter. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 25, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 8 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT (continued) Levang reported the improvements at Livingston Tower Park have been completed and that a ribbon cutting ceremony is planned for September 18, which is the same day as the Navarre Community Festival. Levang indicated the ribbon cutting ceremony will be held at the end of the festival and that several businesses have already signed on to donate items. Levang noted she also attended the July Planning Commission meeting and that one of the commissioners has gone paperless. Levang commented she hopes that is the start of a new trend and that it will help to reduce staff time and costs. Council Member Cornick reported he attended the first meeting of the Highway 12 turnback committee along with Mayor McMillan. Walsh indicated he also attended the Fire Advisory meeting and that they spent a lot of time talking about the response to incidents on Big Island. Walsh stated he concurs with reforming the Metropolitan Council. Walsh stated he also looks forward to the next City Council meeting and discussing the school committee, which will help to improve the dialogue between the City and the School Board and the issues they face. Walsh stated the City showed good partnership on the turn lane. Walsh noted next Tuesday, August 2, is the filing date for elections and that he will be putting his name in for Orono mayor. McMillan stated she will be running for re-election. McMillan reported the turnback committee had a good first meeting regarding the section east of the downtown area which encompasses the Wolfe Point development to the Luce Line Bridge. McMillan stated one big change up for discussion is possibly continuing the trail on the north side of the road from Old Long Lake Road to the Luce Line Trail. Hennepin County had originally said there would be no trail east of Long Lake Road but will reconsider it since the grading for the trail can be done as part of the road construction. The committee asked to be provided an idea of the costs and will be reviewing that at the next meeting. The committee will be meeting every other month. McMillan noted MnDOT will be hosting an open house regarding the proposed concrete barrier and that further information can be found on the City’s website. McMillan reported all the benches for the tee boxes at the Orono Golf Course have now been donated. McMillan indicated the City also received a letter from the League of Minnesota Cities recognizing Representative Cindy Pugh as being a legislator of distinction. Representative Pugh was one of 31 legislators recognized by the League and that she appreciates Representative Pugh for offering partition fence legislation and consistently being available to staff and constituents on legislation. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 25, 2016 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 8 CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT City Administrator Loftus noted the primary will be held August 9 from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. and that there is one judicial office on the ballot. Loftus encouraged everyone to come out and vote. Loftus stated National Night Out will be held on August 2 and that she would encourage anyone hosting a neighbor party to contact the Orono Police Department. *9. SECOND QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT The City Council was provided with Staff’s memorandum for their review and took no formal action on this item. *10. SPRING PARK AGREEMENT FOR STANDBY SERVICE Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the Agreement for Standby Service between the City of Orono and the City of Spring Park, and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *11. CLAIMS/BILLS Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT 12. CLOSED SESSION – CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1960 SHORELINE DRIVE McMillan stated the City Council will be going into closed session pursuant to Attorney-Client privilege, Section 13D.05, Subdivision 3(b), to discuss initiating condemnation proceedings against the property located at 1960 Shoreline Drive. Levang moved, Printup seconded, to enter into closed session. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (The Orono City Council went into closed session from 7:46 p.m. to 8:25 p.m.) Moved, seconded, to end the closed session and adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 8:25 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ATTEST: _____________________________________ _______________________________________ Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION July 25, 2016 5:00 o’clock p.m. ____________________________________________________________________________ PRESENT: Mayor Lili Tod McMillan, Council Members Jim Cornick, Jr., Aaron Printup, Lizz Levang, and Denny Walsh. Representing Staff were City Administrator Jessica Loftus, Finance Director Ron Olson, Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, Public Works/City Engineer Adam Edwards, City Attorney Soren Mattick, and City Clerk Diane Tiegs. Jessica informed Council that the audio/video equipment was damaged during a power outage and may not be functional for the meeting. A technician is coming to assess the damage and repair. 1. 2017 Budget Council reviewed the preliminary budget. Currently revenues remain relatively flat and Council will give consideration on how best to increase revenues and keep the City’s tax rate the same. Council reviewed the 2017 expenditures which reflect a 2.93% increase. Wages and Benefits make up 64% of the budget and have the greatest impact on the General Fund. Step/Longevity increases will add $60,000 with most of that in the Police Department. Council discussed other significant budget impacts like a possible COLA, labor negotiations, the Navarre Plan, and expenditures associated with the Comp Plan update. Jeremy provided Council with a schedule for the Comp Plan which is due 2018. Council discussed the Comp Plan and provided Staff direction which will include funds for an open house to encourage community involvement, form a committee and determine goals for the Comp Plan. Street funding is a large budget impact and Council will determine how best to provide a reliable funding source for the 2017 budget and for future projects. 2. Future Work Session Topics or Requests Jessica asked for Council direction on how topics are added to upcoming work session agendas. The Council determined an item for discussion must be approved by a majority in order to be discussed at work session. Council agreed under the Additional Topics item to add ordinance review on 15% structural coverage and Met Council reform. Council agreed to schedule a variance training session with the Planning Commission. 3. Sex Offenders and Treatment Centers Staff will provide Council with a draft ordinance for review on care facilities regulations within the City of Orono for future discussion. ATTEST: _________________________________ _____________________________________ Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 8, 2016 ITEM NO: 4 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Adam Edwards JML Presentation Title Public Works Director/City Engineer _______ ______________________________________________________________________________ Item Description: Golf Course AED Presentation-Orono Lions Donation and CenterPoint Grant ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Exhibits: A. Resolution Accepting the Lions Club Donation B. Resolution Accepting the CenterPoint Grant 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is for the City Council to acknowledge donations from CenterPoint Energy and The Lions Club for the procurement of an Automatic Defibrillator (AED) for Golf Course. 2. CenterPoint Energy is providing a Community Partnership Grant of $720. Keith Collver will be at the meeting to present the check to the City. 3. The Orono Lions is providing a Donation of $750. Kurt Kaminski will be at the meeting to present the check to the City. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Gratefully acknowledge the donations and make a motion to accept the attached resolutions. A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A DONATION FROM ORONO LIONS FOR USE AT THE ORONO GOLF COURSE 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 is specifically authorized to accept gifts and bequests for the benefit of recreational services pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 471.17; and WHEREAS, Orono Lions wishes to make a donation of $750 to the City; and WHEREAS, the donation will be used to purchase a AED for the Golf Course; and WHEREAS, The City Council finds that it is appropriate to accept the offered donation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of Orono, Minnesota that the City acknowledges and accepts the donation from the Orono Lions for purchase of the an AED to be installed at the Golf Course. ADOPTED on this 8th day of August 2016, by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota. Approved: Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor Attested: Diane Tiegs, City Clerk A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A GRANT FROM CENTERPOINT ENERGY FOR USE AT THE ORONO GOLF COURSE 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 is specifically authorized to accept gifts and bequests for the benefit of recreational services pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 471.17; and WHEREAS, Center Point Energy wishes to make a grant of $720 to the City; and WHEREAS, the grant will be used to purchase a AED for the Golf Course; and WHEREAS, The City Council finds that it is appropriate to accept the offered donation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of Orono, Minnesota that the City acknowledges and accepts the donation from the CenterPoint for purchase of the an AED to be installed at the Golf Course. ADOPTED on this 8th day of August 2016, by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota. Approved: Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor Attested: Diane Tiegs, City Clerk REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 8, 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: MnDOT Partnership Contract ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ List of Exhibits A- State of Minnesota and Orono Master Partnership Contract B- Resolution 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain Council approval of the partnership contract with MnDOT for construction support services. 2. Background. During road construction and maintenance services the City routinely works with MnDOT to provide asphalt plant testing. The testing ensures that the asphalt being used on our road projects meets the appropriate specifications. MnDOT now requires municipalities to enter into a formal partnership contract as a framework for such services. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to approve the master partnership contract with MnDOT and the associated Resolution. MnDOT Agreement # 1002066 STATE OF MINNESOTA AND CITY OF ORONO MASTER PARTNERSHIP CONTRACT This master contract is between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of Transportation hereinafter referred to as the “State” and the City of Orono, acting through its City Council, hereinafter referred to as the “Local Government." Recitals 1. The parties are authorized to enter into this agreement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. §§15.061, 471.59 and 174.02. 2. Minn. Stat. § 161.20, subd. 2, authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to make arrangements with and cooperate with any governmental authority for the purposes of constructing, maintaining and improving the trunk highway system. 3. Each party to this Contract is a “road authority” as defined by Minn. Stat. §160.02, subd. 25. 4. Minn. Stat. § 161.39, subd. 1, authorizes a road authority to perform work for another road authority. Such work may include providing technical and engineering advice, assistance and supervision, surveying, preparing plans for the construction or reconstruction of roadways, and performing roadway maintenance. 5. Minn. Stat. §174.02, subd. 6, authorizes the Commissioner of Transportation to enter into agreements with other governmental entities for research and experimentation; for sharing facilities, equipment, staff, data, or other means of providing transportation-related services; or for other cooperative programs that promote efficiencies in providing governmental services, or that further development of innovation in transportation for the benefit of the citizens of Minnesota. 6. Each party wishes to occasionally procure services from the other party, which the parties agree will enhance the efficiency of delivering governmental services at all levels. This Master Partnership Contract provides a framework for the efficient handling of such requests. This Master Partnership Contract contains terms generally governing the relationship between the parties hereto. When specific services are requested, the parties will (unless otherwise specified herein) enter into a “Work Order” contracts. 7. Subsequent to the execution of this Master Partnership Contract, the parties may (but are not required to) enter into “Work Order” contracts. These Work Orders will specify the work to be done, timelines for completion, and compensation to be paid for the specific work. 8. The parties are entering into this Master Partnership Contract to establish terms that will govern all of the Work Orders subsequently issued under the authority of this Contract. Master Contract 1. Term of Master Contract; Use of Work Order Contracts; Survival of Terms 1.1. Effective Date: This contract will be effective on the date last signed by the Local Government, and all State officials as required under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. 2. 1.2. A party must not accept work under this Contract until it is fully executed. 1.3. Expiration Date. This Contract will expire on June 30, 2017. Page 1 of 14 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 10/05/2015) MnDOT Agreement # 1002066 1.4. Work Order Contracts. A work order contract must be negotiated and executed (by both the State and the Local Government) for each particular engagement, except for Technical Services provided by the State to the Local Government as specified in Article 2. The work order contract must specify the detailed scope of work and deliverables for that engagement. A party must not begin work under a work order until such work order is fully executed. The terms of this Master Partnership Contract will apply to all work orders issued hereunder, unless specifically varied in the work order. The Local Government understands that this Master Contract is not a guarantee of any payments or work order assignments, and that payments will only be issued for work actually performed under fully-executed work orders. 1.5. Survival of Terms. The following clauses survive the expiration or cancellation of this master contract and all work order contracts: 12. Liability; 13. State Audits; 14. Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property; 17. Publicity; 18. Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue; and 22. Data Disclosure. All terms of this Master Contract will survive with respect to any Work Order issued prior to the expiration date of the Master Contract. 1.6. Sample Work Order. A sample work order contract is available upon request from the State. 2. Technical Services 2.1. Technical Services include repetitive low-cost services routinely performed by the State for the Local Government. These services may be performed by the State for the Local Government without the execution of a work order, as these services are provided in accordance with standardized practices and processes and do not require a detailed scope of work. Technical services are limited to the following services: 2.1.1. Pavement Striping, Sign and Signal Repair, Bridge Load Ratings, Bridge and Structure Inspections, Minor Bridge Maintenance, Minor Road Maintenance (such as guard rail repair and sign knockdown repair), Pavement Condition Data, Materials Testing and Carcass Removal. 2.1.2. Every other service not falling under the services listed in 2.1.1 will require a Work Order contract. 2.2. The Local Government may request the State to perform Technical Services in an informal manner, such as by the use of email, a purchase order, or by delivering materials to a State lab and requesting testing. A request may be made via telephone, but will not be considered accepted unless acknowledged in writing by the State. 2.3. The State will promptly inform the Local Government if the State will be unable to perform the requested Technical Services. Otherwise, the State will perform the Technical Services in accordance with the State’s normal processes and practices, including scheduling practices taking into account the availability of State staff and equipment. 2.4. Payment Basis. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties prior to performance of the services, the State will charge the Local Government the State’s then-current rate for performing the Technical Services. The then-current rate may include the State’s normal and customary labor additives. The State will invoice the Local Government upon completion of the services, or at regular intervals not more than once monthly as agreed upon by the parties. The invoice will provide a summary of the Technical Services provided by the State during the invoice period. 3. Services Requiring A Work Order Contract 3.1. Work Order Contracts: A party may request the other party to perform any of the following services under individual work order contracts. Page 2 of 14 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 10/05/2015) MnDOT Agreement # 1002066 3.2. Professional and Technical Services. A party may provide professional and technical services upon the request of the other party. As defined by Minn. Stat. §16C.08, subd. 1, professional/technical services “means services that are intellectual in character, including consultation, analysis, evaluation, prediction, planning, programming, or recommendation; and result in the production of a report or completion of a task.” Professional and technical services do not include providing supplies or materials except as incidental to performing such services. Professional and technical services include (by way of example and without limitation) engineering services, surveying, foundation recommendations and reports, environmental documentation, right-of-way assistance (such as performing appraisals or providing relocation assistance, but excluding the exercise of the power of eminent domain), geometric layouts, final construction plans, graphic presentations, public relations, and facilitating open houses. A party will normally provide such services with its own personnel; however, a party’s professional/technical services may also include hiring and managing outside consultants to perform work provided that a party itself provides active project management for the use of such outside consultants. 3.3. Roadway Maintenance. A party may provide roadway maintenance upon the request of the other party. Roadway maintenance does not include roadway reconstruction. This work may include but is not limited to snow removal, ditch spraying, roadside mowing, bituminous mill and overlay (only small projects), seal coat, bridge hits, major retaining wall failures, major drainage failures, and message painting. All services must be performed by an employee with sufficient skills, training, expertise or certification to perform such work, and work must be supervised by a qualified employee of the party performing the work. 3.4. Construction Administration. A party may administer roadway construction projects upon the request of the other party. Roadway construction includes (by way of example and without limitation) the construction, reconstruction, or rehabilitation of mainline, shoulder, median, pedestrian or bicycle pathway, lighting and signal systems, pavement mill and overlays, seal coating, guardrail installation, and channelization. These services may be performed by the Providing Party’s own forces, or the Providing Party may administer outside contracts for such work. Construction administration may include letting and awarding construction contracts for such work (including state projects to be completed in conjunction with local projects). All contract administration services must be performed by an employee with sufficient skills, training, expertise or certification to perform such work. 3.5. Emergency Services. A party may provide aid upon request of the other party in the event of a man-made disaster, natural disaster or other act of God. Emergency services includes all those services as the parties mutually agree are necessary to plan for, prepare for, deal with, and recover from emergency situations. These services include, without limitation, planning, engineering, construction, maintenance, and removal and disposal services related to things such as road closures, traffic control, debris removal, flood protection and mitigation, sign repair, sandbag activities and general cleanup. Work will be performed by an employee with sufficient skills, training, expertise or certification to perform such work, and work must be supervised by a qualified employee of the party performing the work. If it is not feasible to have an executed work order prior to performance of the work, the parties will promptly confer to determine whether work may be commenced without a fully-executed work order in place. If work commences without a fully-executed work order, the parties will follow up with execution of a work order as soon as feasible. 3.6. When a need is identified, the State and the Local Government will discuss the proposed work and the resources needed to perform the work. If a party desires to perform such work, the parties will negotiate the specific and detailed work tasks and cost. The State will then prepare a work order contract. Generally, a work order contract will be limited to one specific Page 3 of 14 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 10/05/2015) MnDOT Agreement # 1002066 project/engagement, although “on call” work orders may be prepared for certain types of services, especially for “Technical Services” items as identified section 2.1.2. The work order will also identify specific deliverables required, and timeframes for completing work. A work order must be fully executed by the parties prior to work being commenced. The Local Government will not be paid for work performed prior to execution of a work order and authorization by the State. 4. Responsibilities of the Providing Party The party requesting the work will be referred to as the “Requesting Party” and the party performing the work will be referred to as the “Providing Party.” Each work order will set forth particular requirements for that project/engagement. 4.1. Terms Applicable to ALL Work Orders. The terms in this section 4.1 will apply to ALL work orders. 4.1.1. Each work order will identify an Authorized Representative for each party. Each party’s authorized representative is responsible for administering the work order, and has the authority to make any decisions regarding the work, and to give and receive any notices required or permitted under this Master Contract or the work order. 4.1.2. The Providing Party will furnish and assign a publicly employed licensed engineer (Project Engineer), to be in responsible charge of the project(s) and to supervise and direct the work to be performed under each work order. For services not requiring an engineer, the Providing Party will furnish and assign another responsible employee to be in charge of the project. The services of the Providing Party under a work order may not be otherwise assigned, sublet, or transferred unless approved in writing by the Requesting Party’s authorized representative. This written consent will in no way relieve the Providing Party from its primary responsibility for the work. 4.1.3. If the Local Government is the Providing Party, the Project Engineer may request in writing specific engineering and/or technical services from the State, pursuant to Minn. Stat. Section 161.39. The work order may require the Local Government to deposit payment in advance or may, at the State’s option, permit payment in arrears. If the State furnishes the services requested, the Local Government will promptly pay the State to reimburse the state trunk highway fund for the full cost and expense of furnishing such services. The costs and expenses will include the current State labor additives and overhead rates, subject to adjustment based on actual direct costs that have been verified by audit. 4.1.4. Only the receipt of a fully executed work order contract authorizes the Providing Party to begin work on a project. Any and all effort, expenses, or actions taken by the Providing Party before the work order contract is fully executed is considered unauthorized and undertaken at the risk of non-payment. 4.1.5. In connection with the performance of this contract and any work orders issued hereunder, the Providing Agency will comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations. When the Providing Party is authorized or permitted to award contracts in connection with any work order, the Providing Party will require and cause its contractors and subcontractors to comply with all Federal and State laws and regulations. 4.2. Additional Terms for Roadway Maintenance. The terms of section 4.1 and this section 4.2 will apply to all work orders for Roadway Maintenance. 4.2.1. Unless otherwise provided for by agreement or work order, the Providing Party must obtain all permits and sanctions that may be required for the proper and lawful performance of the work. Page 4 of 14 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 10/05/2015) MnDOT Agreement # 1002066 4.2.2. The Providing Party must perform maintenance in accordance with MnDOT maintenance manuals, policies and operations. 4.2.3. The Providing Party must use State-approved materials, including (by way of example and without limitation), sign posts, sign sheeting, and de-icing and anti-icing chemicals. 4.3. Additional Terms for Construction Administration. The terms of section 4.1 and this section 4.3 will apply to all work orders for construction administration. 4.3.1. Contract(s) must be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder or best value proposer in accordance with state law. 4.3.2. Contractor(s) must be required to post payment and performance bonds in an amount equal to the contract amount. The Providing Party will take all necessary action to make claims against such bonds in the event of any default by the contractor. 4.3.3. Contractor(s) must be required to perform work in accordance with the latest edition of the Minnesota Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Construction. 4.3.4. For work performed on State right-of-way, contractor(s) must be required to indemnify and hold the State harmless against any loss incurred with respect to the performance of the contracted work, and must be required to provide evidence of insurance coverage commensurate with project risk. 4.3.5. Contractor(s) must pay prevailing wages pursuant to applicable state and federal law. 4.3.6. Contractor(s) must comply with all applicable Federal, and State laws, ordinances and regulations, including but not limited to applicable human rights/anti-discrimination laws and laws concerning the participation of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in federally- assisted contracts 4.3.7. Unless otherwise agreed in a Work Order, each party will be responsible for providing rights of way, easement, and construction permits for its portion of the improvements. Each party will, upon the other’s request, furnish copies of right of way certificates, easements, and construction permits. 4.3.8. The Providing Party may approve minor changes to the Requesting Party’s portion of the project work if such changes do not increase the Requesting Party’s cost obligation under the applicable work order. 4.3.9. The Providing Party will not approve any contractor claims for additional compensation without the Requesting Party’s written approval, and the execution of a proper amendment to the applicable work order when necessary. The Local Government will tender the processing and defense of any such claims to the State upon the State’s request. 4.3.10. The Local Government must coordinate all trunk highway work affecting any utilities with the State’s Utilities Office. 4.3.11. The Providing Party must coordinate all necessary detours with the Requesting Party. 4.3.12. If the Local Government is the Providing Party, and there is work performed on the trunk highway right-of-way, the following will apply: 4.3.12.1 The Local Government will have a permit to perform the work on the trunk highway. The State may revoke this permit if the work is not being performed in a safe, proper and skillful manner, or if the contractor is violating the terms of any law, regulation, or permit applicable to the work. The State will have no Page 5 of 14 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 10/05/2015) MnDOT Agreement # 1002066 liability to the Local Government, or its contractor, if work is suspended or stopped due to any such condition or concern. 4.3.12.2 The Local Government will require its contractor to conduct all traffic control in accordance with the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 4.3.12.3 The Local Government will require its contractor to comply with the terms of all permits issued for the project including, but not limited to, NPDES and other environmental permits. 4.3.12.4 All improvements constructed on the State’s right-of-way will become the property of the State. 5. Responsibilities of the Requesting Party 5.1. After authorizing the Providing Party to begin work, the Requesting Party will furnish any data or material in its possession relating to the project that may be of use to the Providing Party in performing the work. 5.2. All such data furnished to the Providing Party will remain the property of the Requesting Party and will be promptly returned upon the Requesting Party’s request or upon the expiration or termination of this contract (subject to data retention requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and other applicable law). 5.3. The Providing Party will analyze all such data furnished by the Requesting Party. If the Providing Party finds any such data to be incorrect or incomplete, the Providing Party will bring the facts to the attention of the Requesting Party before proceeding with the part of the project affected. The Providing Party will investigate the matter, and if it finds that such data is incorrect or incomplete, it will promptly determine a method for furnishing corrected data. Delay in furnishing data will not be considered justification for an adjustment in compensation. 5.4. The State will provide to the Local Government copies of any Trunk Highway fund clauses to be included in the bid solicitation and will provide any required Trunk Highway fund provisions to be included in the Proposal for Highway Construction, that are different from those required for State Aid construction. 5.5. The Requesting Party will perform final reviews and/or inspections of its portion of the project work. If the work is found to have been completed in accordance with the work order contract, the Requesting Party will promptly release any remaining funds due the Providing Party for the Project(s). 5.6. The work order contracts may include additional responsibilities to be completed by the Requesting Party. 6. Time In the performance of project work under a work order contract, time is of the essence. 7. Consideration and Payment 7.1. Consideration. The Requesting Party will pay the Providing Party as specified in the work order. The State’s normal and customary labor additives will apply to work performed by the State, unless otherwise specified in the work order. The State’s normal and customary labor additives will not apply if the parties agree to a “lump sum” or “unit rate” payment. 7.2. State’s Maximum Obligation. The total compensation to be paid by the State to the Local Government under all work order contracts issued pursuant to this Master Contract will not exceed $50,000.00. Page 6 of 14 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 10/05/2015) MnDOT Agreement # 1002066 7.3. Travel Expenses. It is anticipated that all travel expenses will be included in the base cost of the Providing Party’s services, and unless otherwise specifically set forth in an applicable work order, the Providing Party will not be separately reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses incurred by the Providing Party in performing any work order contract. In those cases where the State agrees to reimburse travel expenses, such expenses will be reimbursed in the same manner and in no greater amount than provided in the current "MnDOT Travel Regulations” a copy of which is on file with and available from the MnDOT District Office. The Local Government will not be reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses incurred outside of Minnesota unless it has received the State’s prior written approval for such travel. 7.4. Payment. 7.4.1. Generally. The Requesting Party will pay the Providing Party as specified in the applicable work order, and will make prompt payment in accordance with Minnesota law. 7.4.2. Payment by the Local Government. 7.4.2.1. The Local Government will make payment to the order of the Commissioner of Transportation. 7.4.2.2. IMPORTANT NOTE: PAYMENT MUST REFERENCE THE “MNDOT CONTRACT NUMBER” SHOWN ON THE FACE PAGE OF THIS CONTRACT AND THE “INVOICE NUMBER” ON THE INVOICE RECEIVED FROM MNDOT. 7.4.2.3. Remit payment to the address below: MnDOT Attn: Cash Accounting RE: MnDOT Contract Number 1002066 and Invoice Number ###### Mail Stop 215 395 John Ireland Blvd St. Paul, MN 55155 7.4.3. Payment by the State. 7.4.3.1. Generally. The State will promptly pay the Local Government after the Local Government presents an itemized invoice for the services actually performed and the State's Authorized Representative accepts the invoiced services. Invoices must be submitted as specified in the applicable work order, but no more frequently than monthly. 7.4.3.2. Retainage for Professional and Technical Services. For work orders for professional and technical services, as required by Minn. Stat. § 16C.08, subd. 2(10), no more than 90 percent of the amount due under any work order contract may be paid until the final product of the work order contract has been reviewed by the State’s authorized representative. The balance due will be paid when the State’s authorized representative determines that the Local Government has satisfactorily fulfilled all the terms of the work order contract. 8. Conditions of Payment All work performed by the Providing Party under a work order contract must be performed to the Requesting Party’s satisfaction, as determined at the sole and reasonable discretion of the Requesting Party’s Authorized Representative and in accordance with all applicable federal and state laws, rules, and regulations. The Providing Party will not receive payment for work found by the State to be unsatisfactory or performed in violation of federal or state law. Page 7 of 14 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 10/05/2015) MnDOT Agreement # 1002066 9. Local Government’s Authorized Representative and Project Manager; Authority to Execute Work Order Contracts 9.1. The Local Government’s Authorized Representative for administering this master contract is the Local Government’s Engineer, and the Engineer has the responsibility to monitor the Local Government’s performance. The Local Government’s Authorized Representative is also authorized to execute work order contracts on behalf of the Local Government without approval of each proposed work order contract by its governing body. 9.2. The Local Government’s Project Manager will be identified in each work order contract. 10. State’s Authorized Representative and Project Manager 10.1. The State's Authorized Representative for this master contract is the District State Aid Engineer, who has the responsibility to monitor the State’s performance. 10.2. The State’s Project Manager will be identified in each work order contract. 11. Assignment, Amendments, Waiver, and Contract Complete 11.1. Assignment. Neither party may assign or transfer any rights or obligations under this Master Contract or any work order contract without the prior consent of the other and a fully executed Assignment Agreement, executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved this Master Contract, or their successors in office. 11.2. Amendments. Any amendment to this master contract or any work order contract must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved the original contract, or their successors in office. 11.3. Waiver. If a party fails to enforce any provision of this master contract or any work order contract, that failure does not waive the provision or the party’s right to subsequently enforce it. 11.4. Contract Complete. This master contract and any work order contract contain all negotiations and agreements between the State and the Local Government. No other understanding regarding this master contract or any work order contract issued hereunder, whether written or oral may be used to bind either party. 12. Liability. Each party will be responsible for its own acts and omissions to the extent provided by law. The Local Government’s liability is governed by Minn. Stat. chapter 466 and other applicable law. The State’s liability is governed by Minn. Stat. section 3.736 and other applicable law. This clause will not be construed to bar any legal remedies a party may have for the other party’s failure to fulfill its obligations under this master contract or any work order contract. Neither party agrees to assume any environmental liability on behalf of the other party. A Providing Party under any work order is acting only as a “Contractor” to the Requesting Party, as the term “Contractor” is defined in Minn. Stat. §115B.03 (subd. 10), and is entitled to the protections afforded to a “Contractor” by the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act. The parties specifically intend that Minn. Stat. §471.59 subd. 1a will apply to any work undertaken under this Master Contract and any work order issued hereunder. 13. State Audits Under Minn. Stat. § 16C.05, subd. 5, the party’s books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices relevant to any work order contract are subject to examination by the parties and by the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of six years from the end of this Master Contract. 14. Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property Page 8 of 14 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 10/05/2015) MnDOT Agreement # 1002066 14.1. Government Data Practices. The Local Government and State must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, as it applies to all data provided by the State under this Master Contract and any work order contract, and as it applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the Local Government under this Master Contract and any work order contract. The civil remedies of Minn. Stat. § 13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in this clause by either the Local Government or the State. 14.2. Intellectual Property Rights 14.2.1. Intellectual Property Rights. The Requesting Party will own all rights, title, and interest in all of the intellectual property rights, including copyrights, patents, trade secrets, trademarks, and service marks in the Works and Documents created and paid for under work order contracts. Works means all inventions, improvements, discoveries (whether or not patentable), databases, computer programs, reports, notes, studies, photographs, negatives, designs, drawings, specifications, materials, tapes, and disks conceived, reduced to practice, created or originated by the Providing Party, its employees, agents, and subcontractors, either individually or jointly with others in the performance of this master contract or any work order contract. Works includes “Documents.” Documents are the originals of any databases, computer programs, reports, notes, studies, photographs, negatives, designs, drawings, specifications, materials, tapes, disks, or other materials, whether in tangible or electronic forms, prepared by the Providing Party, its employees, agents, or contractors, in the performance of a work order contract. The Documents will be the exclusive property of the Requesting Party and all such Documents must be immediately returned to the Requesting Party by the Providing Party upon completion or cancellation of the work order contract. To the extent possible, those Works eligible for copyright protection under the United States Copyright Act will be deemed to be “works made for hire.” The Providing Party Government assigns all right, title, and interest it may have in the Works and the Documents to the Requesting Party. The Providing Party must, at the request of the Requesting Party, execute all papers and perform all other acts necessary to transfer or record the Requesting Party’s ownership interest in the Works and Documents. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Requesting Party grants the Providing Party an irrevocable and royalty-free license to use such intellectual property for its own non-commercial purposes, including dissemination to political subd.s of the state of Minnesota and to transportation-related agencies such as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 14.2.2. Obligations with Respect to Intellectual Property. 14.2.2.1. Notification. Whenever any invention, improvement, or discovery (whether or not patentable) is made or conceived for the first time or actually or constructively reduced to practice by the Providing Party, including its employees and subcontractors, in the performance of the work order contract, the Providing Party will immediately give the Requesting Party’s Authorized Representative written notice thereof, and must promptly furnish the Authorized Representative with complete information and/or disclosure thereon. 14.2.2.2. Representation. The Providing Party must perform all acts, and take all steps necessary to ensure that all intellectual property rights in the Works and Documents are the sole property of the Requesting Party, and that neither Providing Party nor its employees, agents or contractors retain any interest in and to the Works and Documents. 15. Affirmative Action Page 9 of 14 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 10/05/2015) MnDOT Agreement # 1002066 The State intends to carry out its responsibility for requiring affirmative action by its Contractors, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §363A.36. Pursuant to that Statute, the Local Government is encouraged to prepare and implement an affirmative action plan for the employment of minority persons, women, and the qualified disabled, and submit such plan to the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. In addition, when the Local Government lets a contract for the performance of work under a work order issued pursuant to this Master Contract, it must include the following in the bid or proposal solicitation and any contracts awarded as a result thereof: 15.1. Covered Contracts and Contractors. If the Contract exceeds $100,000 and the Contractor employed more than 40 full-time employees on a single working day during the previous 12 months in Minnesota or in the state where it has its principle place of business, then the Contractor must comply with the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 363A.36 and Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600. A Contractor covered by Minn. Stat. § 363A.36 because it employed more than 40 full-time employees in another state and does not have a certificate of compliance, must certify that it is in compliance with federal affirmative action requirements. 15.2. Minn. Stat. § 363A.36. Minn. Stat. § 363A.36 requires the Contractor to have an affirmative action plan for the employment of minority persons, women, and qualified disabled individuals approved by the Minnesota Commissioner of Human Rights (“Commissioner”) as indicated by a certificate of compliance. The law addresses suspension or revocation of a certificate of compliance and contract consequences in that event. A contract awarded without a certificate of compliance may be voided. 15.3. Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600. 15.3.1. General. Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600 implement Minn. Stat. § 363A.36. These rules include, but are not limited to, criteria for contents, approval, and implementation of affirmative action plans; procedures for issuing certificates of compliance and criteria for determining a contractor’s compliance status; procedures for addressing deficiencies, sanctions, and notice and hearing; annual compliance reports; procedures for compliance review; and contract consequences for non-compliance. The specific criteria for approval or rejection of an affirmative action plan are contained in various provisions of Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600 including, but not limited to, parts 5000.3420-5000.3500 and 5000.3552-5000.3559. 15.3.2. Disabled Workers. The Contractor must comply with the following affirmative action requirements for disabled workers: 15.3.2.1. The Contractor must not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of physical or mental disability in regard to any position for which the employee or applicant for employment is qualified. The Contractor agrees to take affirmative action to employ, advance in employment, and otherwise treat qualified disabled persons without discrimination based upon their physical or mental disability in all employment practices such as the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment, advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship. 15.3.2.2. The Contractor agrees to comply with the rules and relevant orders of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights issued pursuant to the Minnesota Human Rights Act. 15.3.2.3. In the event of the Contractor's noncompliance with the requirements of this clause, actions for noncompliance may be taken in accordance with Minn. Stat. Section 363A.36, and the rules and relevant orders of the Minnesota Page 10 of 14 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 10/05/2015) MnDOT Agreement # 1002066 Department of Human Rights issued pursuant to the Minnesota Human Rights Act. 15.3.2.4. The Contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices in a form to be prescribed by the commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. Such notices must state the Contractor's obligation under the law to take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified disabled employees and applicants for employment, and the rights of applicants and employees. 15.3.2.5. The Contractor must notify each labor union or representative of workers with which it has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract understanding, that the Contractor is bound by the terms of Minn. Stat. Section 363A.36, of the Minnesota Human Rights Act and is committed to take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment physically and mentally disabled persons. 15.3.3. Consequences. The consequences for the Contractor’s failure to implement its affirmative action plan or make a good faith effort to do so include, but are not limited to, suspension or revocation of a certificate of compliance by the Commissioner, refusal by the Commissioner to approve subsequent plans, and termination of all or part of this contract by the Commissioner or the State. 15.3.4. Certification. The Contractor hereby certifies that it is in compliance with the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 363A.36 and Minn. R. Parts 5000.3400-5000.3600 and is aware of the consequences for noncompliance. 16. Workers’ Compensation Each party will be responsible for its own employees for any workers compensation claims. This Master Contract, and any work orders issued hereunder, are not intended to constitute an interchange of government employees under Minn. Stat. §15.53. To the extent that this Master Contract, or any work order issued hereunder, is determined to be subject to Minn. Stat. §15.53, such statute will control to the extent of any conflict between the Contract and the statute. 17. Publicity 17.1. Publicity. Any publicity regarding the subject matter of a work order contract where the State is the Requesting Party must identify the State as the sponsoring agency and must not be released without prior written approval from the State’s Authorized Representative. For purposes of this provision, publicity includes notices, informational pamphlets, press releases, research, reports, signs, and similar public notices prepared by or for the Local Government individually or jointly with others, or any subcontractors, with respect to the program, publications, or services provided resulting from a work order contract. 17.2. Data Practices Act. Section 17.1 is not intended to override the Local Government’s responsibilities under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. 18. Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue Minnesota law, without regard to its choice-of-law provisions, governs this master contract and all work order contracts. Venue for all legal proceedings out of this master contract or any work order contracts, or the breach of any such contracts, must be in the appropriate state or federal court with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota. 19. Prompt Payment; Payment to Subcontractors Page 11 of 14 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 10/05/2015) MnDOT Agreement # 1002066 The parties must make prompt payment of their obligations in accordance with applicable law. As required by Minn. Stat. § 16A.1245, when the Local Government lets a contract for work pursuant to any work order, the Local Government must require its contractor to pay all subcontractors, less any retainage, within 10 calendar days of the prime contractor's receipt of payment from the Local Government for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor(s) and must pay interest at the rate of one and one-half percent per month or any part of a month to the subcontractor(s) on any undisputed amount not paid on time to the subcontractor(s). 20. Minn. Stat. § 181.59. The Local Government will comply with the provisions of Minn. Stat. § 181.59 which requires: Every contract for or on behalf of the state of Minnesota, or any county, city, town, township, school, school district, or any other district in the state, for materials, supplies, or construction shall contain provisions by which the Contractor agrees: (1) That, in the hiring of common or skilled labor for the performance of any work under any contract, or any subcontract, no contractor, material supplier, or vendor, shall, by reason of race, creed, or color, discriminate against the person or persons who are citizens of the United States or resident aliens who are qualified and available to perform the work to which the employment relates; (2) That no contractor, material supplier, or vendor, shall, in any manner, discriminate against, or intimidate, or prevent the employment of any person or persons identified in clause (1) of this section, or on being hired, prevent, or conspire to prevent, the person or persons from the performance of work under any contract on account of race, creed, or color; (3) That a violation of this section is a misdemeanor; and (4) That this contract may be canceled or terminated by the state, county, city, town, school board, or any other person authorized to grant the contracts for employment, and all money due, or to become due under the contract, may be forfeited for a second or any subsequent violation of the terms or conditions of this contract. 21. Termination; Suspension 21.1. Termination by the State for Convenience. The State or commissioner of Administration may cancel this Master Contract and any work order contracts at any time, with or without cause, upon 30 days written notice to the Local Government. Upon termination, the Local Government and the State will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed. 21.2. Termination by the Local Government for Convenience. The Local Government may cancel this Master Contract and any work order contracts at any time, with or without cause, upon 30 days written notice to the State. Upon termination, the Local Government and the State will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed. 21.3. Termination for Insufficient Funding. The State may immediately terminate or suspend this Master Contract and any work order contract if it does not obtain funding from the Minnesota legislature or other funding source; or if funding cannot be continued at a level sufficient to allow for the payment of the services covered here. Termination or suspension must be by written or fax notice to the Local Government. The State is not obligated to pay for any services that are provided after notice and effective date of termination or suspension. However, the Local Government will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed to the extent that funds are available. The State will not be assessed any penalty if the master contract or work order is terminated because of the decision of the Minnesota legislature or other funding source, not to appropriate funds. The State must provide the Local Government notice of the lack of funding within a reasonable time of the State’s receiving that notice. 22. Data Disclosure Under Minn. Stat. §270C.65, subd. 3, and other applicable law, the Local Government consents to disclosure of its federal employer tax identification number, and/or Minnesota tax identification number, already provided to the State, to federal and state tax agencies and state personnel involved in the Page 12 of 14 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 10/05/2015) MnDOT Agreement # 1002066 payment of state obligations. These identification numbers may be used in the enforcement of federal and state tax laws which could result in action requiring the Local Government to file state tax returns and pay delinquent state tax liabilities, if any. 23. Defense of Claims and Lawsuits If any lawsuit or claim is filed by a third party (including but not limited to the Local Government’s contractors and subcontractors), arising out of trunk highway work performed pursuant to a valid work order issued under this Master Contract, the Local Government will, at the discretion of and upon the request of the State, tender the defense of such claims to the State or allow the State to participate in the defense of such claims. The Local Government will, however, be solely responsible for defending any lawsuit or claim, or any portion thereof, when the claim or cause of action asserted is based on its own acts or omissions in performing or supervising the work. The Local Government will not purport to represent the State in any litigation, settlement, or alternative dispute resolution process. The State will not be responsible for any judgment entered against the Local Government, and will not be bound by the terms of any settlement entered into by the Local Government except with the written approval of the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Transportation and pursuant to applicable law. 24. Additional Provisions [The balance of this page has intentionally been left blank – signature page follows] Page 13 of 14 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 10/05/2015) MnDOT Agreement # 1002066 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION The Local Government certifies that the appropriate person(s) have executed the contract on behalf of the Local Government as required by applicable ordinance, resolution, or charter provision. By: By: (with delegated authority) Title: Title Division Director Date: Date: By: COMMISSIONER OF ADMINISTRATION As delegated to Materials Management Division Title By: Date: Date: Page 14 of 14 CM Master Partnership Contract (CM Rev. 10/05/2015) CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION TO ENTER INTO A MASTER PARTNERSHIP CONTRACT WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Whereas, The Minnesota Department of Transportation wishes to cooperate closely with the City of Orono to coordinate the delivery of transportation services and maximize the efficient delivery of such services at all levels of government; and Whereas, MnDOT and the City of Orono are authorized by Minnesota Statutes sections 471.59, 174.02, and 161.20, to undertake collaborative efforts for the design, construction, maintenance and operation of state and local roads; and Whereas, MnDOT and the City of Orono wish to able to respond quickly and efficiently to such opportunities for collaboration, and have determined that having the ability to write “work orders” against a master contract would provide the greatest speed and flexibility in responding to identified needs. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Orono is entering into a Master Partnership Contract with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, a copy of which was before the Orono City Council.; and That the proper City officers are authorized to execute such contract, and any amendments thereto; and That the City Engineer is authorized to negotiate work order contracts pursuant to the Master Contract, which work order contracts may provide for payment to or from MnDOT, and that the City Engineer may execute such work order contracts on behalf of the City of Orono without further approval by the City Council. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held August 8th, 2016. ATTEST: ________________________________ __________________________________ Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 8, 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: Fox Street Feasibility Report ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ List of Exhibits A- Feasibility Report 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to present to the Council the feasibility report for Fox Street. 2. Background. In December 2015 the Council approved the City Engineer and Bolton & Menk to prepare a feasibility study for Fox Street in order to evaluate improvements to the street. The study consists of an analysis of the existing conditions, topographic surveying of the project area and development the course of action to repair, replace and improve the street. For the purpose of the report the street was broken into three sections: Section A: Fox Street from Old Crystal Bay Road to Willow Drive Section B: Fox Street from Willow Drive to Brown Road (MSA Route) Section C: Fox Street from Brown Road to Orono Orchard Road 3. Summary. Based on the evaluation of the sections the following rehabilitation methods are proposed: Section Method Estimated Cost A Reconstruct the roadway in the current footprint, creating an even width (24’). Construct a pavement section that includes geotextile fabric, 10-inches of aggregate base and 5-inches of bituminous pavement. $ 735,413 B Reconstruct the roadway in the current footprint, creating an even width (24’). Construct a pavement section that includes geotextile fabric, 10-inches of aggregate base and 5-inches of bituminous pavement. $ 643,545 C Mill 6” and overlay 3” with some segment patching. $ 418,271 6. Funding. Section B is a designated MSA road and eligible for state funding. Based on current projects, sufficient funding will be available in the MSA account in 2017 for Section B. Section A and C require funding from the Pavement Management Fund. There is currently insufficient funding projected for the Pavement Management Fund for either Section A and C to be completed in 2017. 7. Way forward. Once accepted by the Council the feasibility report will be used for future budget planning and the development of the 2017 Public Works Plan. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to accept the feasibility report. City of OronoFox Street 2016 Pavement Rehabilitation Project Feasibility Study August 3, 2016 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2638 Shadow Lane Suite 200 Chaska, MN 55318 P: 952.448.8838 R-1 FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR 2016 FOX STREET PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. David P. Martini, P.E. Date: August 3, 2016 Registration No. 26122 R-2 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 IMPETUS: The impetus for this report is a request from the Cit y of Orono to evaluate the feasibility of improving Fox Street. 1.2 REPORT ORGANIZATION: To address the replacement options in an orderly manner, the report is organized in three (3) sections as follows: Section 1: Introduction Section 2: Pavement Rehabilitation Section 3: Financing / Funding Figures: Project Maps and Pavement Sections Appendix A: Geotechnical Report 1.3 OVERALL FEASIBILITY AND COST EFFECTIVENESS All improvements addressed within this report are feasible from a technical standpoint. This study addresses issues with the aging infrastructure including pavement conditions and drainage structures. The improvements are necessary to provide safe and adequate infrastructure, and represent cost effective solutions for doing so. Figure No 1 shows the locations of the proposed project components, divided into potential project segments. R-3 SECTION 2 PAVEMENT REHABILITATION 2.1 BACKGROUND Fox Street carries local traffic east-west from the East limits of Orono ( Orono Orchard Road) to Stubbs Bay Road, just west of Leaf Street. The proposed projects would rehabilitate Fox Street from Orono Orchard Road to Old Crystal Bay Road. The portion from Willow Drive to Brown Road is designated as a Municipal State Aid Street. The existing street varies in width from 20-feet to 25-feet, but is generally 22-feet wide. The bituminous varies in depth from 4- inches to 18.75-inches, with aggregate base varying from none to 4-feet below the pavement surface. The areas with the thickest bituminous pavement section vary, but are generally adjacent to the wetlands along Fox Street and indicate full depth patching, or localized overlays from past pavement distresses or settlement. The street section in this area is rural, and stormwater is conveyed through adjacent ditches and culverts. There are a number of culverts that cross and parallel Fox Street, as well as a box culvert where Fox Street crosses Long Lake Creek. There are no other utilities located under the pavement. Soil borings were performed by American Engineering and Testing at various locations to determine the pavement and subgrade thickness. The full report is attached in Appendix A. 2.2 PROPOSED STREET IMPROVEMENTS For the purposes of this report, and the ease of cost analysis, Fox Street is broken into three sections that reflect likely project limits; as shown in Figure No 1: Section A: Fox Street from Old Crystal Bay Road to Willow Drive Section B: Fox Street from Willow Drive to Brown Road o (designated Municipal State Aid Route) Section C: Fox Street from Brown Road to Orono Orchard Road After analysis of alternatives and review of the Geotechnical Report, as well as R-4 life cycle analysis of the potential rehabilitation approaches, the following is recommended: Fox Street (Section A): Reconstruct the roadway in the current footprint, creating an even width 24’). Construct a pavement section that includes geotextile fabric, 10- inches of aggregate base and 5-inches of bituminous pavement. This rehabilitation method carries an estimated pavement life of 25-years, and because issues with the underlying base materials are addressed the road can be treated with other preventive maintenance (such as mill and overlay) at a future date. Fox Street (Section B): Reconstruct the roadway in the current footprint, creating an even width (24’). Construct a pavement section that includes geotextile fabric, 10- inches of aggregate base and 5-inches of bituminous pavement. This rehabilitation method carries an estimated pavement life of 30-years, and because issues with the underlying base materials are addressed the road can be treated with other preventive maintenance (such as mill and overlay) at a future date. Reconstructing only the pavement structure, and including other improvements measuring less than a linear length of twenty-percent (20%) of the total roadway length, allows this method to adhere to the MSAS definition for Roadway Reconditioning. This is similar to the rehabilitation currently being performed on Watertown Road. Fox Street (Section C): Mill 6’’ and overlay 3’’. This rehabilitation method carries an estimated 12-15 year design life. Pavement Structure Reconstruction (Sections A & B): Geotechnical investigation revealed that the three sections have vastly different amounts of underlying bituminous and aggregate base. The borings also indicated a number of places where organic materials exist that create a challenge for roadway reconstruction. Section A exhibits relatively consistent pavement thicknesses built on poor or degraded aggregate base. The absence of a clear layer of aggregate base removes Reclaiming and Paving as a viable option for Section A. Section B is largely the same as Section A, with R-5 pavement thicknesses being fairly consistent, except with the occasional presence of organics deposits and swampy areas. On State Aid routes (Section B), if reconstruction is performed and State Aid funds are utilized, which we understand is the City’s intention, State Aid Design Standards require the construction of additional shouldering and pavement width. Performing only rehabilitation of the pavement structure and no more than twenty percent of other improvements prevents the City from having to reconstruct the roadway to a minimum width and a 10 ton design to meet MSAS standards for full reconstruction. This would require significant changes to the existing roadway footprint. The geometr y of the State Aid portion of Fox Street (Section B) is proposed to remain the same, with proposed rehabilitation replacing just the pavement structure while meeting requirements for MnDOT’s ‘‘Reconditioning’’ definition. The portions of Section B that ar e built over organics and swamp deposits are anticipated to require subgrade excavation and replacement with lightweight fill. Additional geotechnical investigation is needed as part of final design to determine the type, depth, and exact limits of the lightweight fill. Estimated cost of subgrade excavation and lightweight fill are included in the estimates. Mill and Overlay: Fox Street Section C includes removing some of the existing pavement, patching areas that exhibit significant deterioration and paving a new bituminous surface. A significant percentage of Section C is currently built over organics and swamp deposits at 6 to 7-feet deep and below. The presence of these organics makes reconstruction a possibility, but will introduce similar issues as the existing roadway if the organic deposits are not completely removed, which is cost prohibitive. Alternatively performing a mill and overlay of the existing bituminous allows the ride to be improved in a cost effective manner. Performing a mill and overlay on this section does mean that it will need maintenance sooner than the other two sections of Fox Street, and reflective cracking from the existing roadway may be prevalent in 1-3 years after the construction is performed. The mill and overlay is however, significantly cheaper than reconstruction options, without the diminishing returns of a full reconstruction. Other Improvements: R-6 Figure No 1 shows several locations with bollards that will be replaced with guardrail and safety end treatments, and Figure No 2 shows the storm sewer and culvert crossings that are proposed to be replaced, with the exception of the Long Lake Creek Box Culvert, which we propose to leave in place as part of this project. 2.3 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES As part of the pavement and geotechnical analysis, we have examined several rehabilitation methods including: full-depth reclamation, mill and overlay pavement reconstruction (recondition) and complete reconstruction including shoulder widening. Sections A & B are in poor condition with patches, rutting, and raveling occurring along both stretches. This is at least partially due to the wide variability in bituminous and aggregate base depths. Pavement reconstruction (‘‘Reconditioning’’) and Full Reconstruction are the alternatives that best address issues with underlying aggregate base. Factoring in the traffic volumes and geographic location within the City, it has been determined that performing pavement reconstruction would provide the city with the greatest return on investment for these sections. Additionally, we propose to reconstruct Section B in accordance with MSA Reconditioning standards to allow the city to utilize their MSA funds for the project. Section C was discovered to contain a high concentration of organic deposits in the geotechnical investigation. Our analysis indicates that a mill and overlay would provide an improved pavement surface and eliminate some of the mass of the roadway on the underlying swamp deposits the road rests on (pavement thicknesses up to 18.75-inches) which is likely exacerbating the settlement and pavement distresses. Mill and overlay allows for a better drivable surface without the cost of digging down to fully remove the swamp deposits to an unknown depth. R-7 SECTION 3 FINANCING AND FUNDING 3.1 FINANCING & FUNDING The total estimated project costs for Fox Street are below. These estimated costs include contingencies and soft costs (engineering, legal, administration, financing, etc.). Section A: $ 735,413 Section B: $ 643,545 Section C: $ 418,271 Since Section B is designated as a State Aid Route, the City may choose to use state aid funds for this project and may advance encumbered funds if desired. Assessments are not proposed for this project. 3.2 PROJECT COST ESTIMATES The following cost estimates detail the costs for constructing the recommended improvements, in 2016 dollars. No inflation factor has been added for projects possibly constructed in a later year. R-8 3.2.1 Fox Street - Section A Project Costs FOX STREET (A) - RECONSTRUCT: UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL AMOUNT MOBILIZATION LS 1 $26,000.00 $26,000.00 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 REMOVE BOLLARD POST EACH 19 $50.00 $950.00 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQ YD 8750 $4.00 $35,000.00 REMOVE SEWER PIPE LIN FT 250 $7.00 $1,750.00 COMMON EXCAVATION CU YD 2200 $20.00 $44,000.00 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW CU YD 550 $20.00 $11,000.00 AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 5 (CV) CU YD 2500 $30.00 $75,000.00 BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE TON 1475 $65.00 $95,875.00 2" BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE SQ YD 8000 $8.00 $64,000.00 SUBGRADE PREPARATION SQ YD 8250 $2.00 $16,500.00 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION CU YD 550 $20.00 $11,000.00 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V SQ YD 8250 $1.50 $12,375.00 AGGREGATE SHOULDERING TON 100 $35.00 $3,500.00 AGGREGATE DRIVEWAY, CLASS 5 TON 45 $40.00 $1,800.00 BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY SQ YD 120 $27.50 $3,300.00 STAMPED CONCRETE SQ FT 240 $50.00 $12,000.00 12" CS PIPE CULVERT LIN FT 50 $35.00 $1,750.00 15" CS PIPE CULVERT LIN FT 50 $36.00 $1,800.00 18" CS PIPE CULVERT LIN FT 50 $40.00 $2,000.00 12" CS PIPE APRON EACH 2 $350.00 $700.00 15" CS PIPE APRON EACH 2 $375.00 $750.00 18" CS PIPE APRON EACH 2 $400.00 $800.00 12" RCP STORM SEWER LIN FT 75 $45.00 $3,375.00 15" RCP STORM SEWER LIN FT 50 $50.00 $2,500.00 24" RCP STORM SEWER LIN FT 50 $60.00 $3,000.00 12" RC APRON EACH 4 $1,000.00 $4,000.00 15" RC APRON EACH 2 $1,100.00 $2,200.00 24" RC APRON EACH 2 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 RIP RAP CU YD 100 $120.00 $12,000.00 DITCH CLEANING & SHAPING LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 TRAFFIC BARRIER DESIGN B8307 LIN FT 125 $45.00 $5,625.00 END TREATMENT - TANGENT TERMINAL EACH 2 $3,500.00 $7,000.00 TURF ESTABLISHMENT SQ YD 3800 $5.00 $19,000.00 TOPSOIL DRESSING CU YD 850 $30.00 $25,500.00 4" SOLID LINE WHITE-EPOXY LIN FT 5700 $0.50 $2,850.00 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW-EPOXY LIN FT 2850 $1.00 $2,850.00 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $544,750.00 35% CONTINGENCY & SOFT COSTS $190,662.50 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS (SECTION A) $735,412.50 R-9 3.2.2 Fox Street - Section B Project Costs FOX STREET (B) - MSA RECONSTRUCT: UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL AMOUNT MOBILIZATION LS 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 REMOVE BOLLARD POST EACH 27 $50.00 $1,350.00 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQ YD 6400 $4.00 $25,600.00 COMMON EXCAVATION CU YD 1900 $20.00 $38,000.00 AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 5 (CV) CU YD 2110 $30.00 $63,300.00 SELECT GRANULAR BORROW CU YD 250 $20.00 $5,000.00 BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE TON 1280 $65.00 $83,200.00 2" BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE SQ YD 6700 $8.00 $53,600.00 SUBGRADE PREPARATION SQ YD 6900 $2.00 $13,800.00 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION CU YD 1150 $20.00 $23,000.00 LIGHTWEIGHT FILL CU YD 925 $35.00 $32,375.00 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V SQ YD 6900 $1.50 $10,350.00 AGGREGATE SHOULDERING TON 85 $35.00 $2,975.00 BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY SQ YD 40 $27.50 $1,100.00 AGGREGATE DRIVEWAY, CLASS 5 TON 15 $40.00 $600.00 DITCH CLEANING & SHAPING LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 TRAFFIC BARRIER DESIGN B8307 LIN FT 100 $45.00 $4,500.00 END TREATMENT - TANGENT TERMINAL EACH 6 $3,500.00 $21,000.00 TURF ESTABLISHMENT SQ YD 3200 $5.00 $16,000.00 TOPSOIL DRESSING (LV) CU YD 700 $30.00 $21,000.00 4" SOLID LINE WHITE-EPOXY LIN FT 4950 $0.50 $2,475.00 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW-EPOXY LIN FT 2475 $1.00 $2,475.00 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $476,700.00 35% CONTINGENCY & SOFT COSTS $166,845.00 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS (SECTION B) $643,545.00 R-10 3.2.3 Fox Street - Section C Project Costs FOX STREET (C) - MILL AND OVERLAY: UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL AMOUNT MOBILIZATION LS 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS 1 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQ YD 11060 $4.00 $44,240.00 REMOVE SEWER PIPE LIN FT 60 $7.00 $420.00 BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE TON 1220 $65.00 $79,300.00 1.5" BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE SQ YD 11060 $6.00 $66,360.00 PAVEMENT PATCHING SQ YD 2300 $25.00 $57,500.00 AGGREGATE SHOULDERING TON 50 $35.00 $1,750.00 AGGREGATE DRIVEWAY, CLASS 5 TON 20 $40.00 $800.00 BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY SQ YD 80 $27.50 $2,200.00 BITUMINOUS CURB LIN FT 350 $10.00 $3,500.00 15" RCP STORM SEWER LIN FT 50 $50.00 $2,500.00 18" RCP STORM SEWER LIN FT 50 $55.00 $2,750.00 15" RC APRON EACH 2 $1,100.00 $2,200.00 18" RC APRON EACH 2 $1,250.00 $2,500.00 RIP RAP CU YD 28 $120.00 $3,360.00 TURF ESTABLISHMENT SQ YD 1050 $3.00 $3,150.00 TOPSOIL DRESSING CU YD 230 $30.00 $6,900.00 4" SOLID LINE WHITE-EPOXY LIN FT 7900 $0.50 $3,950.00 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE YELLOW-EPOXY LIN FT 3950 $1.00 $3,950.00 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $309,830.00 35% CONTINGENCY & SOFT COSTS $108,440.50 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS (SECTION C) $418,270.50 FOX ST A SHOR E L I N E D R BR O W N R D S W I L L O W D R S OL D C R Y S T A L B A Y R D S DEVIN LA FARVIEW LA COLIN DR ABINGDO N W A Y DEER RU N T R SMITH A V E LYMAN AVE SOMERSET LA DICKENSON ST THOROUGHBRED LA COUNTRYSIDE DR SHEVLI N D R WH I T E O A K C I R COUNT R Y S I D E D R W RAINEY RD FRENCH LAKE RD LONGV I E W C I R ORONO L A WOODHILL AVE MI L L S T O N R D WE A R L A GA N D E R R D DEE R R U N T R E W O O D H I L L A V E FOX RIDGE RD CREEK RIDGE PASS CARR I A G E L A KE E N E A V E RU S S E L L A V E L I T T L E O R C H A R D W A Y BA R R E T T A V E M A N O R C I R HA N L O N A V E GREE N T R E E S R D 1250 2180 2150 1401 1391 2000 2170 2160 2150 2140 2130 2095 2085 2075 2065 2055 2025 2015 1700 1620 1880 1860 1840 1820 420 430 440 1925 680 760 800 1745 1695 1685 24202450 243524752515 130 1452590 2565 24302460252025702600 2425 2485252525752605 2615 26452800 2780 2760 2700 2670 2650 2630 2775 2755 2735 2715 2643 2695 2655 2635 2780 2760 2740 2690 2695 27352755 2775 305 405 2555 2985 2845 85 20 50 80 2995 2990 2920 2850 2805 3010 225 335 405395 2815287529052925 2965 2900 2860 2820 2975 2915 2855 425 435 505 535 585 565 2880 460 480 2990 2980 2940 2920 539530 520 1295 1205 559 568 450 1225500 290 500 540 485 1520 1540 1560 1570 1485 1465 1410 1655 1225 1385138713891395 13971399 1265 1325 1380 1305 1385 538 1205 1185 20 130 140 105 115 120 110 100 90 80 350300 1995 1945 1895 1850 1900 19501960 1640 25 21452185 145 2200 2225 2010 2150 21352165 185 195 2075 2165 2375 2275 2250 10 2380 2320 2325 2280 2240 226523152375 2325 2295 2350 2355 2285 2255 2240 2290 400 2340 2380 2320 2300 2205 255 265 325 2180 445 465 5852120 2180 440 450 2300 2280 2340 2320 500 540 2260 2240 2325 2285 2275 2265 740 680 775 2185 2175 2135 2145 2155 2175 2180 2160 2120 2110 2100 2090 2080 2060 2040 315 1290 40 60 80 12351235 1230 190 180 115 125 145 110 110 1275 140 160 95100 120 60 15 265 45 385 387 1580 1315 320 280 320 360 1250 1260 355 1255 1245 1230 480 540 550 13801390 570 521 537 565 13001340 1255 898 900 1000 2465 840 896 850 870 880 890 2805 1150 1020 1100 825 825 2850 28702885 2865 2845 2825 2865 860 920 930 940 1005 1000 1150 1100 1090 1080 1025 1035 1085 1105 1135 1800 1000 1700 1100 1780 1760 1000 2195 825 2135 2155 825 845 2245 2355 2285 2250 1045 1085 1105 1115 1135 1150 1140 1110 1005 1099 1115 1145 1120 1130 1055 2140 2120 2125 1449 1440 1442 1444 1432 1420 1475 1487 1485 1495 1515 1520 2879 2811 2801 2820 2800 2905 2943 2935 2927 3090 3080 3070 3060 505 2650 2420 2550 2580 2530 2660269027202740 2760 2640 2630 2620 2785 2775 2790 2780 2760 2740 2720 2700 540 2735 2725 2715 2765 2675 790 820 2625 2760 2725 2685 2770 2730 2690 650 730 2555 2601 710 WEB E R H I L L S R D OR O N O O R C H A R D R D S WI L L O W R D S FOX ST B FOX ST C FIGURE NO. 1AUGUST, 2016© Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2016, All Rights Reserved H:\ORNO\C13111228\CAD\C3D\111228_Figure 1.dwg 8/1/2016 4:42 PM EXISTING CONDITIONS FOX STREET FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA 2638 SHADOW LANE, SUITE 200 - CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 Phone: (952)-448-8838 Email: Chaska@bolton-menk.com www.bolton-menk.com FEETSCALE HORZ. 400 8000 20'-25' BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 66' RIGHT OF WAY BOLLARD POSTS BOLLARD POSTS 21'-23' BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREET 21'-23' BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT BITUMINOUS CURB 66' RIGHT OF WAY FOX ST A SHOR E L I N E D R BR O W N R D S W I L L O W D R S OL D C R Y S T A L B A Y R D S DEVIN LA FARVIEW LA COLIN DR ABINGDO N W A Y DEER RU N T R SMITH A V E LYMAN AVE SOMERSET LA DICKENSON ST THOROUGHBRED LA COUNTRYSIDE DR SHEVLI N D R WH I T E O A K C I R COUNT R Y S I D E D R W RAINEY RD FRENCH LAKE RD LONGV I E W C I R ORONO L A WOODHILL AVE MI L L S T O N R D WE A R L A GA N D E R R D DEE R R U N T R E W O O D H I L L A V E FOX RIDGE RD CREEK RIDGE PASS CARR I A G E L A KE E N E A V E RU S S E L L A V E L I T T L E O R C H A R D W A Y BA R R E T T A V E M A N O R C I R HA N L O N A V E GREE N T R E E S R D 1250 2180 2150 1401 1391 2000 2170 2160 2150 2140 2130 2095 2085 2075 2065 2055 2025 2015 1700 1620 1880 1860 1840 1820 420 430 440 1925 680 760 800 1745 1695 1685 24202450 243524752515 130 1452590 2565 24302460252025702600 2425 2485252525752605 2615 26452800 2780 2760 2700 2670 2650 2630 2775 2755 2735 2715 2643 2695 2655 2635 2780 2760 2740 2690 2695 27352755 2775 305 405 2555 2985 2845 85 20 50 80 2995 2990 2920 2850 2805 3010 225 335 405395 2815287529052925 2965 2900 2860 2820 2975 2915 2855 425 435 505 535 585 565 2880 460 480 2990 2980 2940 2920 539530 520 1295 1205 559 568 450 1225500 290 500 540 485 1520 1540 1560 1570 1485 1465 1410 1655 1225 1385138713891395 13971399 1265 1325 1380 1305 1385 538 1205 1185 20 130 140 105 115 120 110 100 90 80 350300 1995 1945 1895 1850 1900 19501960 1640 25 21452185 145 2200 2225 2010 2150 21352165 185 195 2075 2165 2375 2275 2250 10 2380 2320 2325 2280 2240 226523152375 2325 2295 2350 2355 2285 2255 2240 2290 400 2340 2380 2320 2300 2205 255 265 325 2180 445 465 5852120 2180 440 450 2300 2280 2340 2320 500 540 2260 2240 2325 2285 2275 2265 740 680 775 2185 2175 2135 2145 2155 2175 2180 2160 2120 2110 2100 2090 2080 2060 2040 315 1290 40 60 80 12351235 1230 190 180 115 125 145 110 110 1275 140 160 95100 120 60 15 265 45 385 387 1580 1315 320 280 320 360 1250 1260 355 1255 1245 1230 480 540 550 13801390 570 521 537 565 13001340 1255 898 900 1000 2465 840 896 850 870 880 890 2805 1150 1020 1100 825 825 2850 28702885 2865 2845 2825 2865 860 920 930 940 1005 1000 1150 1100 1090 1080 1025 1035 1085 1105 1135 1800 1000 1700 1100 1780 1760 1000 2195 825 2135 2155 825 845 2245 2355 2285 2250 1045 1085 1105 1115 1135 1150 1140 1110 1005 1099 1115 1145 1120 1130 1055 2140 2120 2125 1449 1440 1442 1444 1432 1420 1475 1487 1485 1495 1515 1520 2879 2811 2801 2820 2800 2905 2943 2935 2927 3090 3080 3070 3060 505 2650 2420 2550 2580 2530 2660269027202740 2760 2640 2630 2620 2785 2775 2790 2780 2760 2740 2720 2700 540 2735 2725 2715 2765 2675 790 820 2625 2760 2725 2685 2770 2730 2690 650 730 2555 2601 710 WEB E R H I L L S R D OR O N O O R C H A R D R D S WI L L O W R D S FOX ST B FOX ST C FIGURE NO. 2AUGUST, 2016© Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2016, All Rights Reserved H:\ORNO\C13111228\CAD\C3D\111228_Figure 1.dwg 8/1/2016 4:42 PM STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOX STREET FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA 2638 SHADOW LANE, SUITE 200 - CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 Phone: (952)-448-8838 Email: Chaska@bolton-menk.com www.bolton-menk.com FEETSCALE HORZ. 400 8000 BOX CULVERT EXISTING STORM SEWER REPLACE EXISTING STORM SEWER LEGEND TYPICAL SECTIONS FOX STREET FEASIBILITY STUDY CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA FIGURE NO. 3AUGUST, 2016© Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2016, All Rights ReservedH:\ORNO\C13111228\CAD\C3D\111228_TYP.dwg 8/1/2016 2:31 PM 2638 SHADOW LANE, SUITE 200 - CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 Phone: (952)-448-8838 Email: Chaska@bolton-menk.com www.bolton-menk.com 3" TYPE SP 9.5 NON-WEARING COURSE MIXTURE SPNWB330B 2" TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE SPWEA340C 10" AGGREGATE BASE VARIABLE SLOPE 2% LC BITUMINOUS TACK COAT 12' VARIABLE SLOPE 2% C 12' 6' AGGREGATE TYPICAL SECTION-SECTION B CROWN 3" TYPE SP 9.5 NON-WEARING COURSE MIXTURE SPNWB330B 2" TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE SPWEA340C 10" AGGREGATE BASE VARIABLE SLOPE 2% LC BITUMINOUS TACK COAT 12' 1' AG G . S H O U L D E R VARIABLE SLOPE 2% C 12' 1' AG G . S H O U L D E R TYPICAL SECTION-SECTION A,C CROWN VARIABLE SLOPE 2% LC 12' VAR. AG G . S H O U L D E R VARIABLE SLOPE 2% C 12' VAR. AG G . S H O U L D E R TYPICAL SECTION-SECTION A,B (INCLUDING 12" SUBGRADE EXCAVATION) CROWN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC, MNDOT TYPE V SUBGRADE PREPARATION CLEAR ZONE 10' MINCLEAR ZONE 10' MIN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC, MNDOT TYPE V SUBGRADE PREPARATION SHOULDER 6' AGGREGATE SHOULDER 1:4 MA X 1:4 M A X 3" TYPE SP 9.5 NON-WEARING COURSE MIXTURE SPNWB330B 2" TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE SPWEA340C 10" AGGREGATE BASE BITUMINOUS TACK COAT GEOTEXTILE FABRIC, MNDOT TYPE V 12" SELECT GRANULAR BORROW/24" LIGHTWEIGHT FILL APPENDIX A REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND REVIEW Fox Street Improvements Old Crystal Bay Road to Orono Orchard Road Orono, Minnesota Report No. 20-1448 Date: July 29, 2016 Prepared for: City of Orono c/o Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2638 Shadow Lane, Suite 200 Chaska, Minnesota 55318-1172 www.amengtest.com CONSULTANTS ENVIRONMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL MATERIALS FORENSICS Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Fox Street Improvements, Orono, Minnesota AMERICAN July 29, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 20-14448 TESTING, INC. Page iv TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................................................................................................ 1 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ..................................................................................................... 1 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING ................................................................ 2 4.1 Field Exploration Program .................................................................................................... 2 4.2 Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................................ 2 5.0 SITE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................. 3 5.1 Topography and Surface Conditions ..................................................................................... 3 5.2 Pavement and Base Thickness ............................................................................................... 3 5.3 Subgrade Soils ....................................................................................................................... 3 5.4 Groundwater .......................................................................................................................... 4 5.5 Engineering Review of Soil Properties ................................................................................. 4 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................... 5 6.1 Approach Discussion ............................................................................................................. 5 6.2 Definitions ............................................................................................................................. 6 6.3 Subgrade Preparation ............................................................................................................. 6 6.4 Existing Subgrade R-Value ................................................................................................... 9 6.5 Pavement Design ................................................................................................................... 9 7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................................. 11 7.1 Potential Difficulties ............................................................................................................ 11 7.2 Excavation Backsloping ...................................................................................................... 11 7.3 Observation and Testing ...................................................................................................... 12 8.0 LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 12 STANDARD SHEETS Definitions Relating to Pavement Construction APPENDIX A – Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Boring Log Notes Unified Soil Classification System Figures 1 to 3 - Boring Locations Subsurface Boring Logs Results of Sieve Analysis Tests APPENDIX B – Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Fox Street Improvements, Orono, Minnesota AMERICAN July 29, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 20-14448 TESTING, INC. Page 1 of 12 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Orono (City) is proposing reconstruct portions of Fox Street over the next 3 construction seasons. To assist planning and design, you have authorized American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET) to conduct a subsurface exploration program at the site, conduct soil laboratory testing, and perform a geotechnical engineering review for the project. This report presents the results of the above services, and provides our engineering recommendations based on this data. 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES AET's services were performed according to our proposal to you dated June 1, 2016, which you authorized on June 8, 2016. The authorized scope consists of the following: Drilling 24 standard penetration test borings each to a depth of 6 feet below grade. Due to organic soils encountered at some locations, select borings were extended to depths up to 16 feet below grade. Performing soil laboratory testing. Conducting a geotechnical engineering review based on the data and preparing this report. These services are intended for geotechnical purposes. The scope is not intended to explore for the presence or extent of environmental contamination. 3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION Bolton & Menk, Inc., (BMI) on behalf of the City) is preparing a feasibility study for proposed improvements to Fox Street between Old Crystal Bay Road South and Orono Orchard Road South. The project will likely occur over 3 phases in subsequent years. The likely first phase, which is located between Willow Drive South and Brown Road South, is a Municipal State Aid (MSA) route. The west end of the project between Old Crystal Bay Road South and Willow Drive South is slated for full reconstruction, per BMI. The east end of the project, from Brown Road South to Orono Orchard Road South, may be reconstructed by reclaiming the existing pavement and aggregate base (if present) for use as the new recycled aggregate base for the reconstructed roadway. The three roadway sections are all planned to be constructed for a 9-ton Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Fox Street Improvements, Orono, Minnesota AMERICAN July 29, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 20-14448 TESTING, INC. Page 2 of 12 pavement section. It is our understanding that surface of the new pavement will match the elevation of the existing roadway, and utility replacements are not planned for this project. The project area is to the north of Lake Minnetonka, Tanager Lake, and French Lake. There are several wetlands adjacent to the project site. There is an existing box culvert where Fox Street crosses over Long Lake Creek, just east of Brown Road South; however, we understand that reconstruction of the box culvert will not be included with this project. The above stated information represents our understanding of the proposed construction. This information is an integral part of our engineering review. It is important that you contact us if there are changes from that described so that we can evaluate whether modifications to our recommendations are appropriate. 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND TESTING 4.1 Field Exploration Program The subsurface exploration program conducted for the project consisted of 24 standard penetration test borings. The logs of the borings and details of the methods used appear in Appendix A. The logs contain information concerning soil layering, soil classification, geologic description, and moisture condition. Relative density or consistency is also noted for the natural soils, which is based on the standard penetration resistance (N-value). The boring locations are shown on Figures 1 through 3 in Appendix A. The borings were located in the field by AET personnel by taping from nearby site features. 4.2 Laboratory Testing The laboratory test program included water content testing of selected soil samples. The test results appear in Appendix A on the individual boring logs adjacent to the samples upon which they were performed. Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Fox Street Improvements, Orono, Minnesota AMERICAN July 29, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 20-14448 TESTING, INC. Page 3 of 12 5.0 SITE CONDITIONS 5.1 Topography and Surface Conditions Fox Street is a two-lane bituminous roadway without curb and gutter. The topography along the road is rolling through residential areas with trees and wetlands. The road crosses Long Lake Creek just west of Brown Road South. Overall, the pavement surface is in poor condition with evidence of patching at points throughout the route. There is also random pavement cracking, transverse and longitudinal cracking, and unevenness of the pavements. 5.2 Pavement and Base Thickness The bituminous pavement thickness measured in the boreholes ranged from 4.5 to 18.75 inches thick. The thicker bituminous measurements generally were encountered east of Brown Road South in areas where the roadway is adjacent to wetlands. The variable thickness indicates that localized overlays or full depth patches have likely occurred in the past to address pavement distress or settlement. Below the bituminous pavement, we encountered an aggregate base-like material at 16 of the boring locations consisting of silty sand with gravel, sand with silt & gravel, and crushed limestone. The thickness of these layers generally ranged from 2 to 18 inches. At Boring 10, the sand with silt & gravel layer extended from ½ to 4½ feet below grade. Reference should be made to the boring logs for additional information. 5.3 Subgrade Soils Below the pavement section, the borings encountered fill or possible fill to depths of ¾ to 11 feet below grade overlying buried topsoil, mixed alluvium, fine alluvium, and glacial till. Naturally- deposited silty sand (coarse alluvium) was encountered below the fill soils at Boring No. 24. The fill and naturally-deposited soils generally consisted of lean clay, sandy lean clay, and clayey sand with occasional zones of silty sand. Below the fill at Boring Nos. 11, 12, and 19 through 22, the borings encountered swamp deposits consisting of peat and organic clay as shallow as 4 to 7 feet below grade. The borings extended through the swamp deposited soils to the underlying lean clay, sandy lean clay, and clayey sand Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Fox Street Improvements, Orono, Minnesota AMERICAN July 29, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 20-14448 TESTING, INC. Page 4 of 12 (fine alluvium and glacial till) at Boring Nos. 11, 12, and 19. Boring Nos. 19 through 22 terminated in organic clay at depths of 16 feet below grade. 5.3.1 Critical Subgrade Zone The limiting soils concerning pavement support in the upper 3 feet of subgrade below the pavement generally consisted of sandy lean clay and clayey sand with general AASHTO Classification designations of A-2-6, A-6, and A-7-6. These classifications are indicative of frost susceptible soils, which can heave when frozen, and also lose strength upon thawing in the spring. This type of subgrade is susceptible to pavement damage from heavy trucks during periods when the subgrade is coming out of thawing, or when in a saturated condition. Enforcement of load restrictions in the spring for these types of pavement is important; however, some vehicles such as garbage trucks regularly travel over streets even in the load restriction period. 5.4 Groundwater We measured groundwater in 3 of the borings at the time of drilling. Groundwater was not observed in the other 21 borings performed for the project. Groundwater was observed at Boring Nos. 4, 11, and 20 at depths of 8.6 feet, 14 feet, and 13 feet below grade, respectively. The majority of the site soils are relatively slow draining clayey soils and an extended period of time would be required for ground water to appear and stabilize in an open borehole; therefore, the absence of ground water in our borings should not be taken to mean that ground water would not be encountered in an excavation. Perched groundwater levels can occur in sand and clay matrixes and groundwater may be encountered if deeper excavations are performed at the site. Long-term groundwater level measurements were not part of our scope of services on this project. Groundwater levels fluctuate due to varying seasonal and annual rainfall and snowmelt amounts, as well as other factors. 5.5 Engineering Review of Soil Properties Typically, the granular materials encountered have moderate to high strength, unless they become disturbed. In general, the less silty granular materials possess good to moderate drainage characteristics, while the silty sands have fair drainage characteristics. The clayey sand and lean clay soils have poor drainage characteristics. The silty sands have at least a moderate Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Fox Street Improvements, Orono, Minnesota AMERICAN July 29, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 20-14448 TESTING, INC. Page 5 of 12 susceptibility to frost heaving and freeze thaw weakening. The cohesive soils can have quite variable strength and stability properties, depending on the moisture content. The buried organic soils have low strength and stability properties. The cohesive soils and organic soils are considered to be moderately to highly susceptible to frost heaving and freeze thaw weakening. 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Approach Discussion Based on the conditions encountered at the boring locations, the upper subgrade soils will consist of clayey sand and silty sand with varying amounts of gravel. Future pavement performance (from a frost standpoint) would be similar to that experienced in the past. Consideration could be given to incorporating a sand subbase into the pavement design. Further discussion on this topic can be found in later sections. The existing pavement and aggregate base (where present) could be reclaimed for use as aggregate base for the reconstruction project. However, the thicknesses varied greatly throughout the project, and we recommend performing additional investigation, such as Ground Penetrating Radar, by the project contractor to better plan depth adjustments during reclaim operations. Several borings encountered peat and organic clay. Our standard penetration resistance values in the organic soils indicated that they were generally in a very soft to soft condition, and that continued long-term settlement of the road embankment will occur. We expect the roadway will continue to experience settlement in areas where there are buried organic soils present. The organic soils are compressing from the weight of the embankment fill placed to support the roadway; this may cause longitudinal cracking to develop in the future. To reduce future longitudinal cracking, consideration should be given to placing a geogrid in the road embankment as part of the resurfacing project in the area of the organic soils. The geogrid will not reduce or stop the settlement; this will strengthen the fill embankment to provide a more uniform bridging action over the buried organic soils. If you wish to consider this option, a detailed reinforcement design should be performed. A possible drawback of using a geogrid is that it would be cut if an excavation is performed for below grade work. Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Fox Street Improvements, Orono, Minnesota AMERICAN July 29, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 20-14448 TESTING, INC. Page 6 of 12 We recommend performing additional borings at a closer spacing (100 feet between borings or closer) to better define the areas of organic soils below the roadway embankment. The borings should be extended completely through the organic soils to the underlying mineral soils to provide information for estimating future settlement in these areas based on the thickness of organic soils and the embankment loading. Lightweight fill is often used to reduce embankment loading. The unit weight of lightweight materials is much less than soil, and substituting these materials for soil results in a lower unit embankment load can result in less long term consolidation settlement of organic soils. Common lightweight fill materials include shredded tires, Geofoam, and lightweight manufactured aggregate. Geofoam is a manufactured expanded polystyrene that is strong, but has a density of only about 1-3% that of natural soil. The additional geotechnical exploration recommended above would allow a geotechnical engineer to evaluate the effects of replacing a portion of the fill embankment with lightweight fill would have on long-term embankment settlement. Details of our recommendations for roadway reconstruction are found below. 6.2 Definitions Italicized words used in this report have a specific definition or are a MnDOT reference. The definitions are presented on the attached standard sheet entitled “Definitions Relating to Pavement Construction”, or are defined in an ASTM standard or a MnDOT specification. 6.3 Subgrade Preparation 6.3.1 Frost/Drainage Improvement Current practice is to incorporate a sand subbase layer of Modified Select Granular Borrow beneath the aggregate base layer for bituminous pavement systems. The purpose is to provide improved drainage for the aggregate base and upper zone of the subgrade which better controls frost heaving and thaw weakening effects. The appropriate sand subbase thickness is usually a function of the underlying soil’s frost and strength properties, and the traffic loadings. The upper subgrade soils in the critical subgrade zone consist primarily of lean clay, sandy lean clay, and clayey sand, which would not meet a Modified Select Granular Borrow or Select Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Fox Street Improvements, Orono, Minnesota AMERICAN July 29, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 20-14448 TESTING, INC. Page 7 of 12 Granular Borrow specification upon visual classification. These soils would be considered to be moderate to high frost susceptibility. For “improved” performance, our primary recommendation would be to place a uniform thickness sand subbase of Modified Select Granular Borrow as top of subgrade. It is our opinion that a 1-foot thick sand subbase layer would suffice for this project. We recognize that the City may not wish to import Modified Select Granular Borrow for cost reasons. It would be possible to eliminate the imported sand subbase layer, although some frost- related distress may be more pronounced. Without a sand subbase layer, it is reasonable to assume that future performance (from a frost standpoint) would be similar to that experienced in the past. If you elect to place a sand subbase and there is a need to vary the thickness of the sand subbase, we recommend the thickness have a taper of no steeper than 10H:1V. The subcut and sand layer placement should extend slightly beyond the back of the curb to maintain frost uniformity. The sand subbase should be provided with proper subsurface drainage to prevent build-up of water within the sand. This can be accomplished by placing properly engineered drainage lines along the length of the roadway which are connected to storm catch basins or other outlet structures. 6.3.2 Stability Improvement The final subgrade should have proper stability within the critical subgrade zone. The existing soils in the upper 4 feet of the subgrade consist of variable soil types primarily including lean clay, sandy lean clay, and clayey sand. Some continued subgrade settlement will likely occur, with or without a sand subbase layer, in areas where the buried organic soils are present. In our opinion, it would not be economically warranted to remove all of the existing fill soils in the critical subgrade zone and recompact or replace them for this project. Where sandier soils are exposed in the subcut bottom (whether at bottom of aggregate base or bottom of sand subbase grade), the soils should be surface compacted with a vibratory roller compactor. This process should be observed to evaluate whether unstable soils may exist within the subgrade which are buried. If deflections are noted under the compaction process, then there may be a need to subcut unstable clayey/silty soils. Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Fox Street Improvements, Orono, Minnesota AMERICAN July 29, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 20-14448 TESTING, INC. Page 8 of 12 Stability of the soils which remain within the critical subgrade zone should then be evaluated using the test roll procedure. It is expected that many of the in-place soils will be stable soils, such that significant stability improvement should not be anticipated. Any soft or yielding areas should be subcut and replaced with drier soils which are similar in type (for frost considerations). Where unstable soils are found under the test roll process, the soils should be improved by means of scarification, drying, and re-compaction; or by subcutting and replacement. We recommend the final soils remaining in place be capable of passing a test roll prior to placing the sand subbase or aggregate base. With this, it is our judgment that a test roll should not be necessary on the sand subbase layer, if incorporated into the design. A method of providing more uniform pavement support would be to subcut 1 foot, compact the bottom of the subcut with three passes of a vibratory roller, and then blend the excavated materials and replace and compact in 6 inch lifts. This process, commonly referred to as a compaction subcut, will provide a more uniform material for support and frost heave characteristics. 6.3.3 Geosynthetic Use A geogrid can be used as reinforcement to aid in off-setting subgrade instability. For stability improvement, the geogrid is ideally placed within an aggregate base layer, which better uses the tensile properties of the grid. However, you should recognize that the use of a geogrid over unstable soils may not necessarily provide an equivalent off-set (compared to proper soil stabilization). The geogrid manufacturer’s design engineers should be consulted to determine the proper product, aggregate base thickness, and product placement for use. A Type V geotextile fabric can be used for separation purposes, although the need for separation is not judged necessary when the existing subgrade is stable beneath the sand subbase (if incorporated). The placement of a Type V geotextile fabric would be beneficial if a sand subbase is not used and is placed below the aggregate base. 6.3.4 Fill Placement/Compaction Following the subcut excavation and stabilization of existing soils as needed, fill can be placed as needed to re-attain subgrade elevation. Fill should be placed per the requirements of MnDOT Specification 2105.3F1 (Specified Density Method). In ASTM terms, this specification requires Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Fox Street Improvements, Orono, Minnesota AMERICAN July 29, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 20-14448 TESTING, INC. Page 9 of 12 soils placed within the critical subgrade zone be compacted to a minimum of 100% of the standard maximum dry unit weight defined in ASTM: D698 (Standard Proctor test), at a water content 65% to 102% of the standard optimum water content. A reduced minimum compaction level of 95% of the standard maximum dry unit weight can be used below the critical subgrade zone. The sand subbase can be considered part of a composite subgrade; and the top of the subbase can be figured as the top of the 3-foot subgrade zone needing the 100% compaction level. However, the lower (dry) end of the water content range requirement does not need to apply to the sands. If additional aggregate base is required, the imported materials should meet the requirements of MnDOT 3138 100% crushed Class 5. The aggregate base should be tested for compaction using a MnDOT Dynamic Cone Penetrometer and meet the requirements of MnDOT Specification 2211.3.C3. 6.3.5 Tapers Uniformity of the soil below the roadway and separation from the water table are important factors in order to minimize frost heave and freeze thaw weakening related pavement distress. It is also important that any subgrade correction performed be tapered to minimize differential frost heave conditions. We recommend 10:1 (H:V) longitudinal tapers between the new streets and any connection to existing streets. 6.4 Existing Subgrade R-Value Based on the available information and our experience, we estimate the soils within the critical subgrade zone have an R-value of about 12. In the case where a 1-foot thick sand subbase is placed over the R=12 subgrade, an increased estimated R-value can be used in the pavement design. Based on values given in Section 5-3 of the MnDOT Pavement Manual, an equivalent design R-value of 25 can be used for the composite subgrade case. 6.5 Pavement Design The roadways are planned to be reconstructed to a 9-ton section. The most recent average annual daily traffic (AADT) data from MnDOT on Fox Street from Old Crystal Bay Road to Willow Drive is 1,400 (2010), Willow Drive to Brown Road is 1,000 (2015 data), and from Brown Road to Orono Orchard Road is 1,650 (2011 data). Using a growth factor of 2%, as previously requested by the City, and a truck percentage of 5.9, we estimate the AADT at a 20- Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Fox Street Improvements, Orono, Minnesota AMERICAN July 29, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 20-14448 TESTING, INC. Page 10 of 12 year design to range from 1,500 to 2,450, with a Heavy Commercial Average Daily Traffic (HCADT) estimated to range from 88 to 141. Based on an estimated R-value of 12 for the existing subgrade, the pavement section required to provide adequate support for a 9-ton road design at this traffic level will require a Gravel Equivalent (GE) equal to 20.50 using MnDOT’s “Flexible Pavement Design Using Soil Factors” table. To provide a GE of 20.50, we recommend the pavement section consist of 5 inches of bituminous (2 inches of bituminous wear, 3 inches of bituminous non-wear) and 10 inches of aggregate base. The total GE of this section is 21.25, which is acceptable. Based on an estimated R-value of 25 using a 1-foot thick sand subbase, the pavement section required to provide adequate support for a 9-ton road design at estimated future traffic level will require a Gravel Equivalent (GE) equal to 17.50 using MnDOT’s “Flexible Pavement Design Using Soil Factors” table. To provide a GE of 17.50, we recommend the pavement section consist of 4½ inches of bituminous (2 inches of bituminous wear, 2½ inches of bituminous non-wear), 8 inches of aggregate base, and 12 inches of sand subbase. The total GE of this section is 18.125; the sand subbase was incorporated as part of the composite subgrade and was not used to calculate this total GE. The calculated GE is acceptable. 6.5.1 Bituminous Mix Recommendations and Comments We recommend that the bituminous mixes conform to the latest MnDOT specifications. In our opinion, mixes designated as SPNWB330B for the non-wear course and SPWEA340C for the wear course should be used. We recommend that a full tack coat be applied between lifts (not a tack coat in a ribbon fashion). These mixes should be placed to a compaction specification of a minimum 92% of gmm. Cores should be obtained after compaction to confirm density and thickness. Even if placed and compacted properly on stable subgrade conditions, bituminous pavements will still experience cracking in 1 to 3 years, primarily due to temperature-related expansion and shrinkage. Each of the designs given above assumes that a regularly scheduled maintenance Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Fox Street Improvements, Orono, Minnesota AMERICAN July 29, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 20-14448 TESTING, INC. Page 11 of 12 program consisting of patching cracks and repairing of locally distressed areas would be implemented. The seal coating of the pavement surface after 3 to 5 years often helps prolong pavement lift. 7.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 Potential Difficulties 7.1.1 Water in Excavations The strength and stability of the soils for road subgrades and utility support encountered at this site can be greatly impacted by ground water, perched ground water conditions, or periods of heavy precipitation. Where water is present, strength and stability can be greatly reduced, especially with the more fine grained soils. The contractor should choose the appropriate compaction method for street subgrades. To allow for observations of the excavation bottoms, to reduce the potential for soil disturbance, and to facilitate backfilling operations, we recommend that all freestanding water within the excavation be removed prior to proceeding with construction. Based on the soils encountered, we anticipate the groundwater can be handled with conventional sump pumping. 7.1.2 Disturbance of Soils The on-site soils can become disturbed under construction traffic, especially if the soils are wet. If soils become disturbed, they should be subcut to the underlying undisturbed soils. The subcut soils can then be dried and recompacted back into place, or they should be removed and replaced with drier imported fill. 7.1.3 Cobbles and Boulders The soils at this site can include cobbles and boulders. This may make excavating procedures somewhat more difficult than normal if they are encountered. 7.2 Excavation Backsloping If excavation faces are not retained, the excavations should maintain maximum allowable slopes in accordance with OSHA Regulations (Standards 29 CFR), Part 1926, Subpart P, “Excavations” (can be found on www.osha.gov). Even with the required OSHA sloping, water Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Fox Street Improvements, Orono, Minnesota AMERICAN July 29, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 20-14448 TESTING, INC. Page 12 of 12 seepage or surface runoff can potentially induce sideslope erosion or running which could require slope maintenance. It is the contractor’s responsibility to provide and maintain safe slopes. 7.3 Observation and Testing The recommendations in this report are based on the subsurface conditions found at our test boring locations. Since the soil conditions can be expected to vary away from the soil boring locations, we recommend on-site observation by a geotechnical engineer/technician during construction to evaluate these potential changes. Soil density testing should also be performed on new fill placed in order to document that project specifications for compaction have been satisfied. 8.0 LIMITATIONS Within the limitations of scope, budget, and schedule, we have endeavored to provide our services according to generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices at this time and location. Other than this, no warranty, either express or implied, is intended. Important information regarding risk management and proper use of this report is given in Appendix B entitled “Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use.” 01REP019 (12/08) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. DEFINITIONS RELATING TO PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION TOP OF SUBGRADE Grade which contacts the bottom of the aggregate base layer. SAND SUBBASE Uniform thickness sand layer placed as the top of subgrade which is intended to improve the frost and drainage characteristics of the pavement system by better draining excess water in the base/subbase, by reducing and “bridging” frost heaving and by reducing spring thaw weakening effects. CRITICAL SUBGRADE ZONE The subgrade portion beneath and within three vertical feet of the top of subgrade. A sand subbase, if placed, would be considered the upper portion of the critical subgrade zone. GRANULAR BORROW Soils meeting Mn/DOT Specification 3149.2B1. This refers to granular soils which, of the portion passing the 1" sieve, contain less than 20% by weight passing the #200 sieve. SELECT GRANULAR BORROW Soils meeting Mn/DOT Specification 3149.2B2. This refers to granular soils which, of the portion passing the 1" sieve, contain less than 12% by weight passing the #200 sieve. MODIFIED SELECT GRANULAR BORROW Clean, medium grained sands which, of the portion passing the 1" sieve, contain less than 5% by weight passing the #200 sieve and less than 40% by weight passing the #40 sieve. GEOTEXTILE STABILIZATION FABRIC Geotextile meeting Type V requirements defined in Mn/DOT Specification 3733. When using fabric, installation should also meet the requirements outlined in Mn/DOT Specification 3733. COMPACTION SUBCUT Construction of a uniform thickness subcut below a designated grade to provide uniformity and compaction within the subcut zone. Replacement fill can be the materials subcut, although the reused soils should be blended to a uniform soil condition and recompacted per the Specified Density Method (Mn/DOT Specification 2105.3F1). TEST ROLL A means of evaluating the near-surface stability of subgrade soils (usually non-granular). Suitability is determined by the depth of rutting or deflection caused by passage of heavy rubber-tired construction equipment, such as a loaded dump truck, over the test area. Yielding of less than 1" is normally considered acceptable, although engineering judgment may be applied depending on equipment used, soil conditions present, and/or pavement performance expectations. UNSTABLE SOILS Subgrade soils which do not pass a test roll. Unstable soils typically have water content exceeding the “standard optimum water content” defined in ASTM: D698 (Standard Proctor test). ORGANIC SOILS Soils which have sufficient organic content such that engineering properties/stability are affected. These soils are usually black to dark brown in color. Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Fox Street Improvements, Orono, Minnesota AMERICAN July 29, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 20-14448 TESTING, INC. Appendix A Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Boring Log Notes Unified Soil Classification System Figures 1 to 3 – Boring Locations Subsurface Boring Logs Appendix A Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Report No. 20-14448 Appendix A - Page 1 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. A.1 FIELD EXPLORATION The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling and sampling 24 standard penetration test borings. The locations of the borings appear on Figure 1, preceding the Subsurface Boring Logs in this appendix. A.2 SAMPLING METHODS A.2.1 Split-Spoon Samples (SS) - Calibrated to N60 Values Standard penetration (split-spoon) samples were collected in general accordance with ASTM: D1586 with one primary modification. The ASTM test method consists of driving a 2-inch O.D. split-barrel sampler into the in-situ soil with a 140-pound hammer dropped from a height of 30 inches. The sampler is driven a total of 18 inches into the soil. After an initial set of 6 inches, the number of hammer blows to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is known as the standard penetration resistance or N-value. Our method uses a modified hammer weight, which is determined by measuring the system energy using a Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) and an instrumented rod. In the past, standard penetration N-value tests were performed using a rope and cathead for the lift and drop system. The energy transferred to the split-spoon sampler was typically limited to about 60% of its potential energy due to the friction inherent in this system. This converted energy then provides what is known as an N60 blow count. The most recent drill rigs incorporate an automatic hammer lift and drop system, which has higher energy efficiency and subsequently results in lower N-values than the traditional N60 values. By using the PDA energy measurement equipment, we are able to determine actual energy generated by the drop hammer. With the various hammer systems available, we have found highly variable energies ranging from 55% to over 100%. Therefore, the intent of AET’s hammer calibrations is to vary the hammer weight such that hammer energies lie within about 60% to 65% of the theoretical energy of a 140-pound weight falling 30 inches. The current ASTM procedure acknowledges the wide variation in N-values, stating that N-values of 100% or more have been observed. Although we have not yet determined the statistical measurement uncertainty of our calibrated method to date, we can state that the accuracy deviation of the N-values using this method is significantly better than the standard ASTM Method. A.2.2 Disturbed Samples (DS)/Spin-up Samples (SU) Sample types described as “DS” or “SU” on the boring logs are disturbed samples, which are taken from the flights of the auger. Because the auger disturbs the samples, possible soil layering and contact depths should be considered approximate. A.2.3 Sampling Limitations Unless actually observed in a sample, contacts between soil layers are estimated based on the spacing of samples and the action of drilling tools. Cobbles, boulders, and other large objects generally cannot be recovered from test borings, and they may be present in the ground even if they are not noted on the boring logs. Determining the thickness of “topsoil” layers is usually limited, due to variations in topsoil definition, sample recovery, and other factors. Visual-manual description often relies on color for determination, and transitioning changes can account for significant variation in thickness judgment. Accordingly, the topsoil thickness presented on the logs should not be the sole basis for calculating topsoil stripping depths and volumes. If more accurate information is needed relating to thickness and topsoil quality definition, alternate methods of sample retrieval and testing should be employed. A.3 CLASSIFICATION METHODS Soil descriptions shown on the boring logs are based on the Unified Soil Classification (USC) system. The USC system is described in ASTM: D2487 and D2488. Where laboratory classification tests (sieve analysis or Atterberg Limits) have been performed, accurate classifications per ASTM: D2487 are possible. Otherwise, soil descriptions shown on the boring logs are visual-manual judgments. Charts are attached which provide information on the USC system, the descriptive terminology, and the symbols used on the boring logs. Visual-manual judgment of the AASHTO Soil Group is also noted as a part of the soil description. A chart presenting details of the AASHTO Soil Classification System is also attached. Appendix A Geotechnical Field Exploration and Testing Report No. 20-14448 Appendix A - Page 2 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. The boring logs include descriptions of apparent geology. The geologic depositional origin of each soil layer is interpreted primarily by observation of the soil samples, which can be limited. Observations of the surrounding topography, vegetation, and development can sometimes aid this judgment. A.4 WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTS The ground water level measurements are shown at the bottom of the boring logs. The following information appears under “Water Level Measurements” on the logs: Date and Time of measurement Sampled Depth: lowest depth of soil sampling at the time of measurement Casing Depth: depth to bottom of casing or hollow-stem auger at time of measurement Cave-in Depth: depth at which measuring tape stops in the borehole Water Level: depth in the borehole where free water is encountered Drilling Fluid Level: same as Water Level, except that the liquid in the borehole is drilling fluid The true location of the water table at the boring locations may be different than the water levels measured in the boreholes. This is possible because there are several factors that can affect the water level measurements in the borehole. Some of these factors include: permeability of each soil layer in profile, presence of perched water, amount of time between water level readings, presence of drilling fluid, weather conditions, and use of borehole casing. A.5 LABORATORY TEST METHODS A.5.1 Water Content Tests Conducted per AET Procedure 01-LAB-010, which is performed in general accordance with ASTM: D2216 and AASHTO: T265. A.6 TEST STANDARD LIMITATIONS Field and laboratory testing is done in general conformance with the described procedures. Compliance with any other standards referenced within the specified standard is neither inferred nor implied. A.7 SAMPLE STORAGE Unless notified to do otherwise, we routinely retain representative samples of the soils recovered from the borings for a period of 30 days. 01REP052(01/05) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. BORING LOG NOTES DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS TEST SYMBOLS Symbol Definition Symbol Definition B,H,N: Size of flush-joint casing CA: Crew Assistant (initials) CAS: Pipe casing, number indicates nominal diameter in inches CC: Crew Chief (initials) COT: Clean-out tube DC: Drive casing; number indicates diameter in inches DM: Drilling mud or bentonite slurry DR: Driller (initials) DS: Disturbed sample from auger flights FA: Flight auger; number indicates outside diameter in inches HA: Hand auger; number indicates outside diameter HSA: Hollow stem auger; number indicates inside diameter in inches LG: Field logger (initials) MC: Column used to describe moisture condition of samples and for the ground water level symbols N (BPF): Standard penetration resistance (N-value) in blows per foot (see notes) NQ: NQ wireline core barrel PQ: PQ wireline core barrel RD: Rotary drilling with fluid and roller or drag bit REC: In split-spoon (see notes) and thin-walled tube sampling, the recovered length (in inches) of sample. In rock coring, the length of core recovered (expressed as percent of the total core run). Zero indicates no sample recovered. REV: Revert drilling fluid SS: Standard split-spoon sampler (steel; 1-3/8” is inside diameter; 2” outside diameter); unless indicated otherwise SU Spin-up sample from hollow stem auger TW: Thin-walled tube; number indicates inside diameter in inches WASH: Sample of material obtained by screening returning rotary drilling fluid or by which has collected inside the borehole after “falling” through drilling fluid WH: Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod and 140-pound hammer WR: Sampler advanced by static weight of drill rod 94mm: 94 millimeter wireline core barrel ▼: Water level directly measured in boring : Estimated water level based solely on sample appearance CONS: One-dimensional consolidation test DEN: Dry density, pcf DST: Direct shear test E: Pressuremeter Modulus, tsf HYD: Hydrometer analysis LL: Liquid Limit, % LP: Pressuremeter Limit Pressure, tsf OC: Organic Content, % PERM: Coefficient of permeability (K) test; F - Field; L - Laboratory PL: Plastic Limit, % qp: Pocket Penetrometer strength, tsf (approximate) qc: Static cone bearing pressure, tsf qu: Unconfined compressive strength, psf R: Electrical Resistivity, ohm-cms RQD: Rock Quality Designation of Rock Core, in percent (aggregate length of core pieces 4” or more in length as a percent of total core run) SA: Sieve analysis TRX: Triaxial compression test VSR: Vane shear strength, remoulded (field), psf VSU: Vane shear strength, undisturbed (field), psf WC: Water content, as percent of dry weight %-200: Percent of material finer than #200 sieve STANDARD PENETRATION TEST NOTES The standard penetration test consists of driving the sampler with a 140 pound hammer and counting the number of blows applied in each of three 6” increments of penetration. If the sampler is driven less than 18” (usually in highly resistant material), permitted in ASTM:D1586, the blows for each complete 6” increment and for each partial increment is on the boring log. For partial increments, the number of blows is shown to the nearest 0.1' below the slash. The length of sample recovered, as shown on the “REC” column, may be greater than the distance indicated in the N column. The disparity is because the N-value is recorded below the initial 6” set (unless partial penetration defined in ASTM:D1586 is encountered) whereas the length of sample recovered is for the entire sampler drive (which may even extend more than 18”). 01CLS021(2/04) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ASTM Designations: D 2487, D2488 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory TestsA Soil Classification Notes ABased on the material passing the 3-in (75-mm) sieve. BIf field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles or boulders, or both” to group name. CGravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay DSands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt SW-SC well-graded sand with clay SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay (D30)2 ECu = D60 /D10, Cc = D10 x D60 FIf soil contains >15% sand, add “with sand” to group name. GIf fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM. HIf fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name. IIf soil contains >15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name. JIf Atterberg limits plot is hatched area, soils is a CL-ML silty clay. KIf soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200 add “with sand” or “with gravel”, whichever is predominant. LIf soil contains >30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add “sandy” to group name. MIf soil contains >30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add “gravelly” to group name. NPl>4 and plots on or above “A” line. OPl<4 or plots below “A” line. PPl plots on or above “A” line. QPl plots below “A” line. RFiber Content description shown below. Group Symbol Group NameB Coarse-Grained Soils More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve Gravels More than 50% coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve Clean Gravels Less than 5% finesC Cu>4 and 1<Cc<3E GW Well graded gravelF Cu<4 and/or 1>Cc>3E GP Poorly graded gravelF Gravels with Fines more than 12% fines C Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravelF.G.H Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravelF.G.H Sands 50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve Clean Sands Less than 5% finesD Cu>6 and 1<Cc<3E SW Well-graded sandI Cu<6 and 1>Cc>3E SP Poorly-graded sandI Sands with Fines more than 12% fines D Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sandG.H.I Fines classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sandG.H.I Fine-Grained Soils 50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve (see Plasticity Chart below) Silts and Clays Liquid limit less than 50 inorganic PI>7 and plots on or above “A” lineJ CL Lean clayK.L.M PI<4 or plots below “A” lineJ ML SiltK.L.M organic Liquid limit–oven dried <0.75 Liquid limit – not dried OL Organic clayK.L.M.N Organic siltK.L.M.O Silts and Clays Liquid limit 50 or more inorganic PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clayK.L.M PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic siltK.L.M organic Liquid limit–oven dried <0.75 Liquid limit – not dried OH Organic clayK.L.M.P Organic siltK.L.M.Q Highly organic soil Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic in odor PT PeatR 3 2 ½1 ¾4 10 20 40 60 140 200 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 81 Sieve NumberScreen Opening (in.) 50 10 5 1.0 0.10.5 PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SIEVE ANALYSIS PE R C E N T P A S S I N G PE R C E N T R E T A I N E D D60 = 15mm D30 = 2.5mm D10 = 0.075mm Cu = = = 200D60 D10 15 0.075 Cc = = = 5.6(D30) D10 x D60 2.5 0.075 x 15 2 2 CL-ML For classification of fine-grained soils and fine-grained fraction of coarse-grained soils. Equation of "A"-line Horizontal at PI = 4 to LL = 25.5. then PI = 0.73 (LL-20) Equation of "U"-line Vertical at LL = 16 to PI = 7. then PI = 0.9 (LL-8) "A " L I N E "U " L I N E C L O R O L C H O R O H 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 16 7 4 PL A S T I C I T Y I N D E X ( P I ) LIQUID LIMIT (LL) Plasticity Chart ADDITIONAL TERMINOLOGY NOTES USED BY AET FOR SOIL IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION Grain Size Term Particle Size Boulders Over 12" Cobbles 3" to 12" Gravel #4 sieve to 3" Sand #200 to #4 sieve Fines (silt & clay) Pass #200 sieve Gravel Percentages Term Percent A Little Gravel 3% - 14% With Gravel 15% - 29% Gravelly 30% - 50% Consistency of Plastic Soils Term N-Value, BPF Very Soft less than 2 Soft 2 - 4 Firm 5 - 8 Stiff 9 - 15 Very Stiff 16 - 30 Hard Greater than 30 Relative Density of Non-Plastic Soils Term N-Value, BPF Very Loose 0 - 4 Loose 5 - 10 Medium Dense 11 - 30 Dense 31 - 50 Very Dense Greater than 50 Moisture/Frost Condition (MC Column) D (Dry): Absense of moisture, dusty, dry to touch. M (Moist): Damp, although free water not visible. Soil may still have a high water content (over “optimum”). W (Wet/ Free water visible intended to Waterbearing): describe non-plastic soils. Waterbearing usually relates to sands and sand with silt. F (Frozen): Soil frozen Layering Notes Laminations: Layers less than ½" thick of differing material or color. Lenses: Pockets or layers greater than ½" thick of differing material or color. Fiber Content of Peat Fiber Content Term (Visual Estimate) Fibric Peat: Greater than 67% Hemic Peat: 33 – 67% Sapric Peat: Less than 33% Organic/Roots Description (if no lab tests) Soils are described as organic, if soil is not peat and is judged to have sufficient organic fines content to influence the soil properties. Slightly organic used for borderline cases. With roots: Judged to have sufficient quantity of roots to influence the soil properties. Trace roots: Small roots present, but not judged to be in sufficient quantity to significantly affect soil properties. A-7 A-7-5 A-7-6 Sieve Analysis, Percent passing: No. 10 (2.00 mm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 max. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. 40 (0.425 mm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 max. 50 max. 51 min. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. 200 (0.075 mm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 max. 25 max. 10 max. 35 max. 35 max. 35 max. 35 max. 36 min. 36 min. 36 min. 36 min. Characteristics of Fraction Passing No. 40 (0.425 mm) Liquid limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 max. 41 min. 40 max. 41 min. 40 max. 41 min. 40 max. 41 min. Plasticity index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N.P. 10 max. 10 max. 11 min. 11 min. 10 max. 10 max. 11 min. 11 min. General Ratings as Subgrade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definitions of Gravel, Sand and Silt-Clay 01CLS022 (07/11)AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. A-2-5 Stone Fragments, Gravel and Sand Fair to Poor A-6 The placing of A-3 before A-2 is necessary in the "left to right elimination process" and does not indicate superiority of A-3 over A-2. Usual Types of Significant Constituent Materials A-1-a A-1-b Group Classification The terms "gravel", "coarse sand", "fine sand" and "silt-clay", as determinable from the minimum test data required in this classification arrangement and as used in subsequent word descriptions are defined as follows: Granular Materials Silt-Clay Materials A-1 A-2 A-2-6 A-2-7 . . . . 6 max. Fine Sand Silty or Clayey Gravel and Sand Silty Soils Clayey Soils Plasticity index of A-7-5 subgroup is equal to or less than LL minus 30. Plasticity index of A-7-6 subgroup is greater than LL minus 30. A-3 A-2-4 The term "silty" is applied to fine material having plasticity index of 10 or less and the term "clayey" is applied to fine material having plasticity index of 11 or greater. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS AASHTO SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Classification of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures GRAVEL - Material passing sieve with 3-in. square openings and retained on the No. 10 sieve. COARSE SAND - Material passing the No. 10 sieve and retained on the No. 40 sieve. FINE SAND - Material passing the No. 40 sieve and retained on the No. 200 sieve. COMBINED SILT AND CLAY - Material passing the No. 200 sieve Excellent to Good Group A-8 soils are organic clays or peat with organic content >5%. BOULDERS (retained on 3-in. sieve) should be excluded from the portion of the sample to which the classificaiton is applied, but the percentage of such material, if any, in the sample should be recorded. (35% or less passing No. 200 sieve) (More than 35% passing No. 200 sieve) General Classification A-4 A-5 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 15 35 0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 8 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 0 1 0 0 1 4 0 1 8 0 L I Q U I D L I M I TPLASTICITY I N D E X P E R C E N T P A S S I N G N O . 2 0 0 S I E V E P A R T I A L G R O U P I N D E X GROUP INDEX CHART Group Index (GI) = (F-35) [0.2+0.005 (LL-40) ] + 0.01 (F-15) (PI-10) where F = % Passing No. 200 sieve, LL = Liquid Limit, and PI = Plasticity Index. When working with A-2-6 and A-2-7 subgroups the Partial Group Index (PGI) is determined from the PI only. When the combined Partial Group Indices are negative, the Group Index should be reported as zero. A- 2 - 6 a n d A - 2 - 7 82% Passing No. 200 sieve LL = 38 PI = 21 PGI = 8.9 for LL PGI = 7.4 for PI GI = 16 Then:Example: 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Sub-GroupA-7-5 S u b - G r o u p A - 7 - 6A-7A-5 A-4 A-6 PI = LL - 30 PLASTICITY INDEX (PI) Liquid Limit and Plasticity Index Ranges for the A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7 Subgroups Li q u i d L i m i t PR O J E C T AET JOB NO.20-14448 SU B J E C T DATE 7/29/2016 SC A L E D R A W N B Y C H E C K E D B Y P A G E Figure 1 AM E R I C A N EN G I N E E R I N G TE S T I N G , I N C . Fo x S t r e e t I m p r o v e m e n t s Ol d C r y s t a l B a y R o a d t o O r o n o O r c h a r d R o a d Or o n o , M i n n e s o t a DS V C H no t t o s c a l e BO R I N G L O C A T I O N S K E T C H - B O R I N G S 1 T H R O U G H 8 = A p p r o x i m a t e B o r i n g L o c a t i o n s LE G E N D 1 4 5 6 2 3 7 8 PR O J E C T AET JOB NO.20-14448 SU B J E C T DATE 7/29/2016 SC A L E D R A W N B Y C H E C K E D B Y P A G E Figure 2 AM E R I C A N EN G I N E E R I N G TE S T I N G , I N C . Fo x S t r e e t I m p r o v e m e n t s Ol d C r y s t a l B a y R o a d t o O r o n o O r c h a r d R o a d Or o n o , M i n n e s o t a DS V C H no t t o s c a l e BO R I N G L O C A T I O N S K E T C H - B O R I N G S 6 T H R O U G H 1 5 = A p p r o x i m a t e B o r i n g L o c a t i o n s LE G E N D 6 9 10 12 13 11 7 8 14 1 5 PR O J E C T AET JOB NO.20-14448 SU B J E C T DATE 7/29/2016 SC A L E D R A W N B Y C H E C K E D B Y P A G E Figure 3 AM E R I C A N EN G I N E E R I N G TE S T I N G , I N C . Fo x S t r e e t I m p r o v e m e n t s Ol d C r y s t a l B a y R o a d t o O r o n o O r c h a r d R o a d Or o n o , M i n n e s o t a DS V C H no t t o s c a l e BO R I N G L O C A T I O N S K E T C H - B O R I N G S 1 5 T H R O U G H 2 4 = A p p r o x i m a t e B o r i n g L o c a t i o n s LE G E N D 19 24 15 18 17 16 20 21 22 23 7.75" Bituminous pavement FILL, mostly silty sand with gravel, dark brown (A-1-b) FILL, mostly sandy lean clay, dark brown (A-6) SANDY LEAN CLAY, brown, stiff (CL) (A-6) (possible fill) CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, brown, a little gray and dark brown, firm, laminations of silty sand and sandy silt (SC) (A-6) END OF BORING 10 11 6 FILL WEATHERED TILL OR FILL TILL 15 23 22 M M M 10 6 14 SS SS SS SAMPLEDDEPTH0-4½' 91C None4.5 DRILLINGFLUID LEVEL 6.0 DEPTH:WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTSDRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY ON THIS LOG CASINGDEPTH WATERLEVEL LG: BORINGCOMPLETED: SG 6/21/16 CAVE-INDEPTH Rig: 9:25 Surface Elevation DR: 4.6 TIME 6/21/16 3.25" HSA DATE CD Log of Boring No. DEN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. MC SUBSURFACE BORING LOG GEOLOGYDEPTHINFEET WCN AET No: Project: 1 (p. 1 of 1) %-#200LLMATERIAL DESCRIPTION RECIN. 03/2011 01-DHR-060 1 2 3 4 5 6 SAMPLETYPE FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS 20-14448 Fox Street Improvements; Orono, MN PL AE T _ C O R P 2 0 - 1 4 4 4 8 . G P J A E T + C P T + W E L L . G D T 7 / 1 9 / 1 6 6.5" Bituminous pavement FILL, mostly silty sand, a little gravel, dark brown (A-1-b) FILL, mostly clayey sand, a little gravel, dark brown (A-6) FILL, mostly sandy lean clay, brown, a little dark brown (A-6) FILL, mixture of clayey sand and silty sand, brown, a little gray (A-2-6) CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, brown, a little gray, stiff, laminations of silty sand (SC) (A-6) END OF BORING 8 9 12 FILL TILL 10 16 15 19 M M M 10 6 16 SS SS SS SAMPLEDDEPTH0-4½' 91C None4.5 DRILLINGFLUID LEVEL 6.0 DEPTH:WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTSDRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY ON THIS LOG CASINGDEPTH WATERLEVEL LG: BORINGCOMPLETED: SG 6/21/16 CAVE-INDEPTH Rig: 9:45 Surface Elevation DR: 4.6 TIME 6/21/16 3.25" HSA DATE CD Log of Boring No. DEN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. MC SUBSURFACE BORING LOG GEOLOGYDEPTHINFEET WCN AET No: Project: 2 (p. 1 of 1) %-#200LLMATERIAL DESCRIPTION RECIN. 03/2011 01-DHR-060 1 2 3 4 5 6 SAMPLETYPE FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS 20-14448 Fox Street Improvements; Orono, MN PL AE T _ C O R P 2 0 - 1 4 4 4 8 . G P J A E T + C P T + W E L L . G D T 7 / 1 9 / 1 6 6" Bituminous pavement FILL, mostly gravelly silty sand, brown (A-1-b) SANDY LEAN CLAY,a little gravel, gray and light brown, firm (CL) (A-6) CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, brown, a little gray, firm to very stiff, laminations of sandy silt (SC) (A-6) END OF BORING 8 8 21 FILL TILL 9 18 14 M M M 8 8 16 SS SS SS SAMPLEDDEPTH0-4½' 91C None4.5 DRILLINGFLUID LEVEL 6.0 DEPTH:WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTSDRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY ON THIS LOG CASINGDEPTH WATERLEVEL LG: BORINGCOMPLETED: SG 6/21/16 CAVE-INDEPTH Rig: 10:12 Surface Elevation DR: 4.5 TIME 6/21/16 3.25" HSA DATE CD Log of Boring No. DEN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. MC SUBSURFACE BORING LOG GEOLOGYDEPTHINFEET WCN AET No: Project: 3 (p. 1 of 1) %-#200LLMATERIAL DESCRIPTION RECIN. 03/2011 01-DHR-060 1 2 3 4 5 6 SAMPLETYPE FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS 20-14448 Fox Street Improvements; Orono, MN PL AE T _ C O R P 2 0 - 1 4 4 4 8 . G P J A E T + C P T + W E L L . G D T 7 / 1 9 / 1 6 9.5" Bituminous pavement FILL, mostly silty sand with gravel, dark brown (A-1-b) LEAN CLAY, slightly organic, firm, lenses and laminations of sandy lean clay (CL) (A-6) (possible fill) LEAN CLAY WITH SAND, slightly organic, trace roots, black, firm (CL) (A-7-6) CLAYEY SAND, gray, a little dark gray, soft (SC) (A-6) LEAN CLAY, gray, a little brown, soft to firm, laminations of sandy silt and sandy lean clay (CL) (A-6) SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, brown, gray and light brown, firm, laminations of sandy silt and silt (CL) (A-6) SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, grayish brown, firm (CL) (A-6) END OF BORING 18 5 5 2 2 6 6 FILL TOPSOIL OR FILL TOPSOIL MIXED ALLUVIUM FINE ALLUVIUM TILL 15 30 25 32 26 25 23 M M M M M M M 2 8 14 18 18 14 18 SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SAMPLEDDEPTH0-14½' 91C 8.6 11.7 9.5 14.5 DRILLINGFLUID LEVEL 11.0 16.0 DEPTH:WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTSDRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY ON THIS LOG CASINGDEPTH WATERLEVEL LG: BORINGCOMPLETED: SG 6/21/16 CAVE-INDEPTH Rig: 10:50 11:09 Surface Elevation DR: 9.5 14.4 TIME 6/21/16 6/21/16 3.25" HSA DATE CD Log of Boring No. DEN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. MC SUBSURFACE BORING LOG GEOLOGYDEPTHINFEET WCN AET No: Project: 4 (p. 1 of 1) %-#200LLMATERIAL DESCRIPTION RECIN. 03/2011 01-DHR-060 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 SAMPLETYPE FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS 20-14448 Fox Street Improvements; Orono, MN PL AE T _ C O R P 2 0 - 1 4 4 4 8 . G P J A E T + C P T + W E L L . G D T 7 / 1 9 / 1 6 6" Bituminous pavement FILL, mostly silty sand with gravel, dark brown (A-1-b) FILL, mostly sandy lean clay, slightly organic, a little sandy silt, trace roots, dark brown and gray (A-6) LEAN CLAY WITH SAND, slightly organic, trace roots, dark grayish brown, firm (CL) (A-6) LEAN CLAY, gray, a little brown, firm, laminations of silt (CL) (A-7-6) END OF BORING 6 6 7 FILL TOPSOIL OR FINE ALLUVIUM FINE ALLUVIUM 32 22 33 M M M 10 12 16 SS SS SS SAMPLEDDEPTH0-4½' 91C None4.5 DRILLINGFLUID LEVEL 6.0 DEPTH:WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTSDRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY ON THIS LOG CASINGDEPTH WATERLEVEL LG: BORINGCOMPLETED: SG 6/21/16 CAVE-INDEPTH Rig: 11:35 Surface Elevation DR: 4.6 TIME 6/21/16 3.25" HSA DATE CD Log of Boring No. DEN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. MC SUBSURFACE BORING LOG GEOLOGYDEPTHINFEET WCN AET No: Project: 5 (p. 1 of 1) %-#200LLMATERIAL DESCRIPTION RECIN. 03/2011 01-DHR-060 1 2 3 4 5 6 SAMPLETYPE FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS 20-14448 Fox Street Improvements; Orono, MN PL AE T _ C O R P 2 0 - 1 4 4 4 8 . G P J A E T + C P T + W E L L . G D T 7 / 1 9 / 1 6 4.5" Bituminous pavement FILL, mostly silty sand, a little gravel and clayey sand, brown (A-2-4) SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, brown and gray mottled, a little light gray, firm to stiff, laminations of sandy silt (CL) (A-6) END OF BORING 19 5 10 FILL TILL 19 22 M M M 10 6 12 SS SS SS SAMPLEDDEPTH0-4½' 91C None4.5 DRILLINGFLUID LEVEL 6.0 DEPTH:WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTSDRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY ON THIS LOG CASINGDEPTH WATERLEVEL LG: BORINGCOMPLETED: SG 6/21/16 CAVE-INDEPTH Rig: 12:02 Surface Elevation DR: 4.6 TIME 6/21/16 3.25" HSA DATE CD Log of Boring No. DEN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. MC SUBSURFACE BORING LOG GEOLOGYDEPTHINFEET WCN AET No: Project: 6 (p. 1 of 1) %-#200LLMATERIAL DESCRIPTION RECIN. 03/2011 01-DHR-060 1 2 3 4 5 6 SAMPLETYPE FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS 20-14448 Fox Street Improvements; Orono, MN PL AE T _ C O R P 2 0 - 1 4 4 4 8 . G P J A E T + C P T + W E L L . G D T 7 / 1 9 / 1 6 5.5" Bituminous pavement FILL, mostly clayey sand, a little gravel, gray and brown (A-6) LEAN CLAY WITH SAND, slightly organic, trace roots, dark brown, soft (CL) (A-6) (possible fill) SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, brown, stiff (CL) (A-6) END OF BORING 6 3 9 FILL TOPSOIL OR FILL TILL 14 21 22 M M M 8 12 12 SS SS SS SAMPLEDDEPTH0-4½' 91C None4.5 DRILLINGFLUID LEVEL 6.0 DEPTH:WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTSDRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY ON THIS LOG CASINGDEPTH WATERLEVEL LG: BORINGCOMPLETED: SG 6/21/16 CAVE-INDEPTH Rig: 12:51 Surface Elevation DR: 4.5 TIME 6/21/16 3.25" HSA DATE CD Log of Boring No. DEN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. MC SUBSURFACE BORING LOG GEOLOGYDEPTHINFEET WCN AET No: Project: 7 (p. 1 of 1) %-#200LLMATERIAL DESCRIPTION RECIN. 03/2011 01-DHR-060 1 2 3 4 5 6 SAMPLETYPE FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS 20-14448 Fox Street Improvements; Orono, MN PL AE T _ C O R P 2 0 - 1 4 4 4 8 . G P J A E T + C P T + W E L L . G D T 7 / 1 9 / 1 6 5" Bituminous pavement FILL, mostly silty sand with gravel, brown (A-1-b) CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, trace roots, light brown, a little light tan, firm to soft, laminations of silty sand and sandy silt (SC) (A-6) END OF BORING 6 4 10 FILL TILL 13 11 14 M M M 8 10 14 SS SS SS SAMPLEDDEPTH0-4½' 91C None4.5 DRILLINGFLUID LEVEL 6.0 DEPTH:WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTSDRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY ON THIS LOG CASINGDEPTH WATERLEVEL LG: BORINGCOMPLETED: SG 6/21/16 CAVE-INDEPTH Rig: 1:15 Surface Elevation DR: 4.0 TIME 6/21/16 3.25" HSA DATE CD Log of Boring No. DEN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. MC SUBSURFACE BORING LOG GEOLOGYDEPTHINFEET WCN AET No: Project: 8 (p. 1 of 1) %-#200LLMATERIAL DESCRIPTION RECIN. 03/2011 01-DHR-060 1 2 3 4 5 6 SAMPLETYPE FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS 20-14448 Fox Street Improvements; Orono, MN PL AE T _ C O R P 2 0 - 1 4 4 4 8 . G P J A E T + C P T + W E L L . G D T 7 / 1 9 / 1 6 5.75" Bituminous pavement FILL, mostly silty sand with gravel, brown (A-1-b) FILL, mixture of sandy lean clay and clayey sand, a little gravel, dark brown, brown and gray (A-6) SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, brown mottled, firm, laminations of sandy silt (CL) (A-6) SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, brown and gray mottled, a little light gray, stiff, laminations of sandy silt (CL) (A-6) END OF BORING 8 7 14 FILL WEATHERED TILL OR FILL TILL 19 31 22 18 M M M 10 6 16 SS SS SS SAMPLEDDEPTH0-4½' 91C None4.5 DRILLINGFLUID LEVEL 6.0 DEPTH:WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTSDRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY ON THIS LOG CASINGDEPTH WATERLEVEL LG: BORINGCOMPLETED: SG 6/21/16 CAVE-INDEPTH Rig: 1:37 Surface Elevation DR: 4.5 TIME 6/21/16 3.25" HSA DATE CD Log of Boring No. DEN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. MC SUBSURFACE BORING LOG GEOLOGYDEPTHINFEET WCN AET No: Project: 9 (p. 1 of 1) %-#200LLMATERIAL DESCRIPTION RECIN. 03/2011 01-DHR-060 1 2 3 4 5 6 SAMPLETYPE FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS 20-14448 Fox Street Improvements; Orono, MN PL AE T _ C O R P 2 0 - 1 4 4 4 8 . G P J A E T + C P T + W E L L . G D T 7 / 1 9 / 1 6 6" Bituminous pavement FILL, mostly sand with silt and gravel, piece of bituminous, brown (A-1-b) SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, brown, a little gray, stiff (CL) (A-6) END OF BORING 18 18 11 FILL TILL M W M 12 10 10 SS SS SS SAMPLEDDEPTH0-4½' 91C None4.5 DRILLINGFLUID LEVEL 6.0 DEPTH:WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTSDRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY ON THIS LOG CASINGDEPTH WATERLEVEL LG: BORINGCOMPLETED: SG 6/21/16 CAVE-INDEPTH Rig: 1:55 Surface Elevation DR: 5.3 TIME 6/21/16 3.25" HSA DATE CD Log of Boring No. DEN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. MC SUBSURFACE BORING LOG GEOLOGYDEPTHINFEET WCN AET No: Project: 10 (p. 1 of 1) %-#200LLMATERIAL DESCRIPTION RECIN. 03/2011 01-DHR-060 1 2 3 4 5 6 SAMPLETYPE FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS 20-14448 Fox Street Improvements; Orono, MN PL AE T _ C O R P 2 0 - 1 4 4 4 8 . G P J A E T + C P T + W E L L . G D T 7 / 1 9 / 1 6 4.5" Bituminous pavement 5" FILL, crushed limestone base, light brown (A-1-b) FILL, mostly silty sand, a little gravel and clayey sand, brown (A-1-b) FILL, mostly clayey sand, a little gravel, gray and dark gray (A-6) FILL, mostly sandy lean clay, gray, a little dark gray and brown (A-6) FIBRIC PEAT, dark brown (PT) (A-8) ORGANIC CLAY, black to dark gray, very soft to soft (OH) (A-8) CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, gray, soft (SC) (A-6) END OF BORING 22 8 4 5 WH 2 2 FILL SWAMP DEPOSIT 17 19 329 41 32 25 M M M M M M M/W 12 12 8 16 18 12 12 SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SAMPLEDDEPTH0-14½' 91C 14.014.5 DRILLINGFLUID LEVEL 16.0 DEPTH:WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTSDRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY ON THIS LOG CASINGDEPTH WATERLEVEL LG: BORINGCOMPLETED: SG 6/21/16 CAVE-INDEPTH Rig: 2:35 Surface Elevation DR: 14.3 TIME 6/21/16 3.25" HSA DATE CD Log of Boring No. DEN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. MC SUBSURFACE BORING LOG GEOLOGYDEPTHINFEET WCN AET No: Project: 11 (p. 1 of 1) %-#200LLMATERIAL DESCRIPTION RECIN. 03/2011 01-DHR-060 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 SAMPLETYPE FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS 20-14448 Fox Street Improvements; Orono, MN PL AE T _ C O R P 2 0 - 1 4 4 4 8 . G P J A E T + C P T + W E L L . G D T 7 / 1 9 / 1 6 5.5" Bituminous pavement FILL, mostly silty sand with gravel, brown (A-1-b) FILL, mostly gravelly silty sand, pieces of bituminous, gray and brown (A-1-b) SAPRIC PEAT, dark brown (PT) (A-8) LEAN CLAY, slightly organic, gray to light gray, very soft, laminations of clayey sand and silty sand (CL) (A-6) CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, gray, stiff, laminations of silty sand (SC) (A-2-6) END OF BORING 30 12 3 WH 11 14 FILL SWAMP DEPOSIT FINE ALLUVIUM TILL 218 30 15 13 M M M M M M 8 3 5 6 16 16 SS SS SS SS SS SS SAMPLEDDEPTH0-12' 91C None12.0 DRILLINGFLUID LEVEL 13.5 DEPTH:WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTSDRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY ON THIS LOG CASINGDEPTH WATERLEVEL LG: BORINGCOMPLETED: SG 6/22/16 CAVE-INDEPTH Rig: 8:37 Surface Elevation DR: 12.5 TIME 6/22/16 3.25" HSA DATE CD Log of Boring No. DEN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. MC SUBSURFACE BORING LOG GEOLOGYDEPTHINFEET WCN AET No: Project: 12 (p. 1 of 1) %-#200LLMATERIAL DESCRIPTION RECIN. 03/2011 01-DHR-060 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 SAMPLETYPE FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS 20-14448 Fox Street Improvements; Orono, MN PL AE T _ C O R P 2 0 - 1 4 4 4 8 . G P J A E T + C P T + W E L L . G D T 7 / 1 9 / 1 6 17" Bituminous pavement FILL, mostly clayey sand, a little gravel, dark brown and gray (A-6) FILL, mostly silty sand with gravel, a little clayey sand, pieces of bituminous, dark brown and gray (A-1-b) END OF BORING 11 14 14 FILL 16M M M 4 3 4 SS SS SS SAMPLEDDEPTH0-4½' 91C None4.5 DRILLINGFLUID LEVEL 6.0 DEPTH:WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTSDRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY ON THIS LOG CASINGDEPTH WATERLEVEL LG: BORINGCOMPLETED: SG 6/22/16 CAVE-INDEPTH Rig: 9:13 Surface Elevation DR: 6.0 TIME 6/22/16 3.25" HSA DATE CD Log of Boring No. DEN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. MC SUBSURFACE BORING LOG GEOLOGYDEPTHINFEET WCN AET No: Project: 13 (p. 1 of 1) %-#200LLMATERIAL DESCRIPTION RECIN. 03/2011 01-DHR-060 1 2 3 4 5 6 SAMPLETYPE FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS 20-14448 Fox Street Improvements; Orono, MN PL AE T _ C O R P 2 0 - 1 4 4 4 8 . G P J A E T + C P T + W E L L . G D T 7 / 1 9 / 1 6 9" Bituminous pavement 15" FILL, crushed limestone base, light brown (A-1-b) FILL, mixture of silty sand and clayey sand, a little gravel, dark brown, brown and gray (A-2-4, A-6) END OF BORING 16 13 11 FILL 12 13 18 M M M 6 4 6 SS SS SS SAMPLEDDEPTH0-4½' 91C None4.5 DRILLINGFLUID LEVEL 6.0 DEPTH:WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTSDRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY ON THIS LOG CASINGDEPTH WATERLEVEL LG: BORINGCOMPLETED: SG 6/22/16 CAVE-INDEPTH Rig: 9:35 Surface Elevation DR: 4.5 TIME 6/22/16 3.25" HSA DATE CD Log of Boring No. DEN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. MC SUBSURFACE BORING LOG GEOLOGYDEPTHINFEET WCN AET No: Project: 14 (p. 1 of 1) %-#200LLMATERIAL DESCRIPTION RECIN. 03/2011 01-DHR-060 1 2 3 4 5 6 SAMPLETYPE FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS 20-14448 Fox Street Improvements; Orono, MN PL AE T _ C O R P 2 0 - 1 4 4 4 8 . G P J A E T + C P T + W E L L . G D T 7 / 1 9 / 1 6 8.5" Bituminous pavement FILL, mixture of silty sand and clayey sand, a little gravel, brown, dark brown and gray (A-2-4, A-6) FILL, mostly clayey sand, a little gravel and silty sand, gray and dark brown (A-2-6) FILL, mostly clayey sand, a little gravel, brown and gray, a little dark brown (A-6) END OF BORING 16 22 4 6 9 FILL 12 14 14 19 15 M M M M M 3 8 2 6 12 SS SS SS SS SS SAMPLEDDEPTH0-9½' 91C None9.5 DRILLINGFLUID LEVEL 11.0 DEPTH:WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTSDRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY ON THIS LOG CASINGDEPTH WATERLEVEL LG: BORINGCOMPLETED: SG 6/22/16 CAVE-INDEPTH Rig: 10:05 Surface Elevation DR: 9.8 TIME 6/22/16 3.25" HSA DATE CD Log of Boring No. DEN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. MC SUBSURFACE BORING LOG GEOLOGYDEPTHINFEET WCN AET No: Project: 15 (p. 1 of 1) %-#200LLMATERIAL DESCRIPTION RECIN. 03/2011 01-DHR-060 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 SAMPLETYPE FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS 20-14448 Fox Street Improvements; Orono, MN PL AE T _ C O R P 2 0 - 1 4 4 4 8 . G P J A E T + C P T + W E L L . G D T 7 / 1 9 / 1 6 4" Bituminous pavement 20" FILL, crushed limestone base, light brown (A-1-b) FILL, mixture of sandy lean clay and silty sand, a little gravel, brown and dark brown (A-6, A-2-4) SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, brown and gray mottled, a little dark brown, stiff, laminations of sandy silt (CL) END OF BORING 61 8 13 FILL TILL 17 20 M M M 8 10 12 SS SS SS SAMPLEDDEPTH0-4½' 91C None4.5 DRILLINGFLUID LEVEL 6.0 DEPTH:WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTSDRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY ON THIS LOG CASINGDEPTH WATERLEVEL LG: BORINGCOMPLETED: SG 6/22/16 CAVE-INDEPTH Rig: 10:34 Surface Elevation DR: 4.6 TIME 6/22/16 3.25" HSA DATE CD Log of Boring No. DEN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. MC SUBSURFACE BORING LOG GEOLOGYDEPTHINFEET WCN AET No: Project: 16 (p. 1 of 1) %-#200LLMATERIAL DESCRIPTION RECIN. 03/2011 01-DHR-060 1 2 3 4 5 6 SAMPLETYPE FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS 20-14448 Fox Street Improvements; Orono, MN PL AE T _ C O R P 2 0 - 1 4 4 4 8 . G P J A E T + C P T + W E L L . G D T 7 / 1 9 / 1 6 14" Bituminous pavement SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, brown, a little dark brown, firm, laminations of sandy silt (CL) (A-6) (possible fill) SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, brown, firm, laminations of silty sand (CL) (A-6) CLAYEY SAND, a little gravel, brown, stiff, laminations of silty sand (SC) (A-6) END OF BORING 8 7 13 FILL TILL OR FILL TILL 13 15 13 M M M 7 10 10 SS SS SS SAMPLEDDEPTH0-4½' 91C None4.5 DRILLINGFLUID LEVEL 6.0 DEPTH:WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTSDRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY ON THIS LOG CASINGDEPTH WATERLEVEL LG: BORINGCOMPLETED: SG 6/22/16 CAVE-INDEPTH Rig: 10:58 Surface Elevation DR: 4.5 TIME 6/22/16 3.25" HSA DATE CD Log of Boring No. DEN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. MC SUBSURFACE BORING LOG GEOLOGYDEPTHINFEET WCN AET No: Project: 17 (p. 1 of 1) %-#200LLMATERIAL DESCRIPTION RECIN. 03/2011 01-DHR-060 1 2 3 4 5 6 SAMPLETYPE FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS 20-14448 Fox Street Improvements; Orono, MN PL AE T _ C O R P 2 0 - 1 4 4 4 8 . G P J A E T + C P T + W E L L . G D T 7 / 1 9 / 1 6 14.5" Bituminous pavement FILL, mostly clayey sand, a little gravel and silt, brown, a little gray (A-6) FILL, mostly clayey sand, a little gravel, pieces of bituminous, dark brown (A-2-6) LEAN CLAY, gray, firm (CL) (A-6) (possible fill) END OF BORING 26 8 5 FILL FINE* *ALLUVIUM OR FILL 4 12 5 24 M M M 6 6 4 SS SS SS SAMPLEDDEPTH0-4½' 91C None4.5 DRILLINGFLUID LEVEL 6.0 DEPTH:WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTSDRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY ON THIS LOG CASINGDEPTH WATERLEVEL LG: BORINGCOMPLETED: SG 6/22/16 CAVE-INDEPTH Rig: 11:20 Surface Elevation DR: 4.5 TIME 6/22/16 3.25" HSA DATE CD Log of Boring No. DEN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. MC SUBSURFACE BORING LOG GEOLOGYDEPTHINFEET WCN AET No: Project: 18 (p. 1 of 1) %-#200LLMATERIAL DESCRIPTION RECIN. 03/2011 01-DHR-060 1 2 3 4 5 6 SAMPLETYPE FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS 20-14448 Fox Street Improvements; Orono, MN PL AE T _ C O R P 2 0 - 1 4 4 4 8 . G P J A E T + C P T + W E L L . G D T 7 / 1 9 / 1 6 14.5" Bituminous pavement FILL, mostly clayey sand, a little gravel and silty sand, dark brown (A-6) FILL, mostly clayey sand, a little gravel, pieces of bituminous, gray (A-6) ORGANIC CLAY, trace roots, black to gray, soft, laminations of silty sand (OH) (A-8) SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, gray, a little light gray, firm, laminations of sandy silt (CL) (A-6) END OF BORING 13 12 3 1 5 9 8 FILL SWAMP DEPOSIT TILL 18 10 19 47 30 26 22 M M M M M M M 4 10 1 16 16 18 18 SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SAMPLEDDEPTH0-14½' 91C None None None 7.0 9.5 14.5 DRILLINGFLUID LEVEL 8.5 11.0 16.0 DEPTH:WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTSDRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY ON THIS LOG CASINGDEPTH WATERLEVEL LG: BORINGCOMPLETED: SG 6/22/16 CAVE-INDEPTH Rig: 11:47 11:51 12:02 Surface Elevation DR: 7.0 9.5 14.5 TIME 6/22/16 6/22/16 6/22/16 3.25" HSA DATE CD Log of Boring No. DEN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. MC SUBSURFACE BORING LOG GEOLOGYDEPTHINFEET WCN AET No: Project: 19 (p. 1 of 1) %-#200LLMATERIAL DESCRIPTION RECIN. 03/2011 01-DHR-060 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 SAMPLETYPE FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS 20-14448 Fox Street Improvements; Orono, MN PL AE T _ C O R P 2 0 - 1 4 4 4 8 . G P J A E T + C P T + W E L L . G D T 7 / 1 9 / 1 6 18.75" Bituminous pavement FILL, mostly clayey sand, a little gravel and silty sand, gray and dark brown (A-6) FILL, mostly clayey sand, a little gravel and silty sand, gray and dark brown (A-2-6) FILL, mixture of sandy lean clay and silty sand, a little gravel, gray (A-6 and A-1-b) HEMIC PEAT, dark brown (PT) (A-8) ORGANIC CLAY, trace shells and roots, dark grayish brown to gray, very stiff (CL) (A-8) END OF BORING 10 13 3 1 1 WH FILL SWAMP DEPOSIT 16 8 13 336 241 277 175 M M M M M M M 8 6 6 18 10 18 SS SS SS SS SS SS SAMPLEDDEPTH0-14½' 91C None 13.0 7.0 14.5 DRILLINGFLUID LEVEL 8.5 16.0 DEPTH:WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTSDRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY ON THIS LOG CASINGDEPTH WATERLEVEL LG: BORINGCOMPLETED: SG 6/22/16 CAVE-INDEPTH Rig: 12:55 1:07 Surface Elevation DR: 7.0 14.3 TIME 6/22/16 6/22/16 3.25" HSA DATE CD Log of Boring No. DEN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. MC SUBSURFACE BORING LOG GEOLOGYDEPTHINFEET WCN AET No: Project: 20 (p. 1 of 1) %-#200LLMATERIAL DESCRIPTION RECIN. 03/2011 01-DHR-060 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 SAMPLETYPE FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS 20-14448 Fox Street Improvements; Orono, MN PL AE T _ C O R P 2 0 - 1 4 4 4 8 . G P J A E T + C P T + W E L L . G D T 7 / 1 9 / 1 6 11" Bituminous pavement FILL, mostly silty sand with gravel, dark brown (A-1-b) FILL, mostly sandy clay, a little gravel, gray, a little light gray (A-6) FILL, mixture of silty sand and sandy lean clay, ashes/cinders, dark grayish brown and gray (A-1-b and A-6) HEMIC PEAT, dark brown (PT) (A-8) END OF BORING 6 10 3 2 WH WH FILL SWAMP DEPOSIT 22 20 232 291 248 137 M M M M M M 10 6 8 18 18 18 SS SS SS SS SS SS SAMPLEDDEPTH0-14½' 91C None None 7.0 14.5 DRILLINGFLUID LEVEL 8.5 16.0 DEPTH:WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTSDRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY ON THIS LOG CASINGDEPTH WATERLEVEL LG: BORINGCOMPLETED: SG 6/22/16 CAVE-INDEPTH Rig: 1:44 2:00 Surface Elevation DR: 7.0 14.6 TIME 6/22/16 6/22/16 3.25" HSA DATE CD Log of Boring No. DEN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. MC SUBSURFACE BORING LOG GEOLOGYDEPTHINFEET WCN AET No: Project: 21 (p. 1 of 1) %-#200LLMATERIAL DESCRIPTION RECIN. 03/2011 01-DHR-060 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 SAMPLETYPE FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS 20-14448 Fox Street Improvements; Orono, MN PL AE T _ C O R P 2 0 - 1 4 4 4 8 . G P J A E T + C P T + W E L L . G D T 7 / 1 9 / 1 6 15.5" Bituminous pavement FILL, mostly gravelly silty sand, brown and dark brown (A-1-b) FILL, mostly silty sand with gravel, gray (A-1-b) FILL, mostly clayey sand, a little gravel, sandy lean clay and silty sand, gray and dark brown (A-6) SAPRIC PEAT, dark brown (PT) (A-8) ORGANIC CLAY, dark grayish brown, very soft (OH) (A-8) END OF BORING 15 14 11 5 2 WH WH FILL SWAMP DEPOSIT 12 99 266 156 111 M M M M M M M 3 3 8 8 18 18 18 SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SAMPLEDDEPTH0-14½' 91C None14.5 DRILLINGFLUID LEVEL 16.0 DEPTH:WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTSDRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY ON THIS LOG CASINGDEPTH WATERLEVEL LG: BORINGCOMPLETED: SG 6/22/16 CAVE-INDEPTH Rig: 2:33 Surface Elevation DR: 15.3 TIME 6/22/16 3.25" HSA DATE CD Log of Boring No. DEN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. MC SUBSURFACE BORING LOG GEOLOGYDEPTHINFEET WCN AET No: Project: 22 (p. 1 of 1) %-#200LLMATERIAL DESCRIPTION RECIN. 03/2011 01-DHR-060 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 SAMPLETYPE FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS 20-14448 Fox Street Improvements; Orono, MN PL AE T _ C O R P 2 0 - 1 4 4 4 8 . G P J A E T + C P T + W E L L . G D T 7 / 1 9 / 1 6 9.5" Bituminous pavement 10.5" FILL, crushed limestone base, light brown (A-1-b) FILL, mostly sandy lean clay, a little gravel, brown and gray (A-7-6) SANDY LEAN CLAY, a little gravel, brown, stiff (CL) (A-6) END OF BORING 15 10 15 FILL TILL 28 25 23 M M M 12 6 8 SS SS SS SAMPLEDDEPTH0-4½' 91C None4.5 DRILLINGFLUID LEVEL 6.0 DEPTH:WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTSDRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY ON THIS LOG CASINGDEPTH WATERLEVEL LG: BORINGCOMPLETED: SG 6/22/16 CAVE-INDEPTH Rig: 2:55 Surface Elevation DR: 4.5 TIME 6/22/16 3.25" HSA DATE CD Log of Boring No. DEN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. MC SUBSURFACE BORING LOG GEOLOGYDEPTHINFEET WCN AET No: Project: 23 (p. 1 of 1) %-#200LLMATERIAL DESCRIPTION RECIN. 03/2011 01-DHR-060 1 2 3 4 5 6 SAMPLETYPE FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS 20-14448 Fox Street Improvements; Orono, MN PL AE T _ C O R P 2 0 - 1 4 4 4 8 . G P J A E T + C P T + W E L L . G D T 7 / 1 9 / 1 6 5.5" Bituminous pavement FILL, mostly silty sand, a little gravel and clayey sand, brown (A-2-4) FILL, mostly silty sand, a little gravel, light brown (A-2-4) SILTY SAND, fine grained, light brown, moist, medium dense, lenses and laminations of silt (SM) (A-2-4) END OF BORING 11 10 19 FILL COARSE ALLUVIUM M M M 8 14 14 SS SS SS SAMPLEDDEPTH0-4½' 91C None4.5 DRILLINGFLUID LEVEL 6.0 DEPTH:WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTSDRILLING METHOD NOTE: REFER TO THE ATTACHED SHEETS FOR AN EXPLANATION OF TERMINOLOGY ON THIS LOG CASINGDEPTH WATERLEVEL LG: BORINGCOMPLETED: SG 6/22/16 CAVE-INDEPTH Rig: 3:16 Surface Elevation DR: 5.8 TIME 6/22/16 3.25" HSA DATE CD Log of Boring No. DEN AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. MC SUBSURFACE BORING LOG GEOLOGYDEPTHINFEET WCN AET No: Project: 24 (p. 1 of 1) %-#200LLMATERIAL DESCRIPTION RECIN. 03/2011 01-DHR-060 1 2 3 4 5 6 SAMPLETYPE FIELD & LABORATORY TESTS 20-14448 Fox Street Improvements; Orono, MN PL AE T _ C O R P 2 0 - 1 4 4 4 8 . G P J A E T + C P T + W E L L . G D T 7 / 1 9 / 1 6 Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Review Fox Street Improvements, Orono, Minnesota AMERICAN July 29, 2016 ENGINEERING Report No. 20-14448 TESTING, INC. Appendix B Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use Appendix B Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use Report No. 20-14448 Appendix B – Page 1 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC B.1 REFERENCE This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks relating to subsurface problems which are caused by construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. This information was developed and provided by ASFE1, of which, we are a member firm. B.2 RISK MANAGEMENT INFORMATION B.2.1 Geotechnical Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one, not even you, should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. B.2.2 Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. B.2.3 A Geotechnical Engineering Report is Based on A Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typically factors include: the client’s goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: not prepared for you, not prepared for your project, not prepared for the specific site explored, or completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: the function of the proposed structure, as when it’s changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, composition of the design team, or project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes, even minor ones, and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. B.2.4 Subsurface Conditions Can Change A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. 1 ASFE, 8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: 301/565-2733: www.asfe.org Appendix B Geotechnical Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use Report No. 20-14448 Appendix B – Page 2 of 2 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC B.2.5 Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional Opinions Site exploration identified subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. B.2.6 A Report’s Recommendations Are Not Final Do not over rely on the construction recommendations included in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report’s recommendations if that engineer does not perform construction observation. B.2.7 A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to Misinterpretation Other design team members’ misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geotechnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team’s plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. B.2.8 Do Not Redraw the Engineer’s Logs Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognizes that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. B.2.9 Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In the letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report’s accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. B.2.10 Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their report. Sometimes labeled “limitations” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers’ responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. B.2.11 Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenvironmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoenvironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk management guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 8, 2016 ITEM NO: 7 ______________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Adam Edwards JML Public Works Director/ Title Public Works Director/City Engineer City Engineer’s Report ____________________________________________________________________________________ Item Description: Watertown Road and Stubbs Bay Road Rehabilitation – Pay Request No. 2 ____________________________________________________________________________________ List of Exhibits A- Recommendation Letter from Bolton & Menk B- Contractor’s Pay Request No. 2 1. Purpose. Gain Council authorization for Pay Request No. 2 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 60% 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 $ 92,081.88 $0 $ 7964.00 $ 100,045.88 To Date $ 302,020.08 $0 $ 43,777.68 $ 345,797.76 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to approve Pay Request No. 2 to Valley Paving in the amount of $ 100,045.88 for the Watertown Road Phase 2 Rehabilitation project. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 8, 2016 ITEM NO: 8 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Adam T. Edwards, P.E. JML Public Works Director/ Title Public Works Director City Engineer’s Report Item Description: 2016 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project Award List of Exhibits A- Project Area Map B- Bid Tabulation Sheet C- Construction Management Proposal, Bolton and Menk 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to award the 2016 Sanitary Sewer Project. 2. Background. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) provides sanitary sewer treatment for the majority of communities (including Orono) in the metropolitan area. Since 2005, MCES has identified Orono as one of the communities who contribute excessive Inflow and Infiltration (I & I) to MCES’s system and assessed a surcharge fee ($121,827 for 2016) against the city. This charge can be offset by any I & I improvement projects the city undertakes. The City has been executing a sanitary sewer rehabilitation project annually to reduce I & I. Council approved the project and Bolton & Menk’s project engineering fees in December 2015. Bids were opened on August 2nd, 2016. 3. Project Scope. The sanitary sewer rehabilitation project will consist of Cured in Place Pipe (CIPP) lining approximately 6091 feet of aged sanitary sewer pipe and sealing 31 manholes (Exhibit A). 3. Cost. The lowest acceptable bid was for $215,177.90 from Insituform. (Exhibit B) Who Work Cost Remarks Bolton &Menk Engineering and Design NTE $ 7900.00 Previously Approved Insituform CIPP and Manhole Lining $ 215,177.90 Bolton &Menk Construction Management NTE $ 17,900.00 TOTAL $ 240,977.90 4. Funding. This project will be funded through the Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund. Fund Project Total CIP Amount Estimated Fund Balance EOY 2016 Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund $240,977.90 $257,500.00 $1,777,524 5. Timing. Project is to be completed by the end of year 2016. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to award the sanitary sewer improvements contract to Insituform for $215,177.90 and approve the Bolton & Menk Construction Management Proposal for a fee not to exceed $17,900.00. 4909 4913 4908 4901 3398 3366 1355 1335 1315 34703490144814441440 1436 1432 35103520 3530 3540 3470 3480 3490 3498 3400 710 4700 4680 4640 4580 4520 485 493 493 525 543 559 567 577 583 601 605 4100 4030 615594 584 584 601 507 4111 4105 4075 499 525 550 537 4085 4081 4055 580 650 680 700 706 710 740 750 760 770 780 645 790 650 680 649 659 669 679 699 709 719 630 800 607 941 960 4160970 4195 4175 4155 835 830 850 860 870 880 940 950 980 996 4080 4070 4060 4040 4030 975993 800 830 860 890 805 815 825 835 855 875 895 4265 920 915 945 9654210 4250 4225 4215 4205 865 860 875 1005 1015 1027 1045 998 1000 401540254035 102910251001 1145 1155 1067 1055 1045 1015 1101 1137 1161 1179 1180 1151 1179 10341030 1065 1199 1169 1140 1160 1121 1135 1125 1180 1185 1153 990 1000 1003 995 1155 1375 1375 4044 4040 4044 3990 605 635 665 4940 705 805 695 4920 4945 4885 870 4925 855 1055 1035 117511554830 1105 4880 4890 490049104920 4930 4900 4875 4860 4801 4845486548854901 48254831 4815 4821 500 550520 755 650 678 670 680 684 690 692 700 712 666 640 630 645 722 720 724 740 746 750 760 770 774 780 835 855 875 495 555 575 880 865 815 3400 3295 3345 3350 3320 520 540 560 500 405 660 4760 3410 3420 3440 3442 3450 3444 3450 3448 3458 3460 3460 1610 3705 1620 1640 3805 1635 38653895392539953905 1635 3845 38253855 13761374 13681368 13691367 1361 1388 1390 1400 1254 1254 1295 1375 1365 1331 1359 1300 1350 1360 1345 1210 1304 1290 1355 1220 1230 1377 1264 1376 1310 1300 1325 1345 1399 1422 1442 1462 1405 1415 1415 1423 1435 14471453 4300 4330 1350 1340 1380 1360 1379 4340 4380 1375 4198 1530 4205 4209 4215 4201 4203 4199 4199 1496 4240 4210 4200 4415 4395 1535 1555 1448 4315 4365 4345 4005 4009 4017 4075 4079 40914099 41014105 4109 414941564167 4175 4195 4190 4182 4174 4166 4150 4148 4140 4132 4109 4175 4191 4140 4056 4000 1505 1493 1477 1461 1453 1437 1421 4051 4041 1535 4125 4064 4104 4116 4108 4196 4040 980 970 960 1000 990 1065 1075 1085 1105 1200 1180 1160 1140 1120 1080 1040 1020 1030 1145 1185 1205 1060 1070 801 825 847 930 900 850 925 935 955 975 985 960 875 895 915 997 999 1001 4505 4455 1003 820 840 900 950 4625 4665 4701 4735 990 1068 1070 1100 1120 1130 4760 4765 1180 1150 1140 4740 4730 4720 1030 4445 1186 1080 4460 4450 4440 1146 1085 1045 1035 1025 4455 4465 4470 1090 4480 1131 1134 1006 1074 4415 1170 1160 4475 4445 4455 4465 4485 449545154535 4496 4480 4470 4448 1270 1347 1337 1320 4545 1336 1340 1342 1348 1350 1298 4510 4500 1299 1355 1214 1200 1261 4460 1297 1340 4725 4735 4736 4745 4749 4751 4753 4739 4731 4725 4731 4745 4753 4755 4775 4795 4615 4625 4629 4635 1310 1360 1365 1375 1373 1350 4640 1220 1240 4690 4680 13151325 1345 4685 4755 4705 4695 1366 1371 1354 4620 4655 1410 1400 1406 1398 1390 1386 1380 1385 1374 1405 4423 4425 4435 1395 1205 1225 1295 1280 1216 1205 1245 1285 1205 1265 1295 1310 1301 1305 1305 1317 1370 1305 3980 1180 1190 1058 1066 1074 1082 1090 1098 1130 1140 1160 1170 1135 1127 1119 1045 1035 1038 1122 1200 1040 1056 1015 1025 1035 140013961392 1384 1376 1340 1385 1240 1250 1260 1270 1300 1310 1318 1360 1370 1390 1375 1380 1330 1280 3820 38263838 3860 1400 1430 1450 1470 3928 3926 3908 1415 1435 1445 1475 3907 1520 1545 38333833384338603883 3898 3820 1525 1535 1535 1545 395039703980 1570 1560 1550 1540 1530 1520 1510 1510 1410 3884 38983925 3883 3852 3825 3855 3860 3645 3635 3625 3619 3605 1424 1420 1416 1412 1408 1404 3570 3580 3818 3655 3669 3675 3683 3685 3550 3587 1428 3818 3590 3768 3324 333233503366 3366 3342 1220 N O R T H A R M D R WEST BRANCH RD WIL D H U R S T T R T O N K A V I E W L A PAR K D R Ox f o r d R d CHERRY AVE ELM ST FO R E S T A R M S L A DAHL RD P A R K L A O A K S T VI N E P L PA R T E N W O O D R D RES T BAL D U R P A R K R D HIGHW O O D R D LINDEN LA MI N N I E A V E E L M W O O D A V E MA P L E P L REST P O I N T L A GA R D E N C T CH E R R Y P L BIRC H L A PA R K A V E T O N K A V I E W C T M I N N E T O N K A H G L D L A REST P O I N T C I R OR C H A R D B E A C H P L ELMWOOD AVE NO R T H S H O R E D R S P R U C E P L FOREST LAKE DR PARTENWOOD LA F O R E S T L A K E L A N D I N G WIN D J A M M E R L A T O N K A W A R D A R M D R N O R T H NORTH SHORE DR N O R T H A R M D R NO R T H S H O R E D R LO M A L I N D A A V E LOM A L I N D A AV E NO R T H A R M D R LOMA LINDA AVE LO M A L I N D A AV E POIN T RD FA I R V I E W CO T T A G E L A HIG H W O O D LA OVERVIEW© Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2016, All Rights Reserved CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA 2016 SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FIGURE 1 H:\ORNO\C13111229\CAD\C3D\Sheets\111229_CIPP.dwg 7/15/2016 9:13 AM FEETSCALE HORZ. 400 8000 2638 SHADOW LANE, SUITE 200 - CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 Phone: (952)-448-8838 Email: Chaska@bolton-menk.com www.bolton-menk.com #-# LEGEND CIPP SPOT LINER MH REHAB MH NUMBER EX MH EX SEWER EX FORCEMAIN SEE FIGURE 2 ALTERNATE PIPE REHAB AREA SEE FIGURE 3 A SEE FIGURE 3 B SEE FIGURE 3 E SEE FIGURE 3 D SEE FIGURE 3 C 415 417 418 6-3 7-5 7-4 6-6 5-5 5-6 457 454 452 458 438 439 440 338 170 12-1 398 397 396 403 395 394 393 392 391 390 427 426 425 420 424 422 428 384 383 382 381 380 387 386 377 376 412 411 414 413 410 409 LS 17 407 372 371370 369 367 358 359 360 361 362 363 348 347 LS 14 355 356 466 172 404 388 MANHOLE REHABILITATION MH NO.Joint(s)Doghouse(s)Misc Floor 420 2 X 388 1 X 372 2 X X 407 2 X LS 17 X 338 2 X 170 1 X X 440 2 X 439 2 X X 438 X 454 2 X X 452 2 X X 457 2 X 458 1 X 466 1 X X 6-3 3 X 7-5 2 X 7-4 2 12-1 1 X 178 1 X X 960 4160970 4195 4175 4155 980 996 4080 4070 4060 4040 4030 975993 9654210 4225 4215 4205 1005 1015 1027 1045 998 1000 40254035 102910251001 1145 1155 1067 1055 1045 1015 1101 1137 1161 1179 1180 1151 1179 1030 1065 1199 1169 1140 1160 1121 1135 1125 1180 1185 1153 990 1000 1003 995 1155 1375 1375 4044 4040 4044 855 1055 1035 117511554830 1105 4880 4890 4900 4910 4920 4930 4935 4900 4875 4860 4801 4845486548854901 4925 4967 48254831 4815 4821 1374 13681368 13691367 1361 1388 1390 1400 1254 1375 1365 1331 1359 1300 1350 1360 1345 1304 1290 1355 1377 1264 1376 1310 1300 1325 1345 1399 1422 1442 1462 1405 1415 1415 1423 1435 14471453 4300 4330 1350 1340 1380 1360 1379 4340 4380 1375 4198 1530 4205 4209 4215 4203 1496 4240 4210 4200 4415 4395 1535 1555 1448 4315 4365 4345 4109 4175 4191 4140 4056 4000 1505 1493 1477 1461 1453 1437 1421 1535 4064 4196 4040 997 999 10011003 4735 990 1068 1070 1100 1120 1130 4760 4765 1180 1150 1140 4740 4730 4720 1030 4445 1186 1080 4460 4450 4440 1146 1085 1045 1035 1025 4455 4465 4470 1090 4480 1131 1134 1006 1074 4415 1170 1160 4475 4445 4455 4465 4485 449545154535 4496 4480 4470 4448 1270 1347 1337 1320 4545 1336 1340 1342 1348 1350 1298 4510 4500 1299 1355 1214 1200 1261 4460 1297 1340 4725 4735 4736 4745 4749 4751 4753 4739 4731 4725 4731 4745 4753 4755 4775 4795 4615 4625 4629 4635 1310 1360 1365 1375 1373 1350 4640 1220 1240 4690 4680 13151325 1345 4685 4755 4705 4695 1366 1371 1354 4620 4655 1410 1400 1406 1398 1390 1386 1380 1385 1374 1405 4423 4425 4435 1205 1225 1295 1280 1216 1205 1245 1285 1205 1265 1295 1310 1301 1305 1305 1317 1370 N O R T H A R M D R WIL D H U R S T T R T O N K A V I E W L A PAR K D R DAHL RD VI N E P L RES T LINDEN LA E L M W O O D A V E REST P O I N T L A GA R D E N C T T O N K A V I E W C T REST P O I N T C I R OR C H A R D B E A C H P L ELMWOOD AVE FOREST LAKE DR F O R E S T L A K E L A N D I N G A R M D R N O R T H NO R T H S H O R E D R LO M A L I N D A AV E N O R T H A R M D R LOMA LINDA AVE POIN T RD FA I R V I E W CO T T A G E L A HIG H W O O D LA CIPP & SPOT LINER© Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2016, All Rights Reserved CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA 2016 SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FIGURE 2 H:\ORNO\C13111229\CAD\C3D\Sheets\111229_CIPP.dwg 7/15/2016 9:13 AM FEETSCALE HORZ. 200 4000 2638 SHADOW LANE, SUITE 200 - CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 Phone: (952)-448-8838 Email: Chaska@bolton-menk.com www.bolton-menk.com #-# LEGEND CIPP SPOT LINER MH REHAB MH NUMBER EX MH EX SEWER EX FORCEMAIN CONFIRM WITH ENGINEER IF LINING IS REQUIRED ALTERNATE PIPE REHAB AREA 398 397 396 395 394 393 392 391 390 427 426 428 403 404 424 420 422 388 386 387 376 377 414 413 LS 17 407 415 417 418 384 383 382 381 380 372 371 370 369 367 363 362 358 359 360 361 348 347 355 356 LS 14 790 800 835 830 850 WIN D J A M M E R L A 780 855 875 825 847 925 875 PA R T E N W O O D R D PARTENWOOD LA T O N K A W A R D 10291025 1145 1155 10341030 1140 1160 1180 1185 1000 13761374 13681368 1369 1367 1254 1254 1295 1210 1290 1220 1230 1377 1453 1437 1421 1395 1205 1225 1295 1280 1370 1305 1180 1190 1058 1066 1074 1082 1090 1098 1130 1140 1160 1170 1135 1127 1119 1045 1035 1038 1122 1200 1040 1056 1385 1240 1250 1260 1270 1300 1310 1318 1360 1370 1390 1375 1380 1330 1280 1400 1430 1450 1415 1435 1445 1410 CH E R R Y P L S P R U C E P L LO M A L I N D A A V E LO M A L I N D A AV E N O R T H A R M D R LOMA LINDA AVE LO M A L I N D A AV E 4155 4080 4040 4030 40254035 1055 1045 1015 DAHL RD A R M D R N O R T H 4044 4040 4044 3990 38653895392539953905 3845 4005 4009 4017 4075 4079 4091 4099 4056 4000 1505 1493 1477 4051 4041 4064 4104 4040 3820 3826 3838 3860 3928 3926 3908 3907 1520 1545 38333833384338603883 3898 3820 1525 1535 1535 1545 395039703980 1570 1560 1550 1540 1530 1520 1510 1510 3884 38983925 3883 3852 3825 3855 3860 CHERRY A V E HIGHW O O D R D MI N N I E A V E MA P L E P L NO R T H S H O R E D R NORTH SHORE DR N O R T H A R M D R MANHOLE REHAB© Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2016, All Rights Reserved CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA 2016 SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FIGURE 3 H:\ORNO\C13111229\CAD\C3D\Sheets\111229_CIPP.dwg 7/15/2016 9:13 AM 2638 SHADOW LANE, SUITE 200 - CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 Phone: (952)-448-8838 Email: Chaska@bolton-menk.com www.bolton-menk.com #-# LEGEND CIPP SPOT LINER MH REHAB MH NUMBER EX MH EX SEWER EX FORCEMAIN EA B C D 12-1 6-6 7-4 7-5 170 172338 454 457 466 452 438 439 440 5-5 5-6 CITY OF ORONO 2016 SEWER IMPROVEMENTS BID DATE: AUGUST 2, 2016 - 2:00 PM INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES $190,317.30 $215,177.90 MICHELS $267,568.00 $299,739.00 LAMETTI & SONS $297,171.00 $330,763.00 VISU-SEWER $338,998.50 $392,662.50 TOTAL BASE BID + ALTERNATE BIDCONTRACTOR TOTAL BASE BID H:\ORNO\C13111229\6_Plans-Specs\B_Bid Tabulation\111229 Bid Tab.xls 1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: August 8, 2016 Item No. 9 Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Melanie Curtis mcc JML Planning Title: Planner Item Description: Phillips Woodland Terrace – Phillips Drive Ownership Consent Application Summary: The residents of Phillips Woodland Terrace desire to transfer ownership of the private Phillips Drive from the original developer (Mrs. Phillips Revocable Trust) to the residents of Phillips Woodland Terrace. To do so, the City must consent as the drive provides access to property within Orono. Phillips Drive is located in both Medina and Orono. This transfer occurs via an amendment to the current Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Maintenance Agreement for a Private Road (aka Declaration and Agreement) by the attached Amendment (Exhibit B). The amendment avoids the need for similar, individual housekeeping transfers in the future whenever a lot is sold. An amendment of the existing Declaration and Agreement requires approval by Orono and Medina as there are existing underlying easements benefitting both cities. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Council should authorize the Mayor to sign the Consent letter attached as Exhibit A. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Draft City of Orono Consent Letter Exhibit B. Amended and Restated Declaration and Agreement Exhibit C. Original Declaration Doc #5135659 1 [THIS DECLARATION RESTRICTS THE SALE AND TRANSFER OF EACH OF THE PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED HEREIN.] FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR A PRIVATE ROAD THIS FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR A PRIVATE ROAD (this “Amended Declaration”), dated effective August __, 2016, is an amendment to and complete restatement of that certain Declaration Of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions And Maintenance Agreement For A Private Road dated May 1, 1986 and recorded in the office of the Hennepin County Recorder on July 29, 1986 as Document Number No. 5135659 (the “Original Declaration”). WHEREAS, the persons named below are the current Owners (as defined below) of the Residence Lots (as also defined below) listed after their names: Jessica M. Swearingen and Lance L. Swearingen Lot 1, Block 1, Phillips Woodland Terrace, Hennepin County Edward J. Dau and Michelle S. Dau Lot 2, Block 1, Phillips Woodland Terrace, Hennepin County Dwight T. Seward. Jr. Revocable Trust, dated December 6, 2004, as amended, Dwight T. Seward, Jr., Trustee Lot 5, Block 1, Phillips Woodland Terrace, Hennepin County Mitchell N. Palmer and Jennifer A. Palmer Lot 6, Block 1, Phillips Woodland Terrace, Hennepin County 2 Alan C. Crain and Linda J. Crain Lot 7, Block 1, Phillips Woodland Terrace, Hennepin County Jil L. Lundell Family Trust, dated May 14, 2008, Steven P. Lundell, Trustee Lot 8, Block 1, Phillips Woodland Terrace, Hennepin County Bruce A. Machmeier and Linda S. Machmeier Lot 9, Block 1, Phillips Woodland Terrace, Hennepin County; and WHEREAS, the Owners are also the owners as tenants in common of Outlots B and C, Phillips Woodland Terrace, Hennepin County, which Outlots constitute the Private Road (as more fully described and defined below), with an undivided 1/7 interest in the Private Road allocated to each of the seven Residence Lots (and with each of said undivided 1/7 interests sometimes hereinafter referred to as a “Road Interest”); and WHEREAS, the Original Declaration requires that any amendment to such Original Declaration be approved by Owners of at least five (5) of the Residence Lots and the cities of Medina and Orono, which approvals of the Owners are evidenced by their signatures to this Amended Declaration and which approvals by the cities of Medina and Orono are attached hereto as Exhibit A; NOW, THEREFORE, the Owners hereby declare that the Properties and the Road Interests shall be held, sold, and conveyed subject to the following easements, covenants, conditions, agreements and restrictions which are for the purpose of providing ingress to and egress from the Residence Lots to public streets over the Private Road, and which shall run with the land and be binding on all parties having any right, title or interest in the land so described, or any part thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns, and which shall inure to the benefit of each Owner thereof. ARTICLE I--DEFINITIONS 1. Owner. One or more persons or entities, holding a fee simple interest in a Residence Lot, or holding the vendee’s interest in a contract for deed on a Residence Lot, which interest has been recorded in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County. 2. Private Road. The right-of-way serving the Residence Lots for the purpose of ingress and egress and which is legally described as Outlots B and C, Phillips Woodland Terrace, including the grade, base, surface, ditches, culverts, and other elements and appurtenances which create a driving surface upon the Private Road, which is suitable for pedestrian and vehicular traffic. 3 3. Residence Lot. Each of the seven (7) lots within the Properties and approved by the cities of Medina and Orono, and which contains no more than one Dwelling Unit as defined in the Zoning Codes. 4. Properties. Lots 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, Block 1, all in Phillips Woodland Terrace, Hennepin County, Minnesota. ARTICLE II--PRIVATE ROAD RIGHTS 1. Use of Private Road. Each Residence Lot shall have the right to use the Private Road for pedestrian and vehicular ingress to and egress from said Residence Lot to the publicly dedicated right-of-way at the end of the Private Road (currently Hennepin County Road 6) (the “Permitted Road Use”). 2. Delegation of Use. An Owner may delegate the right to said Permitted Road Use to family members, tenants, guests and invitees. 3. Restrictions on Use. No Owner shall use the Private Road other than for the Permitted Road Use or otherwise as permitted by this Article II. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, no Owner shall obstruct or interfere with the right or privileges of the other Owners in the Private Road nor shall any Owner alter, construct, remove or obstruct the Private Road. Upon any violation of this section, any Owner shall have the right to restore the Private Road to its prior condition and cause the costs thereof to be assessed against the Owner violating this section. The costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred by any Owner in protecting vested rights by an action at law or in equity against another Owner shall be recoverable in said action. 4. Restrictions on Transfer. The Road Interest allocated to each Residence Lot shall be appurtenant to and a part of said Residence Lot. Any transfer of any fee title interest in any Residence Lot or any contract for deed vendee’s interest in any Residence Lot shall transfer with it the Road Interest appurtenant to such Residence Lot. No Residence Lot may be transferred separately from the Road Interest appurtenant to such Residence Lot, and no Road Interest appurtenant to any Residence Lot may be transferred separately from such Residence Lot. ARTICLE III--COVENANTS FOR MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR 1. Maintenance and Repair. The Owners hereby agree to maintain and repair the Private Road and acknowledge that the Cities of Medina and Orono have no obligation to construct, reconstruct, maintain and repair the said Private Road, and that the Cities of Medina and Orono do not intend to acquire or open said Private Road as a public roadway. 2. Payment of Costs. The Owners hereby assume and agree to pay an equal share, for each Residence Lot, of the costs of maintenance and repair of the Private Road and of all real estate taxes assessed against the Private Road. Such maintenance and repair shall be equal to or better than the standards set forth in the Specifications For Private Roads adopted by the City Councils of the Cities of Medina and Orono and as may be required from time to time by the ordinances of the Cities of Medina and Orono for Private Roads. 4 3. Lien and Obligation for Assessments. The Owner of each Residence Lot hereby covenants, and each Owner of each Residence Lot by acceptance of a deed therefor, whether or not it shall be so expressed in such deed or other conveyance, is deemed to covenant and agree to pay assessments established by the Owners with respect to each Residence Lot, together with interest, court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees required for collection thereof, which assessment shall be a charge on that Residence Lot and shall be a continuing lien upon that Residence Lot. Each assessment, as described above, shall also be the personal obligation of the Owner of the said Residence Lot when the assessment fell due. The personal obligation for delinquent assessments shall not pass to an Owner’s successors in title unless expressly assumed by such successor. Such assessments shall be for the exclusive purpose of the maintenance and repair of the Private Road and for the payment of all real estate taxes assessed against the Private Road. 4. Payment of Costs. Each Owner’s share of such assessments shall be due and payable thirty (30) days after notice thereof by the person or entity rendering an account for the costs of such maintenance and repair. The assessment shall bear interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) from the due date to the date of payment. Any Owner may bring an action, on behalf of himself and all non-defaulting Owners, to collect a defaulting Owner’s assessment which has not been paid when due, and shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees together with all necessary costs and disbursements incurred in connection therewith. 5. Approval of Plans. The plans, specifications, and the awarding of contracts for the maintenance and repair of the Private Road shall be approved in writing by the Owners of no less than three (3) of the Residence Lots. No Owner may be exempt from the assessment by waiving the use or enjoyment of the Private Road or by abandonment of said Owner’s Residence Lot or Road Interest. Plans and specifications for maintenance and repair shall be in accordance with Specifications for Private Roads approved by the Cities of Medina and Orono. 6. Drainage Tile Maintenance and Repair. Owners of Lots 1, 2, and 3 will be responsible to maintain and repair that portion of the underground drainage tile that intersects their properties. ARTICLE IV--RIGHTS OF THE CITIES OF MEDINA AND ORONO 1. Right of Repair. In the event that the Owners fail to maintain and repair the Private Road in accordance with the standards provided herein, it is agreed by all Owners that the Cities of Medina and Orono may, at their discretion and option, undertake the maintenance and repair of the Private Road and that any such action taken by the Cities of Medina and Orono will not result in the establishment of a public roadway. The Owners further covenant and agree that the costs incurred under this paragraph shall be divided among and paid by the Owners in accordance with the formula set out in Paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of the preceding Article III. In the event that any Owner shall default in such payment, the Cities of Medina and Orono may, at its option, assess the said costs against the appropriate Residence Lot, and certify said assessment to the County Auditor and collect the same in a single payment as in the case of special assessments for Public Improvements. 2. Conveyance of Easements. The Owners hereby convey to the Cities of Medina and Orono, an easement for ingress, egress, maintenance and repair over the Private Road to perform 5 police calls, fire calls, rescue and other emergency calls, inspection, animal control, street maintenance and repair, street construction and reconstruction, snow removal, provisions for adequate surface drainage, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water mains, and other utilities, weed control, Dutch elm control, installation of cable television, or other public services deemed necessary by the City Council. The cost of any such work performed pursuant to this section shall be assessed against the Residence Lots pursuant to Paragraph 1 of this Article IV. The Cities of Medina and Orono do not undertake to perform any of the work outlined in this paragraph but reserve the option to so perform. ARTICLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 1. Subordination of the Lien to Mortgages. The lien of any assessment provided for herein shall be subordinate to the lien of any first mortgage. 2. Restrictions on the Number of Users. No more than seven (7) Residence Lots may be served by the Private Road, and Building Permits will be issued for no more than seven (7) Dwelling Units using the Private Road. 3. Duration. The covenants, conditions and restrictions of this Amended Declaration shall run with the land and shall be binding on all persons claiming ownership thereunder unless an instrument signed by the Owners of not less than five (5) of the Residence Lots, and approved by the Cities of Medina and Orono agreeing to change said Covenants, conditions and restrictions, in whole or in part, have been recorded. Amendments to this Amended Declaration also require the approval of five (5) of the Owners and the Cities of Medina and Orono. 4. Original Declaration. Upon its execution and filing, this Amended Declaration shall be deemed to amend, restate and replace the Original Declaration. As required by the Original Declaration, this Amended Declaration has been approved by at least five (5) of the Owners, as evidenced by the signatures at the end of this document, and has been approved by the cities of Medina and Orono, written consents from which are attached as Exhibit A to this Amended Declaration. [Remainder of this page intentionally left blank. Signature pages to follow.] 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amended Declaration effective the day and year first written above. OWNERS: ________________________________________________ BRUCE A. MACHMEIER ________________________________________________ LINDA S. MACHMEIER STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Signed, sworn to, and acknowledged before me by Bruce A. Machmeier and Linda S. Machmeier, spouses married to each other, this _____ day of August, 2016. _____________________________ Notary Public 7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amended Declaration effective the day and year first written above. OWNER: Dwight T. Seward. Jr. Revocable Trust, dated December 6, 2004, as amended DWIGHT T. SEWARD, JR., Trustee STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Signed, sworn to, and acknowledged before me by Dwight T. Seward, Jr., as Trustee of the Dwight T. Seward. Jr. Revocable Trust, dated December 6, 2004, as amended, this _____ day of August, 2016. _____________________________ Notary Public 8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amended Declaration effective the day and year first written above. OWNER: Jil L. Lundell Family Trust, dated May 14, 2008 By STEVEN P. LUNDELL, Trustee STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Signed, sworn to, and acknowledged before me by Steven P. Lundell, as Trustee of the Jil L. Lundell Family Trust, dated May 14, 2008, this _____ day of August, 2016. _____________________________ Notary Public 9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amended Declaration effective the day and year first written above. OWNERS: ________________________________________________ EDWARD J. DAU ________________________________________________ MICHELLE S. DAU STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Signed, sworn to, and acknowledged before me by Edward J. Dau and Michelle S. Dau, spouses married to each other, this _____ day of August, 2016. _____________________________ Notary Public 10 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amended Declaration effective the day and year first written above. OWNERS: ________________________________________________ ALAN C. CRAIN ________________________________________________ LINDA J. CRAIN STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Signed, sworn to, and acknowledged before me by Alan C. Crain and Linda J. Crain, spouses married to each other, this _____ day of August, 2016. _____________________________ Notary Public 11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amended Declaration effective the day and year first written above. OWNERS: ________________________________________________ JESSICA M. SWEARINGEN ________________________________________________ LANCE L. SWEARINGEN STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Signed, sworn to, and acknowledged before me by Jessica M. Swearingen and Lance L. Swearingen, spouses married to each other, this _____ day of August, 2016. _____________________________ Notary Public 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amended Declaration effective the day and year first written above. OWNERS: ________________________________________________ MITCHELL N. PALMER ________________________________________________ JENNIFER A. PALMER STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Signed, sworn to, and acknowledged before me by Mitchell N. Palmer and Jennifer A. Palmer, spouses married to each other, this _____ day of August, 2016. _____________________________ Notary Public 13 Exhibit A Consents of Cities of Medina and Orono Date Application Received: 05/18/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 06/24/16 60-Day Review Period Expires: 08/23/16 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: August 8, 2016 Item No. 10 Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Melanie Curtis mcc JML Planning Title: Planner Item Description: #16-3839, Revision LLC, o/b/o Sharon Olson-Nesbitt, 865 Ferndale Rd W – Variances Application Summary: The applicant is requesting variances in order to construct a 24’ x 24’ attached garage addition to the north side (street side) of the existing home. Other improvements include a reconfiguration of the driveway. The variances include a lake setback variance to permit the addition to be set back 71 feet from the lake; a side yard setback variance to permit a 10.2 foot setback where a 30 foot setback is required and 17.6 exists; and a Tier 1 hardcover variance to permit 34.6% total site hardcover where 34.7% exists and 25% is permitted. The 0-75’ zone hardcover will be reduced from 3,626 square feet of existing hardcover to 3,244 square feet; a 382 square foot decrease. Planning Commission Recommendation On July 18, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the application including the evidence submitted. Following the public hearing the Commission voted 6 to 0 on a motion to approve the application as requested. 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. Plans Exhibit B. Draft Resolution Exhibit C. PC Action Notice Exhibit D. Draft PC Minutes Exhibit E. Revised 0-75 Zone Hardcover Worksheets Exhibit F. PC Staff Report Exhibit G. 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: #16-3839 DATE OF NOTICE: 19 July 2016 TO: Revision LLC Attn: John Daly 153 East Lake St Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES via email: John Daly Sharon Olson-Nesbitt TYPE OF REQUEST: Variances DATE OF MEETING: 18 July 2016 The Orono Planning Commission voted on a motion to recommend approval of the variances as requested. VOTE: 6 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant’s next meeting is tentatively scheduled as: Monday, August 8th 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 Melanie Curtis at mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us or 952.249.4627. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July18, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 2. #16-3839 REVISION, LLC, ON BEHALF OF SHARON OLSON-NESBITT, 865 FERNDALE ROAD WEST, VARIANCES, 6:33 P.M. – 6:43 P.M. Sharon Olson-Nesbitt, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting variances in order to construct a 24’ x 24’ attached garage addition on the north side of the existing home. The original home on the property was constructed in approximately 1938, predating the City’s current setback requirements. Due to the proximity of the home to the lake and the east side property line, setback variances are requested. The existing home is situated as close as 20 feet to the lake. Expanding the addition over the existing garage over the driveway will encroach as close as 10.2 feet to the side lot line. The home is situated at an angle with the views oriented toward the lake. Currently it is as close as 10.6 feet from the east property line. Hardcover variances are being requested to permit a slight reduction from 34.73 percent to 34.64 percent. The new garage will be constructed primarily over existing driveway hardcover. There will be some new structural hardcover both within and outside the 0-75 foot zone. The proposed addition has a 7’ x 24’ portion within the 75-foot setback area. Approximately 15 square feet would be considered new hardcover in an area that is currently pervious. The applicant is proposing to remove and replace the driveway on the property into a more functional configuration. Staff finds the variance to encroach within the 75-foot setback to be minimal. The proposed side setback variance is also reasonable considering the orientation of the home and the resulting 10-foot side setback which allows for adequate open space between the garage and the home to the east. Staff suggests that reductions could be made to the proposed driveway in conjunction with other mitigating measures to encourage stormwater infiltration. Curtis stated a practical difficulties analysis was provided in the staff report and Staff can go over that criteria if the Planning Commission would like. The Planning Commission may consider the following motion alternatives: MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July18, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Approval of the hardcover, lake setback, and side setback variances as requested; or 2. Approval of the lake setback and side setback variances. Approval of hardcover variances resulting in a specified net reduction in hardcover and/or in conjunction with stormwater management BMPs implemented on site; or 3. Denial of the variances as requested. Lemke asked if the neighbor to the east was notified. Lemke noted they live in a different city. Curtis stated they have been notified. Curtis noted since their primary address is in a different city, that is the reason why it is not listed. Sharon Olson-Nesbitt, Applicant, stated she has resided in the property since November of 2011 and since then she has become engaged. Nesbitt stated the existing garage is too small for a pickup truck, which makes it difficult in the winter to plow the driveway. Nesbitt indicated the garage can fit two little cars but it is impossible to put two full-sized vehicles in the garage. Nesbitt stated she plans to live there for a long time and that she would like to make the property more usable. Acting Chair Lemke opened the public hearing at 6:40 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Acting Chair Lemke closed the public hearing at 6:40 p.m. Schoenzeit stated it seems to be a good spot for the garage and is a reasonable request. Schwingler questioned if further stormwater management improvements could be made or whether a further reduction in hardcover is possible. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July18, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Schoenzeit noted BMPs are nice to have but are not officially recognized. Curtis stated the Planning Commission can require them but that the owner would not receive hardcover credit for them. Leskinen stated not having the looped driveway could perhaps reduce some of the hardcover. Leskinen asked if the center part of the loop is green space. Curtis indicated it is. Leskinen stated it would probably be a wash then. Schwingler moved, McGrann seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3839, Revision, LLC, on behalf of Sharon Olson-Nesbitt, 865 Ferndale Road West, granting of hardcover, lake setback, and side setback variances per Staff recommendation. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Date Application Received: 05/18/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 06/24/16 60-Day Review Period Expires: 08/23/16 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Jessica Loftus, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 13 July 2016 Subject: #16-3839, Revision LLC, o/b/o Sharon Olson-Nesbitt, 865 Ferndale Rd W Variances Public Hearing List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Proposed Survey/Site Plan Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. Renderings Exhibit F. Site Photos Exhibit G. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit H. Aerial Photos Exhibit I. Property Owners List Exhibit J. Map Background According to Hennepin County’s records the home on the property was constructed in approximately 1938, predating today’s setback requirements. The applicant is proposing to construct a 24’ x 24’ attached garage on the north side of the home; the existing 18’ x 21’ tuck under garage space will remain. Due to proximity of the existing home to the lake and the east side property line, setback variances are necessary. Additionally, hardcover variances are also requested to permit 34.64% where 34.73% currently exists. As part of the project, the applicant is proposing to completely remove the existing blacktop driveway; a new reconfigured driveway will be installed resulting in an approximate 255 square foot reduction of driveway hardcover. The new garage will be constructed primarily over existing driveway hardcover; there will be some new structural hardcover (both in and out Application Summary: The applicant is requesting the following variances in order to construct an attached garage addition to the north side of the existing home: 1. Lake setback variance; 2. Side yard setback variance; 3. Tier 1 hardcover variance, including 0-75’ hardcover. Staff Recommendation: See page 6. FILE #16-3839 13 July 2016 Page 2 of 6 of the 0-75’ zone) within the garage footprint where landscaping currently exists. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-305 & 78-1279 - Setbacks: LR-1A Required Existing Proposed Rear/Street 50’ 154’ house 135’ new garage East Side 30’ 17.6’ house 10.2’ new garage West Side 30’ 1’ house No change Lakeshore 75’ 20’ house ±71’ new garage Average Lakeshore Most of the existing home meets the average lakeshore setback. The new garage addition will be conforming with respect to the average lakeshore setback. Section 78-305 - Lot Area/Width: LR-1A Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres) 200’ Actual 21,790 s.f. (0.5 acre) ±102’@ 75’ / ±102’ @ OHWL Section 78-1403- Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 21,790 s.f. (0.5 acre) Allowed: 3,268.5 s.f. (15%) Existing: 2,085 s.f. (9.5%) Proposed: 2,651 s.f. (12%) Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations: The entire house and lakeside stone patio are within the 0-75’ zone, accounting for at least 2,571 square feet (11%) of the site’s hardcover. However, the hardcover calculations do not provide a specific breakdown of the hardcover square footages within the 0-75’ zone. The applicant should provide the revised hardcover calculations prior to placement on the City Council’s agenda for consideration. Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 1 21,790 s.f. 5,447.5 s.f. (25 %) 7,567 s.f. (34.73%) 7,554 s.f. (34.67%) Applicable Regulations: Side Setback Variance (Section 78-305) A 30 foot side setback is required for principal structures. The applicant is proposing to construct an addition expanding the existing garage over the driveway to encroach as close as 10.2 feet to the side lot line. The home on the property is situated at an angle oriented toward the lake; and FILE #16-3839 13 July 2016 Page 3 of 6 is as close as 17.6 feet from the east property line. Because of the orientation, continuing the east line of the house to extend the garage results in an even greater encroachment into the already nonconforming property line setback. The property is situated on the eastern limit of the City on Ferndale Road West. The neighbor to the east is within the City of Wayzata; Wayzata’s side setback requirement for their R-1 district is 20 feet. The home on the property to the east (692 Ferndale Road W) is approximately 120 feet from the side lot line. Lake Setback Variance (Section 78-1279) The existing home is situated as close as 20 feet from the lake. Although the proposed addition is on the street side of the home, it is still within the 75 foot setback. Hardcover Variance (Sections 78-1680 & 78-1700) At 34.73%, the existing conditions on the Tier 1 property exceed the permitted 25%. Approximately 11% of the site’s existing hardcover consist of the house and lakeside patio and is within the 75-foot setback; another 15% is attributed to the approximate 160 foot long driveway. The applicant is proposing to remove and replace the driveway in a different, more functional configuration. The proposed addition has a 7’ x 24’ portion within the 75-foot setback area, approximately 15 square feet of which would be considered new hardcover in an area that is currently pervious. The remainder of the proposed garage addition will be constructed over existing driveway hardcover. 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 lakeshore setback variance is minimal and generally consistent with the intent of the ordinance. The 75-foot lake setback and 0-75 foot zone hardcover variance requested to permit the garage addition result in no net increase in hardcover for the property, and are in harmony with the ordinance which serves to limit hardcover surfaces within 75-feet of the lake. FILE #16-3839 13 July 2016 Page 4 of 6 However, the hardcover variance to permit the addition in conjunction with the reconstruction of the driveway may not be in keeping with the goals of the ordinance; the driveway hardcover could be minimized to reduce overall hardcover. The proposed side setback variance is reasonable considering the orientation of the home and the resulting 10 foot setback. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The requested variances are consistent 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 construction of the garage addition to the home is reasonable residential property. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The location of the home on the property 20 feet from the OHWL and less than 30 feet from the side lot line is an existing condition which predates the current regulations as well as the current owner, and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The garage addition will be screened from views from the lake by the house, will be keeping with the style of the historic home, and will allow for sufficient interior storage of vehicles and residential property maintenance equipment. 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 existing home on the property has been remodeled through the years, yet predates the current zoning regulations regarding setbacks, etc. and most of the homes on adjacent properties. 5. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The home and stone patio is situated right up to the lake. The neighboring home to the west is situated at a similar setback to the lake and in a similar orientation; the home on the property to the east is over 120 feet from the subject home and is oriented toward the lake in the opposite direction. The proposal does not appear to be out of character with the area. 6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. This statement is true. 7. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. The proposed garage addition 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. There is no other feasible way to add addition space on to the existing garage as the house is angled toward the property line. 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. FILE #16-3839 13 July 2016 Page 5 of 6 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 the requested variance to encroach into the 75-foot lakeshore setback is minimal; the applicant is unable to construct any additions to the home without variances from the lake setback. Although the requested hardcover variances within the 0-75 foot zone and on the Tier 1 property as a whole result in no net increase in hardcover for the property, staff would encourage the applicant to further limit the proposed hardcover. The distance between Ferndale Road and the home necessitate a specific minimal length of driveway however the proposed driveway which includes a considerable loop may not be supported by practical difficulties. The driveway replacement does result in a reduction in driveway hardcover however this is offset by the structural addition over the driveway near the home. Staff suggests reductions could be made to the proposed driveway in conjunction with some mitigating measures to encourage infiltration – such as raingardens, permeable pavement, etc. Staff finds the proposed side setback variance is reasonable considering the orientation of the home, and the resulting 10 foot setback allowing for adequate open space between the garage and the home to the east. Engineer Comments The City engineer has conducted a cursory review of the applicant’s plan; no issues were noted. A comprehensive review will be done at the time of the building permit. Public Comments As of the drafting of this memo, no comments from the public 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 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 the impacts created by the gra nting of the requested variance s? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Commission Options for Consideration The Planning Commission may consider the following alternative motions: 1. Approval of the hardcover, lake setback, and side setback variances as requested; or 2. Approval of the lake setback and side setback variances. Approval of hardcover variances resulting in a specified net reduction in hardcover and/or in conjunction with stormwater management BMPs implemented on site; or 3. Denial of the variances as requested. FILE #16-3839 13 July 2016 Page 6 of 6 Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends option #2 above; the Planning Commission should make a determination as to the appropriateness of the amount of overall site hardcover reduction and BMPs. The applicant should be required to provide updated hardcover calculations reflecting the breakdown of 0-75’ hardcover for the property prior to placement on the City Council’s agenda for consideration. Date Application Received: 6/21/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 7/6/16 60-Day Review Period Expires: 9/4/16 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: August 8, 2016 Item No.: 11 ______________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Michael P. Gaffron JML Planning Dept. Title: Senior Planner ______________________________________________________________________________ Item Description: #16-3845, Tim & Julie Druk - 1240 Arbor Street – Variances ______________________________________________________________________________ Zoning District: RR-1B, One Family Rural Residential, 2.0 acres/200’ Lot Area/ Width: 16,796 s.f. (0.39 acre), 100’ wide at 30’ front setback line List of Exhibits A - Resolution B – Notice of PC Action 7/22/16 C – Draft PC Minutes of 7/18/16 D – Planning Commission Memo and Exhibits dated 7/13/16 Application Summary: The applicants are requesting variances for lot area and lot width as well as side yard, side street, and front yard setback variances in order to construct a new single family residence on this vacant property. Please review the attached Planning Commission memo, exhibits and draft minutes. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission reviewed this application and held a public hearing at its July 18 meeting, and voted 6-0 on a motion to recommend approval of the area, width, setback and structural coverage variances. It was noted that the front setback as proposed is consistent with the neighborhood and allows for a reasonably sized back yard. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the area, width and setback variances as proposed. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt or amend the attached resolution entitled A Resolution Granting Variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-420 for Property Located at 1240 Arbor Street - File No. 16-3845. Date Application Received: 6/23/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 6/23/16 60-Day Review Period Expires: 8/22/16 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: August 8, 2016 Item No.: 12 ______________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Michael P. Gaffron JML Planning Dept. Title: Senior Planner ______________________________________________________________________________ Item Description: #16-3846, Gregg Katchmark, 140 Leaf Street – Variances ______________________________________________________________________________ Zoning District: RR-1B, One Family Rural Residential, 2.0 acre/200’ Lot Area/ Width: 26,867 s.f. (0.62 acre), 180’ wide at 50’ front setback line List of Exhibits A - Resolution B – Notice of PC Action 7/22/16 C – Draft PC Minutes of 7/18/16 D – Planning Commission Memo and Exhibits dated 7/13/16 Application Summary: The applicant requests a creek setback variance and a hardcover variance in order to construct a larger covered porch over an existing elevated deck within 75- feet of the OHWL of the creek which is a Protected Tributary. Overall hardcover will remain at 15.68% but approximately one fourth of that is within 75’ of the creek. 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 July 18 meeting, and voted 6-0 on a motion to recommend approval of the setback and hardcover variances. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the setback and hardcover variances as proposed. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt or amend the attached resolution entitled A Resolution Granting Variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-420, 78-1279 and 78-1680 for Property Located at 140 Leaf Street - File No. 16-3846 Date Application Received: 6/22/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 08/4/16 60-Day Review Period Expires: 10/4/16 120-Day review Period Expires 12/4/16 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 8, 2016 ITEM NO: 13 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Jeremy Barnhart JML Planning Title Community Development Director Item Description: #16-3847, Charles Cudd, LLC on behalf of DDK, LLC, 2525, 2535 & 2545 Shadywood Road, Preliminary Plat, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and Rezoning Application Summary Preliminary Plat. Charles Cudd, LLC is requesting preliminary plat, comprehensive plan amendment, and rezoning approval to subdivide three existing lots into 7 single family, detached homes. The proposed project is to be called Shadywood Villas. The 7 building sites will be served by municipal water and sanitary sewer. Access will be provided via a new public road off of Shadywood. This new road is intended to line up with a future drive serving the former Freshwater vacant lot across Shadywood. The attached, as Exhibit D staff report to the Planning Commission provides additional information; the attachments are also provided as Exhibit E. Comprehensive Plan Amendment. As proposed, the Comprehensive Plan amendment will lower the density of the served areas below 3.0 units per acre. The attached Comprehensive Plan Density analysis, attached as Exhibit G, shows this impact. A logical remedy is to adjust the prescribed density of the mixed use areas to 6 units an acre (from 4 units an acre). Development of mixed use, predominantly in the Navarre area will likely require significant capital investment and redevelopment, including a goal of more than 4 units an acre. Further, portions of the plan already suggest 6 units an acre. A comprehensive plan amendment will require 4/5 vote to move forward. Rezoning. The development is based on RPUD zoning, which allows for flexibility in design necessary to meet goals of the comprehensive plan. The chart below highlights the flexibility necessary. The only change in the chart is the FAR increased to 0.43, reflecting a 3,400 square foot home, still below the standard.??? RPUD District Minimum SFR Standard Proposed Lot Standards Flexibility Required? Minimum project size: 5 acres 2.34 acres Yes Minimum lot size: 15,000 square feet 7,800 s.f. – 61,400 s.f. (incl. wetlands) 4 of 7 lots < 15,000 s.f. Yes Minimum lot width at setback line: 90 feet 50’ min and typical/ 70 ft widest Yes Minimum lot depth: 125 feet Varies - all 150’ + No Minimum front building setback: 25 feet 20’ feet min. (25’ to Shadywood) Yes Minimum side yard setback: 10 feet Side 1: 7 feet Yes Minimum rear yard setback: Lesser of 40’ or 20% of lot depth (30 feet) Lesser of 40’ or 20% of lot depth No Maximum FAR: 0.50 .43 (assumes 3,400 sq ft single story home) No Wetland building setback: Greater of 35 feet or MCWD buffer plus 10 feet 35 feet (Lot 6) Yes Private Recreational Area: 10% of gross project area 0% proposed Yes Building height: Maximum of 30 feet (Not defined) No 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 Updated information Due to the nature of ongoing review of the application in addition to the Planning Commission’s recommendations, the applicant has revised the drawings, provided as Exhibit A and summarized here: Engineering Review: Review of the preliminary information was completed on July 21, 2016 and forwarded to the applicant. In response, staff met with the applicant to go over these comments, many of which were based on incomplete storm water planning; this information has been provided and is being reviewed. Should the Council wish to approve the preliminary plat, staff suggests a condition that all engineering comments be addressed to the satisfaction of staff and the city engineer. It was noted during the planning commission review that the proposed ponds required the removal of several significant trees. Responding to the goal of preserving as many trees as possible, the developer proposes to use pervious pavers in the driveways and reconfiguring the pond shape and locations. Adding pervious pavers reduces the hardcover as calculated by the watershed district below their review threshold, meaning their rules pertaining to rate and volume do not apply. However, because of the history of flooding in the area, in particular along Kelly Avenue, staff has evaluated the grading plan to ensure that storm-water is retained onsite and distributed at the current (predevelopment) rate and volume consistent with these rules. At the suggestion of the city engineer, modifications to the plan include directing more of the storm-water to the east, away from the Kelly Avenue wetland The use of pervious pavers is growing in practice as a means to reduce storm-water runoff. However, it does require some maintenance, and there is no obvious signal that the pervious paver system is not working. Because of those reasons, staff does not support the use of pervious pavers on private property intended to eliminate the need for storm water retention. In the proposed application, staff supports the use because the driveways will be maintained by the homeowners association, and the storm-water system has been sized to assume the driveways are impervious. Homeowners association. The developer proposes a homeowners association to maintain the driveways and grounds (the street as proposed is public). The governing documents on the homeowners association will be closely reviewed at the time of final plan. Tree removal/ retention. With the modification of the storm-water plans, it appears 14 significant trees originally thought to be removed will be retained, primarily along the southern property line. Landscaping. A landscaping plan has been prepared. Preliminary review of the plan shows a desire to retain the exiting tree line between the built area and the wetland slope, near the rear edge of the homes on lots 5, 6, and 7. The ability to retain these trees with the proposed grading will be reviewed. The developer proposes adding 48 new trees, including black hills spruce, willow, maples, and blue spruces. Small ornamentals are also proposed near the storm depression area and at the entrance monument. Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission reviewed the project at their meeting on July 18, 2016. The Planning Commission minutes are attached at Exhibit C. The Commission felt that this proposed use and development was appropriate for the area. The Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat. Included among the conditions was the Park Commission was to review the plan prior to City Council review. Due to timing, the next park commission meeting is scheduled for September, after the City Council reviews the proposal. The Council should determine if Park Commission review is necessary. It is not required by City Ordinance. Public Comment To date, the city has received a number of comments regarding the proposal. The comments range from supporting the project to suggesting the city deny the project. These letters were provided to the Planning Commission and are included in Exhibit H. While three area residents spoke at the public hearing, a number of residents were unable to attend the public hearing due to personal conflicts. Action Requested: Direct staff to prepare a resolution supporting the proposed development and incorporating the following actions, with the conditions as indicated: A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment, 1. The City should identify alternate sites for higher density development. B. Rezoning to RPUD, 1. Conditioned on the city approving the final plat. C. Preliminary plat approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Flexibility being granted for the lot area, width and setback standards of the RPUD District. Hardcover will be limited to the assigned Tier 4 level of 50% on each individual lot. The 0.50 FAR shall be adhered to on each individual lot. 2. Development shall be subject to adherence to the findings included in the Conservation Design report, including the removal of buckthorn and invasive species on the site. 3. Significant trees to be preserved to the extent possible and as shown on the landscaping plans. 4. Applicant to confirm with SHPO that that there are no archaeological sites within the property. 5. 10% private recreational space requirement will not be required. 6. Park Dedication Fees and Storm Water & Drainage Trunk Fees, as well as municipal sewer and water connection charges to be collected in full at the time of final plat approval. 7. Vacation of easements as appropriate through the site. 8. Provision of drainage and conservation easement over wetland and storm-water areas. 9. All items in the City Engineers memo dated July 21, 2016 shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the city. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Amended preliminary plat drawings a. Preliminary Plat b. Grading and Utility c. Grading and SWPPP d. Tree Preservation e. Landscaping Exhibit B. Notice of PC Action Exhibit C. Draft PC Minutes Exhibit D. PC Staff Report Exhibit E. PC Exhibits Exhibit F. City Engineers memo dated July 21, 2016 Exhibit G. Comprehensive Plan Density Analysis Exhibit H. All public comments received to date. Exhibit I. Wetland NOD Exhibit J. Revised Narrative NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4620 ZONING FILE: 16-3847 DATE OF NOTICE: August 1, 2016 TO: Rick Denman Charles Cudd Co. LLC 15050 23rd Ave No. Plymouth MN 55447 rdenman@charlescudd.com COPIES: TYPE OF REQUEST: Preliminary plat, rezoning, and comp plan amendment DATE OF MEETING: July 18, 2016 The Orono Planning Commission voted 6-0 on a motion to recommend approval of the setback and hardcover variances. VOTE : 6 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant’s next meeting is scheduled as: Monday, August 8, 2016 This is a City Council meeting. The meeting begins at 7:00 PM The Planning Commission supported the planned improvements, but had comments regarding tree preservation and stormwater management. It was noted the Commission had received a number of comments related to the tree removal and impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, the commission directed you to prepare the landscaping plan, including a plan showing the trees that are to be kept, and present that to the neighborhood for their information, prior to the Council meeting. 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 Jeremy Barnhart at jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us or 952.249.4626. Council Exhibit B MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July18, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 16 5. #16-3847 CHARLES CUDD, LLC, ON BEHALF OF DDK, LLC, 2525, 2535 AND 2545 SHADYWOOD ROAD, PRELIMINARY PLAT, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, AND REZONING, 6:59 P.M. – 8:03 P.M. Rick Denman, Charles Cudd, LLC, was present. Barnhart stated the applicant is proposing a new development called Shadywood Villas, which is a 7-lot single-family residential development on 3.67 gross acres. The parcel is located south of Shadywood Road and north of Kelly Avenue in the southeast corner of the community. Total net density for purposes of comparing the proposed project with the Comprehensive Plan is 2.129 units per acre. The development will be served by municipal water and sanitary sewer. There is a lift station on the other side of Shadywood Road and sanitary sewer runs along the south property line. A new extension will go through the new public road that is proposed and will connect with the existing sewer to feed the lift station. City water is also located on the east side of Shadywood Road and will serve all seven single- family units. Barnhart noted the project is likely the lowest density that is eligible for city water and sewer, with three units per acre being the minimum allowed by the Metropolitan Council. Three separate approvals are necessary in order for this application to move forward, and they include a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, rezoning of the property, and preliminary plat approval. Generally the City will review the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the preliminary plat first, and then at the time of final plat the property would be rezoned. The proposed development incorporates three different parcels. These three parcels are guided differently, with the two eastern lots being guided for mixed use and the western lot being guided for low density residential. The developer proposes to guide all three parcels low density residential; however, the proposed development is slightly higher in density than that classification. The proposed density represents a reduction in proposed gross density from the approved Comprehensive Plan. The area is guided at four units per acre on the east side and overall the density is guided at 10.22 units. To achieve the four units an acre envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan, attached residential units would be expected and could include townhomes or apartments/condominiums. Council Exhibit C MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July18, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 16 As it relates to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the Planning Commission should focus on the following topics: 1. The applicants propose development at a density of 3.28 units per acre rather than the 4-15 units per acre for which the eastern half of the property is guided and have requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow the lower density. a. Should the City be striving for more density or less density at this location? b. Is the single-family concept right for this area? Does it match the City’s goals in terms of housing type and density? c. Will the City benefit from a development such as this? Should the entire property be developed in this manner or should this site incorporate more than one style of houses? The subject property is considered to be a transition area between the commercial and institutional uses along Shadywood and the residential uses on Lydiard Circle/Avenue to the south and Kelly Avenue to the west. The proposed development will have little to no interaction with the adjacent residential neighborhoods as there are no vehicular connections or trails out of the property to the south, north, or west. The portion of the project adjacent to Kelly Avenue is currently a wetland and the developer is proposing no plans to impact this wetland other than mitigation of invasive plant material. A Conservation Development report has been submitted and includes a Rural Oasis Study, a Natural Resources Inventory, wetland delineations, a tree inventory, and review of existing drainage patterns. The western one-third of the project area is a Manage 3 wetland, which requires a 20-foot buffer. A 35- foot buffer setback is proposed, which is greater than the minimum required. The City will require a Conservation and Flowage Easement over the wetlands being preserved. A significant portion of the eastern half of the project area was clear cut in 2012. Remaining trees can be found along the edges of the project area and on the slope above the wetland. A number of volunteer shrubs or plants can be found in the center of the development area. The developer is proposing to preserve existing significant trees to the extent possible but a number of them will be impacted by the planned road connection. The developer should be required to submit a more detailed landscaping plan. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July18, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 16 The internal road serving the development is proposed to be public, which is in line with the provisions of the CMP Transportation Plan. The proposed road is approximately 220 feet long and ends in a cul-de- sac. Hennepin County will need to approve the location of the entrance/exit to this development; although preliminary discussions with the County indicate that they are supportive of the proposed location. The proposed road is 28 feet in paved width and will be located within a 50-foot platted corridor, thus meeting the City’s standard for a public road system. Based on the number of lots, Staff does not believe a traffic study is necessary, but the Planning Commission could require one if they deem it appropriate. No turn lanes are required or are being proposed by the developer. No accesses are being proposed onto Kelly Avenue. The proposed lots range in width from 50 to 70 feet wide, allowing for 7-foot setbacks on either side. Lots 1-4 are proposed to have 14 feet setbacks between the homes, with greater separation provided between the houses on Lots 5-7. Rear yard setbacks range in depth from 25 feet to over 280, with the average being between 25 to 87 feet. Landscaping and/or berming is proposed along the boundary of the lots. Front yard setbacks are proposed at 20 feet for Lots 1-4 and Lot 7; 58 feet for Lot 5, and 33 feet for Lot 6. No sidewalks are proposed. The 20-foot minimum provides space for cars one deep to be parked on the driveway and not encroach into the street. The applicants have submitted detailed grading and drainage plan and calculations, which the City’s consulting engineers are in the process of reviewing. A majority of the runoff will be directed to three stormwater ponding areas, two of which discharge to the wetland. That review will need to be completed prior to review by the City Council. No trails or sidewalks are being proposed in connection with this development. The CMP suggests a future trail along Shadywood. In addition, Hennepin County and Three Rivers Park District have talked about adding trails along Shadywood but plans have not progressed to the point where a particular side of the road has been picked. The Planning Commission should also consider whether RPUD is the appropriate rezoning option for this development. Staff believes RPUD is the only viable option for development of this parcel in the manner proposed by the applicants and the CMP. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July18, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 16 RPUD standards require that 10 percent of the development site be provided as a private recreation area or open space to serve the residents of the development. The wetlands, which encompass a significant portion of the development, act as open space but are not accessible for recreation purposes since the wetlands will be placed within individual lots rather than as a separate commons area. In addition to the creation of a private recreation area to serve the residents of the development, the City requires dedication of 8 percent of the land as public park or payment of the equivalent value in cash. The nearest public open space is the Lydiard Beach area located to the south of the site. The Planning Commission should consider the following in connection with the preliminary plat review: 1. Is the Commission comfortable with the level of flexibility requested, recognizing that RPUD standards require a significant level of development flexibility. Does the Commission have any concerns regarding the lot widths, setbacks, or other RPUD standards for which flexibility is required in this proposal? 2. Is the Commission comfortable moving the project forward, recognizing that the landscaping plan, engineering and storm water management plans have not been fully reviewed. 3. Should trails or sidewalks be provided to connect this neighborhood with the community at large? 4. Is it imperative that 10 percent private open space be provided by the developer? Should the Planning Commission wish to approve the applications, Staff recommends the following conditions: 1. The City should identify alternate sites for higher density development if the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is approved. 2. Rezoning to RPUD, to be formally approved at the time of final plat approval. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July18, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 16 Preliminary plat approval should be subject to the following conditions: 1. Flexibility being granted for the lot area, width and setback standards of the RPUD District. Hardcover will be limited to the assigned Tier 4 level of 50 percent on each individual lot. The 0.50 FAR shall be adhered to on each individual lot. 2. Development shall be subject to adherence to the findings included in the Conservation Design report, also subject to removal of buckthorn on the site. 3. Significant trees should be preserved to the extent possible and as shown on the landscaping plans. 4. The applicant is to confirm with SHPO that there are no archaeological sites within the property. 5. Preliminary plat is to be reviewed by the Park Commission and Fire Chief for comments and recommendations prior to Council review of the preliminary plat. 6. The 10 percent private recreational space requirement will not be enforced. 7. Park Dedication Fees and Storm Water & Drainage Trunk Fees, as well as municipal sewer and water connection charges are to be collected in full at the time of final plat approval. 8. Vacation of easements as appropriate through the site. 9. Provision of drainage and conservation easement over the wetland. Barnhart stated at this time Staff does not have a formal recommendation given the lack of a review by the engineer and the lack of a detailed landscaping plan. Barnhart noted the City did receive a number of e-mails from area residents in the past few days and that there is quite a bit of interest from the neighborhood. Barnhart stated most of the comments regard concerns about the impact to the adjacent neighbors, the trees, traffic, and things of that nature. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July18, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 16 Leskinen stated according to Exhibit N, it sounds like Hennepin County is not completely thrilled with the location of the entrance. Leskinen asked whether Staff has a preference. Barnhart indicated Staff would prefer it to be in the middle. Barnhart stated it is likely that Hennepin County forgot that they originally agreed to the proposed location and that he has reminded them that across the street is a lift station. Barnhart stated they seemed comfortable with that and that he could ask them to send a new letter if that would be helpful. Rick Denman, Charles Cudd Company, stated the most important thing he can say is that they have developed a number of neighbors over the years and that this is a smaller neighborhood development aimed at a niche market. Denman noted they have invited the neighbors, City Council, and Planning Commission members to visit some of their other similar models in Medina. Denman noted this site is a transitional area and that they are moving from larger single-family homes to smaller lots. Denman stated the other option would be to construct something that is higher density but that they believe there is a market for this product. Lemke asked if the City has not done the engineering review or whether the applicant still needs to complete that. Barnhart stated the engineering and calculations by the applicant have been received but that Staff has not had time to completely review the findings. Barnhart stated he is confident it will be completed prior to City Council review. Lemke asked if the same issue applies to the storm water management. Barnhart indicated it does. Lemke asked if the applicant will be providing a more detailed landscaping plan. Denman indicated they will be. Denman stated they have not yet determined what type of trees will be planted and in what locations. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July18, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 16 McGrann asked what the landscaping will look like from Kelly Avenue and how many trees will be removed. Denman stated there is actually quite a buffer area that will remain. From the wetland area, there will be a 35-foot buffer that cannot be touched and will remain natural. Denman indicated there are some trees located in that area. McGrann asked if there is an elevation change from the 35-foot setback to where the development would end. Barnhart indicated it is 930’ in the wetland area and the corner of the house is 941 feet, which is 11 feet between the two points. Barnhart pointed out the wetland and the buffer area on the overhead and noted the buffer area is around 933’. Schoenzeit asked if there are any improvements being proposed for the Kelly Avenue piece or whether it is merely being added for the acreage. Barnhart indicated there are some improvements that will encroach onto the Kelly Avenue piece. Barnhart pointed out the existing property lines for the parcels. Schoenzeit asked whether three homes will be built on the Kelly Avenue piece. Barnhart stated two-thirds of those homes will encroach into the Kelly Avenue piece but that it is important to note that part of the front yards and side yards will be on the Shadywood side. Schoenzeit asked if there is any benefit to calling the wetland area an outlot to show that that is a no-go zone. Barnhart stated historically the Council has asked that the wetlands be incorporated into private property and that the developer is proposing a flowage and drainage easement which would protect it from development. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July18, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 16 Schoenzeit asked if the stormwater ponds will be draining into the repaired culvert in the Kelly Avenue area. Barnhart stated the runoff would go into one of three ponds and would eventually drain into the wetlands and then offsite. Barnhart noted part of the engineering review is to ensure that the runoff will not leave the site at a rate or volume greater than what currently exists. Schoenzeit asked if Kelly Avenue and the lake is the low point. Barnhart indicated it is. Lemke requested a map depicting the trees be displayed on the overhead. Lemke stated from what he can tell, basically all of the trees would be removed. Barnhart indicated that is correct. Barnhart stated the developer has identified substantial trees, eight inches or greater, within the development area, which are depicted by the green dots. The developer has also identified that some of those trees will be removed as a result of the grading and house construction. Barnhart stated it appears that the majority of the remaining trees will be removed based on the existing plan. Lemke asked whether there will be any buffer along Kelly once those trees are gone. Denman stated the area that will not be touched has not been identified on the map and that there will be a number of trees remaining. Schoenzeit suggested the developer identify the trees that will remain as a different color so the neighbors and City Council will be able to get an idea of what will be left. Denman noted there are only about 15 or 18 trees that are not boxelder or green ash, which are not long- living trees. Denman stated they normally do not protect box elder trees or green ash and that over 80 percent of the trees are either box elder or green ash. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July18, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 of 16 Leskinen asked if area one is the setback area. Barnhart stated to his understanding it is. Leskinen noted that area cannot be touched. Barnhart stated the majority of the trees that are in the area to be removed are box elder but that those trees help create the fullness and rural character of the neighborhood. Barnhart stated he does not expect the developer replant box elder or ash trees and that they will be planting a different type of tree in that area. Barnhart noted the site was clear cut five or six years ago and is now overgrown with the volunteer type trees. Acting Chair Lemke opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. Julie Lonager, 2565 Lydiard Avenue, asked if the density can be raised later from what is being proposed now if the zoning is changed to RPUD. Barnhart stated when the City finally rezones the property, it would be based on a proposed development package, and to change that would require a modification process to amend the RPUD, which would also require a public hearing. Lonager stated there are 28 trees that are not ash or box elder and that on a previous project the Council required a 10-foot setback from the property line for tree removal but that it does not sound like that is the case in this application. Barnhart stated this developer is not proposing a 10-foot buffer to the south or north and that the future connection to the sanitary sewer will have some impact on the trees. Barnhart stated having a detailed landscape plan will help identify some of those impacts and how they can be lessened. Frank Masserano, 2560 Kelly Avenue, stated their residential property directly behind the house goes all the way to Kelly Avenue. Masserano stated he is curious if the City is only requiring seven feet from the MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July18, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 16 road to the church property line. Masserano stated they lived there when the honey oak trees were cut down, and now that they are gone, there is no reason not to go in there. Barnhart stated the proposed project shows 10 feet from the back of curb to the property line. Masserano stated that is probably a historical setback and that he would prefer the road be located on the other side of the property. Masserano stated his concern, apart from the 10-foot setback, is to preserve the trees in the 10-foot area regardless if they are box elders or ash since they provide a nice canopy. Masserano asked who the registered owner of the property is. Barnhart indicated DDK is the registered owner according to Hennepin County. Masserano asked if it would be possible to build an 8-foot cedar fence on their property. Masserano stated they would be interested in doing that to provide a little more privacy. Bob Ponzetti, 2545 Kelly, stated he lives across the street from the proposed development and that he is very much in favor of what is being proposed. Ponzetti stated everyone on Kelly would love to see nothing constructed on this site but that is not realistic. Ponzetti noted he has lived there for 22 years and that he saw what happened four or five years ago when they clear cut the site. Ponzetti stated if a commercial operation goes in there, the same thing would happen again with the trees. Ponzetti stated under this plan, Kelly Avenue appears to be minimally impacted with the exception of the trees. Ponzetti stated other than a concern that enough trees are planted or left, he cannot see anything wrong with the project as proposed. Acting Chair Lemke closed the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. Lemke noted the Commissioners have seen the e-mails that have been submitted. Lemke stated he was not present when the sketch plan was initially discussed but that it appears the developer has incorporated most of the recommendations into his plan and that the Council is in favor of going in this same direction. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July18, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11 of 16 Schoenzeit commented the City has seen a number of proposals for this site and that this recent proposal is probably the most appealing and has the least impact on Kelly Avenue. Schoenzeit stated as a recommendation going forward, he would like the developer to create a very detailed landscaping plan showing the trees that will remain and that perhaps the church could speak with the developer about perhaps picking up the cost of the fence. Schoenzeit noted the City has the opportunity to control the access point to some degree and get the proper landscaping planted. Lemke noted the Planning Commission is being asked to review a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and asked whether the Commission feels the City should be striving for more density or less density at this location. Schoenzeit commented the City talks a good game on density, but anytime someone proposes high density, the City tends to run away from it. Schoenzeit stated in his view this is a good place for mixed use but that is not the proposal before the Planning Commission. McGrann asked if subsequent changes to the CMP would need to go through a similar process. Barnhart indicated they would and that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is based upon what is before the Commission this evening. Lemke asked whether the Commission feels a single-family concept is right for this area and whether it matches the City’s goals in terms of housing type and density. Leskinen stated she would concur with Commissioner Schoenzeit’s comments and that it would be a nice spot for mixed use. Leskinen stated since that is not before the Planning Commission, the next logical use would be single-family residential. McGrann and Schwingler indicated they are in agreement. Lemke stated the next question is whether the City will benefit from a development such as this and whether the site should incorporate more than one style of housing. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July18, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 12 of 16 Schoenzeit commented the number of houses being proposed is limited. Lemke asked if there is a market for this type of house. Denman stated in their view there is a market for it and that the empty nester market is one of the more active markets at this time. Schoenzeit asked what the square footage and approximate cost would be. Denman indicated the homes would cost in the $700,000 range. Lemke asked how the Planning Commission feels about the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. McGrann indicated he is in favor of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Schoenzeit stated in his view the lower density reduces the City’s options and kicks the can further down the road. Schoenzeit stated in his view the proposal makes sense for this site if they do not take into consideration the City’s higher density goals and that it is the best one for this site that has been presented to the City in years. Lemke asked whether the Planning Commission feels RPUD zoning is an appropriate option for this development. Leskinen stated if the site is to be rezoned, the RPUD option provides the City with the highest degree of control over what happens on the property. Lemke stated in his view it is more appropriate for residential rather than commercial since it is some distance from the business district. Lemke asked if the Commission is comfortable with the level of flexibility being requested, recognizing RPUD standards requires a significant level of development flexibility. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July18, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 13 of 16 Schoenzeit stated it allows the best use of the total site, especially given the large wetland on the property. Lemke asked if the Commission is comfortable moving the project forward recognizing that the engineering, stormwater and landscaping plan have not been fully vetted. McGrann stated that is one of his concerns given the number of trees that would be removed. Schoenzeit stated in order for the next step to be taken, additional details on the landscaping are required and that it would behoove the developer to add the category of what is not being taken away in the buffer zone. Schoenzeit stated as it is shown currently, it looks as though the entire treed area is being removed. Lemke noted a detailed landscape plan is the one thing that has not been submitted by the developer. McGrann stated the tree removal will likely be an issue with the neighborhood. Olson asked if there is some way to have a stop gap measure in place to ensure that the trees are not removed without a replacement plan. Barnhart indicated the Planning Commission can comment on their concern in their motion regarding the tree removal if they are comfortable moving the application forward without the landscape plan. Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission could also recommend that the plan not be approved unless a detailed landscaping plan is submitted. Leskinen asked whether the Planning Commission will be seeing this at the time of final plat. Barnhart indicated they will not unless there are some major changes to the plan in the meantime. Denman stated they will be submitting the landscaping plan prior to the application proceeding to the City Council and that they can also provide copies to the Planning Commission for their input. McGrann asked whether the neighbors would have the opportunity to comment on the landscaping plan following this meeting. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July18, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 14 of 16 Barnhart noted this is the public hearing but that the Mayor will probably allow the residents to comment on the plan at the City Council meeting. Barnhart stated the Mayor is not obligated to hold a public hearing and that he does not want there to be the assumption that there will be a public hearing at the City Council meeting. Denman stated he would not mind sending the plan out to the neighbors and that he is not opposed to asking the Mayor to allow public comments. Barnhart noted written comments as well as the minutes are provided to the City Council prior to them reviewing the application. Olson asked whether the neighbors will receive another notice. Barnhart stated he cannot call a public hearing at the City Council level for this application and that if he sends out a notice to the neighbors, it would be considered a public hearing. Barnhart stated if the Planning Commission is uncomfortable with not seeing the final plan, the Planning Commission can table any action on the application. Denman stated he would be happy to send out the landscape plan to the residents listed on the notice list. Lemke commented that would be very helpful. Lemke asked the Commission whether trails or sidewalks should be provided to connect this neighborhood with the community at large. Barnhart stated there are no existing trails or sidewalks in this area but that there are plans to put a trail along Shadywood on the north side. Barnhart noted this development is located kind of in the middle of the block and that it may not be the best intersection for a trail. McGrann commented it probably is not necessary. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July18, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 15 of 16 Mark Gronberg, Surveyor, noted it would be difficult to fit a sidewalk in that area since the developer is proposing to build a berm and a fence for privacy. Gronberg stated a sidewalk could go in along the right-of-way on County Road 19. Barnhart stated the Council has discussed a similar situation on other recent developments and that they have required an easement but have allowed the easement to be landscaped. Barnhart noted any trail would impact the buffering and berm proposed by the developer. Lemke asked whether the Planning Commission feels it is imperative that 10 percent private open space be provided by the developer. Barnhart stated the developer could pay a park dedication fee instead of a land donation. Barnhart noted the only public space nearby is Lydiard Beach and that there would not be a connection from this property to that area. Barnhart stated if the Planning Commission does not feel the need for the land donation, they would basically be waiving that. Lemke asked whether there are any other issues or concerns with the application. Leskinen commented she is still on the fence a little bit but that she is closer to approving it versus some of the other proposals the City has seen for this property. Leskinen stated she does have a concern with removal of so many trees on the site, but that given the work that would be needed on the site, it may be difficult to preserve very many. McGrann stated he is inclined to have the application move forward with the hope that the developer will send out the plans to the neighbors prior to the City Council meeting. Olson commented the proposal is a good use of the site and that the developer is willing to work with the neighbors on the landscaping. Lemke indicated he is in agreement with the conditions recommended by Staff. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July18, 2016 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 16 of 16 Schoenzeit moved, Olson seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3847, Charles Cudd, LLC, on behalf of DDK, LLC, 2525, 2535, and 2545 Shadywood Road, granting of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, subject to Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Schoenzeit moved, McGrann seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3847, Charles Cudd, LLC, on behalf of DDK, LLC, 2525, 2535, and 2545 Shadywood Road, granting rezoning to RPUD, subject to Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Schoenzeit moved, McGrann seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3847, Charles Cudd, LLC, on behalf of DDK, LLC, 2525, 2535, and 2545 Shadywood Road, granting of preliminary plat approval, subject to a detailed landscape plan being submitted to the City prior to the City Council meeting and with the recommendation that the City Council hold a public hearing on the application. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Barnhart noted the City Council is not legally obligated to hold a public hearing and that the Planning Commission cannot require that one be held. Barnhart stated any public comments could be sent to Staff prior to the City Council meeting. Schoenzeit moved, McGrann seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3847, Charles Cudd, LLC, on behalf of DDK, LLC, 2525, 2535, and 2545 Shadywood Road, granting of preliminary plat approval, subject to a detailed landscape plan being submitted to the City prior to the City Council meeting and with the recommendation that the City Council take public comments from any interested residents in attendance at the meeting. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Date Application Received: 6/22/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: Incomplete CMP Amdmt. 60-Day Review Period Expires: 120-Day Subdivision Review Period Expires: To: Chair Thiesse, Planning Commission Members Jessica Loftus, City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: July 18, 2016 Subject: 16-3877 Rick Denman (Charles Cudd Co, LLC, for DDK, LLC Owner - 2525, 2535, and 2545 Shadywood Road - Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Preliminary Plat - Rezoning from B-4 and LR-1B to RPUD - Public Hearing Summary of Request: Applicant requests the following approvals for a proposed 7-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 3 units per acre for this property which is guided in the CMP for development at a density of 2-3 units per acre (back half) and 4-15 units per acre (front half); 2) Preliminary plat approval for a 7-lot single-family residential subdivision; and 3) Rezoning to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). Parcels Involved: PID & Address Owner of Record 20-117-23-11-0030 2525 Shadywood Rd . DDK, LLC 1560 Bluff Creek Dr., Chaska MN 55318 20-117-23-11-0028 2535 Shadywood Rd Same 20-117-23-11-0029 2545 Shadywood Rd Same Zoning and Land Use: PID & Address Existing Zoning Proposed Zoning Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use 2525 Shadywood Rd . LR-1B RPUD Low Density Residential 2-3 units per acre No change 2535 Shadywood Rd B-4 RPUD Mixed Use Low Density Residential 2-3 units per acre 2545 Shadywood Rd B-4 RPUD Mixed Use Low Density Residential 2-3 units per acre 16-3847 Page 2 Shadywood Villas July 18, 2016 Parcel Area: Gross Site Area 3.67 ac. Delineated Wetland - 1.33 ac. Proposed/MCWD-Required Wetland Buffers* - 0.211ac. Net Buildable Area 2.129 ac. *Met Council guidelines allow wetland buffers to be excluded from net developable acreage calculations. Proposed Net Density: 7 units on 2.129 buildable acres = 3.28 units per acre Proposed Area of New Public Roads 0.35 acres Proposed Area in SFR Lots (including wetlands & buffers) 3.32 acres Range in SFR Lot Areas (including wetlands & buffers) 0.18 ac. – 1.41 ac. Average SFR Lot Area (including wetlands & buffers) 0.47 ac. (20,660 s.f. + ) List of Exhibits A – Subdivision Application B – Submittal Narrative C – Preliminary Plans (3 Sheets) D – Wetland Delineation Notice of Application E – Conservation Design Executive Survey F – Representative Home Style Options - Elevation Views - House Plan Layouts G – Plat Map & Property Owners List H – Comprehensive Plan Excerpts I – RPUD District Standards J – Minutes from Sketch Plan Reviews K – Density Analysis Worksheet L – Correspondence received to date M – Tree Stand Map N – County Comments 1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 2008-2030 Community Management Plan. The proposed development incorporates 3 different parcels. These three parcels are guided differently; the two eastern lots are guided mixed use, and the western lot is guided low density residential. The developer proposes to guide all three parcels low density residential, though the proposed development is slightly higher in density than suggested by that classification (3.28 units/ acre versus 3.0 units per acre). The proposed development density represents a reduction in proposed gross density from the approved Comprehensive Plan. 4 units/ acre on the east side to 3.28 units an acre (the western lot remains the same). The actual density drops from 10.22 units planned in the guide plan to 7 units. Impacts of Plan Amendment. Met Council guidelines require an overall new sewered development density of at least 3 units per acre. The proposed project, with detached single family homes is near the lowest density where the Met Council is likely to approve sanitary sewer service. To achieve the 4 units an acre envisioned by the CMP, attached residential units would be expected 16-3847 Page 3 Shadywood Villas July 18, 2016 and could include townhomes or apartments/ condominiums. In recent conversations with Met Council staff, it has become clear that developing this specific site (and others nearby guided similarly) at densities lower than the current CMP guided densities, triggers a formal amendment of the CMP and an expectation that other developable properties be reguided for higher density to offset the decrease. An analysis of Orono’s current status as a result of the applicant’s proposal is attached as Exhibit K. The applicants presented a sketch plan to the Planning Commission in May 2016 and City Council in June for a 7 unit development at this site. It appears there is some degree of support at the Council level for the type and density of development proposed b y the applicant, while development at a higher density in the area has not gained much traction. Issues for Consideration. In reviewing the amendment, Planning Commission 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) Are there specific conditions that should be established as part of an approval of the reguiding? 2. REZONING It has been the City’s practice to formally rezone properties as part of an approved project, at the time of Final Plat. It is also recognized that the city’s zoning ordinance must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant propose to rezone the subject parcels to Residential Planned Unit Development, or RPUD. The RPUD District contains detailed development standards with regards to lot size and setbacks; building design; landscaping, screening and buffering; and trails and recreation; all of which will be addressed in the following pages. The RPUD District also offers flexibility as a planned unit development process, such that approved departures from the standards are considered as elements of the RPUD zoning rather than as variances. Note that the property does not meet the minimum size requirement of 5 acres, but does meet the location standards to be eligible for RPUD rezoning. 3. PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW 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) - see Exhibit I. 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 16-3847 Page 4 Shadywood Villas July 18, 2016 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 will require a significant departure (flexibility) from the RPUD district lot standards for individual homesites. The table below identifies specific standards which would require flexibility: RPUD District Minimum SFR Standard Proposed Lot Standards Flexibility Required? Minimum project size: 5 acres 2.34 acres Yes Minimum lot size: 15,000 square feet 7,800 s.f. – 61,400 s.f. (incl. wetlands) 4 of 7 lots < 15,000 s.f. Yes Minimum lot width at setback line: 90 feet 50’ min and typical/ 70 ft widest Yes Minimum lot depth: 125 feet Varies - all 150’ + No Minimum front building setback: 25 feet 20’ feet min. (25’ to Shadywood) Yes Minimum side yard setback: 10 feet Side 1: 7 feet Yes Minimum rear yard setback: Lesser of 40’ or 20% of lot depth (30 feet) Lesser of 40’ or 20% of lot depth No Maximum FAR: 0.50 .18 (assumes 1400 sq ft single story home) No Wetland building setback: Greater of 35 feet or MCWD buffer plus 10 feet 35 feet (Lot 6) Yes Private Recreational Area: 10% of gross project area 0% proposed Yes Building height: Maximum of 30 feet (Not defined) No 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 Relationship to Surrounding Development The subject parcel in many ways represents a transition between the commercial and institutional uses along Shadywood and the residential uses on Lydiard Circle/ Avenue to the south, and Kelly Avenue to the west. The proposed development will have little to no interaction with the adjacent residential neighborhoods as there are no vehicular connections or trails out of the property to the south, north, or west. The portion of the project adjacent to Kelly Avenue is currently a wetland, there are no plans to impact this wetland, other than mitigation of invasive plant material. Conservation Design The applicants have submitted a Conservation Development report prepared by ISG pursuant to the City’s Conservation Design ordinances. The executive summary is attached (Exhibit E), a full copy is available on the cities website. Key elements of the report include a review of the 16-3847 Page 5 Shadywood Villas July 18, 2016 Rural Oasis Study of which this site is an Edged Enclosure Corridor; Natural Resources Inventory including review of the MLCCS Land Cover Classification data, wetland delineations (to be approved by the MCWD), tree inventory, and review of existing drainage patterns. Wetlands on Site and/or Impacted The western 1/3 of the project area is a Manage 3 wetland, which requires a 20 foot buffer. There are no plans to impact this wetland other than mitigate the invasive reed canary grass. A 35’ buffer setback is proposed greater than the minimum required 20 foot = 10 foot additional buffer. The City will require a Conservation and Flowage Easement over the wetlands being preserved. Tree and/or Woodland Impacts A significant portion of the eastern half of the project area was clear cut in 2012. Remaining trees can be found along the edges of the project area, and on the slope above the wetland. Volunteer shrubs or plants can be found in the center of the development area. The developer proposes to preserve existing significant trees to the extent possible (see Tree Stand Map Inventory, Exhibit M), the best trees are generally in the NE corner of the site, to be impacted by the planned road connection. The grading plan and the tree preservation plan will need to be carefully analyzed to ensure they are compatible and consistent. Archaeological Site Proximity Staff is unaware of any archaeological sites within the property; the applicant should contact the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to confirm. Lot Layout and Lot Standards The layout of the site is dictated by a number of factors, including: - location of wetlands; - collector roadway on the east side; - the need to locate road access points in a location to benefit adjacent parcels and efficiently use the subject property The applicants have proposed a plan that takes into account these factors. The result is a site layout with one road off of Shadywood Road. No accesses are proposed onto Kelly Avenue. Staff has suggested that access control be deeded to Hennepin County and shown on the plat, to further inform the buyer of Lot 1 that no driveway will be permitted. Rear Yard Setbacks. The rear yards range in depth from 25 feet to over 280 feet, with the lots closer to existing residential ranging from 25 to 87 feet. Landscaping/berming is expected along the frontage of these lots to provide for buffering of the residences. Lot Widths and Side Yard Setbacks. The lots range in width from 50 to 70 feet wide, allowing for the house and 7 foot setbacks on either side. Lots 1-4 show 14 feet between the houses, with greater separation provided between the houses on lots 5-7. Front Setbacks. Front yard setbacks as measured from the front lot line are proposed at 20 feet (lots 1-4 and 7) and 58 and 33 for lots 5 and 6, respectively. No sidewalks are proposed. The 20 foot minimum provides space for cars (1 deep) to be parked on the driveway and not encroach into the street. 16-3847 Page 6 Shadywood Villas July 18, 2016 Lot Coverage vs. Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Zoning Code Section 78-1403 establishes the 15% Lot Coverage limit for lots less than 2 acres in area all zoning districts; it doesn’t make an exception for RPUD. However, the RPUD District does not specifically establish a ‘Lot Coverage by Structures’ limit. Instead, the RPUD standards limit individual lots to 50% hardcover and an individual lot Floor Area Ratio (FAR = gross area of all floors divided by gross lot area) of 0.5. This means a 14,000 s.f. lot is allowed 7,000 s.f. of total floor space. The proposed single level homes in a 37’ x 70 footprint (2500 sq ft) on the proposed lots would yield a range of FAR from .04 (lot 6) to 0.32 (lot 4), all meeting the 0.50 FAR limit. 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. Site Grading The development area is generally flat, with highest elevations in the northeast corner, and lowest at the wetland along Kelly Avenue. The majority of the development is proposed to occur on the eastern side of the property. Homes are proposed to be walkouts; excavation and filling will be necessary. The City Engineer’s review will need to include grading impacts to adjacent properties, and trees to be preserved. Road Layout and Standards The internal road serving the development is proposed to be public. This is in line with the provisions of the CMP Transportation Plan in Urban Transportation Policies, which states: 1. Local streets in the urban area will be owned and maintained by the City. Because the land use and street use density of the urban neighborhoods is relatively high, the City will provide public street access to all urban properties. City responsibility for proper maintenance levels will ensure passable, all-weather streets available at all times for emergency vehicles and for general public ingress and egress. The proposed road is approximately 220 feet long, terminating in a cul de sac. The County will need to approve the location of the drive, though preliminary discussions with the County support the proposed location. The preliminary plat has been forwarded to the Fire Chief for comment with regard to access for fire department vehicles, the cul de sac diameter is consistent with city ordinances. The proposed road is 28’ in paved width (back-of-curb to back-of-curb) located within a 50’ platted corridor, meeting the City’s standard for a public road system [Code Section 82-281(d)(2)]. The developer will pay all costs of road construction and utility installation/ connection. County Road Improvements and/or Easements The county has provided comments, included as Exhibit N. No turns lanes are required nor proposed. Based on the number of lots, staff does not believe a traffic study is necessary, thought the Planning Commission and Council could require one. The County requests additional right of way for a future trail and Shadywood road improvements. This additional right of way will impact the configuration of the project. Lastly, the County desires verification of adequate site distance to the left. 16-3847 Page 7 Shadywood Villas July 18, 2016 Standard perimeter drainage and utility easements around all property boundaries as well as conservation and flowage easements over the delineated wetlands will be required. A number of drainage easements are shown on the plat drawings as necessary to direct stormwater runoff . Existing easements will need to be vacated. Parks, Trails, Sidewalks As noted above, no trails or sidewalks are proposed with this development. The CMP suggests a future trail along Shadywood. Hennepin County and Three Rivers Park District have talked about adding trails along Shadywood, though plans have not progressed to suggest which side. 10% Private Recreation Area Requirement. RPUD standards require that 10% of the development site be provided as a private recreation area or open space to serve the residents of the development. The wetlands which encompass a significant portion of the development certainly act as open space, but they are not accessible for recreation purposes because the wetlands are placed within individual lots rather than as a separate commons area. The Planning Commission should discuss the need for a private recreational area. Park Dedication In addition to the creation of a private recreation area to serve the development residents, the City Code requires dedication of 8% of the land as public park, or payment of the equivalent value in cash. No Park Commission meeting is scheduled until September, after this item is expected to be reviewed by the Council, unless delayed. Assuming the City Council finds no need for a public park at this site, payment of the standard Park Dedication fee for 7 new building lots would be appropriate; the current fee ranges from a minimum of $3,250 and a maximum of $5,550 per lot, for a potential total fee of $22,750 to $38,850. The nearest public open space is the Lydiard beach area, south of the site. The Planning Commission should discuss the need for sidewalks within the development, and/ or connections to the public beach. RPUD Landscaping Requirements The proposed landscaping plans have not been received nor reviewed as to compliance with the very detailed RPUD landscaping requirements. This evaluation will proceed upon confirmation of a final site layout. The plan shows a fence along the berm on Lot 1, along Shadywood. A detail of the fence should be provided. Stormwater and Drainage Improvements & Fees Applicants have submitted detailed grading and drainage plans and calculations, which the City’s consulting engineers are reviewing to ensure the City’s requirements are met. A majority of the runoff will be directed to three stormwater ponding areas, two of which discharge to the wetland. 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 4.0 units per acre or less) of $7,275 per acre (2016 Fee Schedule), based on non-wetland acreage, for an estimated Trunk Fee of 2.34 acres x $7,275/acre = $17,024.00. The grading plan has not been reviewed in conjunction with the tree preservation plan to ensure that tree retention is maximized. Utility Locations/Availability/Assessments/Connection Fees 16-3847 Page 8 Shadywood Villas July 18, 2016 A gravity sanitary sewer line runs along the south property line, feeding a lift station on the north side of Shadywood Road. Water is available, also on the north side of Shadywood Road. It appears that Sewer and Water connection charges have already been paid, though each unit will pay individual SAC charges at the time of building permit. City Engineer Comments The city engineer is currently reviewing the development plans and comments will be incorporated into the final preliminary platy. Style and Appearance of Proposed Homes The applicants have provided conceptual depictions of elevation views and floor plans for the proposed homes. Planning Commission should review these (Exhibit F) and determine whether there are any concerns. Public Comment To date staff has received written comments on the project, attached in Exhibit L. The developer also plans an open house with the neighborhood on Saturday, July 16th. Staff will not attend this open house. Summary of Issues for Consideration Staff suggests that the primary focus for consideration and discussion by the Planning Commission should include the following topics: Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1. Applicants propose development at a density of 3.28 units per acre rather than the 4-15 units per acre for which the eastern half of the property is guided, and have requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow the lower density. - Should the City be striving for more density or less density at this location? - Is the single-family concept right for this area? Does it match the City’s goals in terms of housing type and density? - Will the City benefit from a development, such as this? Should the entire property be developed in this manner, or should this site incorporate more than one style of houses? In general, the responses to these questions during prior reviews has been that the proposed development density is acceptable. If that is the case today, a Planning Commission recommendation for approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is appropriate. Rezoning from B-4 and LR-1A to RPUD 2. Planning Commission should consider whether RPUD is the appropriate rezoning option for this development. Staff believes RPUD is the only viable option for development of this parcel in the manner proposed by the applicants and the CMP. Preliminary Plat Review 3. Is the Commission comfortable with the level of flexibility requested, recognizing that 16-3847 Page 9 Shadywood Villas July 18, 2016 RPUD standards requires a significant level of development flexibility. Does Planning Commission have any concerns about the lot widths, setbacks or other RPUD standards for which flexibility is required in this proposal? 4. Is the Commission comfortable moving the project forward, recognizing that the landscaping plan, engineering and storm-water management plans have not been fully vetted. 5. Should trails or sidewalks be provided to connect this neighborhood with the community at large? 6. Is it imperative that 10% private open space be provided by the developer? 7. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation This development proposal exhibits a significant level of refinement as a result of the developer’s response to issues raised during the Sketch Plan Review process and primary Staff comments. Discussion of the above topics and any conclusions reached by the Planning Commission should provide applicant and staff with direction as to whether or how the proposed plat should be further revised. Any remaining topics left unaddressed to date should be brought up for discussion. The Planning Commission may recommend approval or denial of the three actions requested or any combination thereof. If denial is recommended, reasons should be given. The Planning Commission may also choose to table the application, allowing the developer and staff to address any issues raised. Should the Commission wish to approve the applications, the following conditions are suggested: Comprehensive Plan Amendment, with the direction that that the City should identify alternate sites for higher density development. Rezoning to RPUD, to be formally approved at the time of final plat approval. Preliminary plat approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Flexibility being granted for the lot area, width and setback standards of the RPUD District. Hardcover will be limited to the assigned Tier 4 level of 50% on each individual lot. The 0.50 FAR shall be adhered to on each individual lot. 2. Development shall be subject to adherence to the findings included in the Conservation Design report, also subject to removal of buckthorn on the site. 3. Significant trees to be preserved to the extent possible and as shown on the landscaping plans. 4. Applicant to confirm with SHPO that that there are no archaeological sites within the property. 5. Preliminary plat to be reviewed by Park Commission and Fire Chief for comments and recommendations prior to Council review of preliminary plat. 16-3847 Page 10 Shadywood Villas July 18, 2016 6. 10% private recreational space requirement will not be enforced. 7. Park Dedication Fees and Storm Water & Drainage Trunk Fees, as well as municipal sewer and water connection charges, all as noted in staff memo, to be collected in full at the time of final plat approval. 8. Vacation of easements as appropriate through the site 9. Provision of drainage and conservation easement over wetland. Page 1 Sec. 78-626. - Development standards. Within the RPUD district all development shall be in compliance with the following: (1) Minimum area; shoreland district limitation. Each site proposed for rezoning to RPUD shall have a minimum area of five acres, excluding areas within a designated wetland, floodplain or shoreland district or right-of-way, unless the council finds the existence of one of the following: a. Unusual physical features of the property itself or of the surrounding neighborhood such that development as a RPUD will conserve a physical or topographic feature of importance to the neighborhood or community. b. The property is directly adjacent to or across a public street from property which has been developed previously as a RPUD or planned residential development and will be perceived as and will function as an extension of that previously approved development. c. The property is located in an area where the proposed development provides a transition between a commercial or industrial area and an existing residential area or on an intermediate or principal arterial as defined in the comprehensive plan. d. The property contains steep slopes or a substantial number of significant trees that could be preserved through the clustering of buildings or other design techniques not generally allowed by the existing zoning district. No property located within 250 feet of the ordinary high water level (OHWL) of a protected lake or tributary as defined in article IX of this chapter shall be rezoned to RPUD. However, for a property that is partially located less than 250 feet from the OHWL and partially located more than 250 feet from the OHWL, the portion located more than 250 feet from the OHWL may be rezoned to RPUD at the discretion of the city council when all other requirements are met. (2) Uses. Each property rezoned to RPUD shall only be used for the use or uses for which the site is designated in the comprehensive plan, except that the city may permit rezoning to RPUD on a site designated for commercial use if the city council finds that such use is in the best interests of the city and is consistent with the requirements of this division. If a commercial site is to be rezoned to RPUD, the city may forward a copy of the request to the metropolit an council for review. (3) Sewer availability. A site proposed to be rezoned to RPUD with proposed density greater than one unit per two acres must be in the metropolitan urban services area (MUSA) and must be serviced by municipal sewer. (4) Density. Each development in the RPUD district shall have a density within the range specified in the comprehensive plan for the specific site. If the site is not designated in the comprehensive plan for residential use, the appropriate density shall be determined by the city based upon the city council's finding that such density is consistent with the intent of this division and of the comprehensive plan. Developments with proposed densities in excess of the densities contemplated in the comprehensive plan shall be allowed only on properties which are currently zoned and guided for commercial use, in order to maintain the character and integrity of the areas zoned and guided for residential use. (5) Incentives. The city may utilize incentives to encourage the constr uction of projects which are consistent with the city's housing goals. Incentives may include modification of density (only for properties currently zoned and guided for commercial use) and floor area ratio requirements for developments providing lifecycle housing and affordable and moderate cost housing. Incentives for affordable and moderate cost housing may be approved by the city only after the developer and city have entered into an agreement to ensure that the low and moderate cost units remain available to persons of low and moderate income for at least 20 years. (6) Floor area ratio. Floor area ratios (FARs) shall be limited per the following table: PC Exhibit I 16-3847 Page 2 Comprehensive Plan Designation Maximum Floor Area Ratio* Low or medium density residential (up to 50 and including 6.0 units per acre) 0.5 High density residential (in excess of 6.0 units per acre) 1.0 *FAR = Total Building Floor Area/Total Lot Area Individual lots within a development in the RPUD district may exceed these standards as long as the average meets these standards. (7) Development standards for attached and multifamily dwelling structures. Each site rezoned to RPUD and developed for attached or multiple-family dwelling uses shall be subject to the following standards: a. Setbacks and separation of uses. Within the RPUD district the setback for all attached and multifamily dwelling buildings and their accessory buildings from any bordering or abutting street line shall be 35 feet for local streets and 50 feet from railroad lines or col lector or arterial streets, as designated in the comprehensive plan, except that in no case shall the setback be less than the height of the building. The setback for all buildings from exterior RPUD site lot lines not abutting a public street shall be 35 feet, except that in no case shall the setback be less than the height of the building. Building setbacks from internal public streets shall be determined by the city based on characteristics of the specific RPUD site. Parking lots and driving lanes shall be set back at least 20 feet from all exterior lot lines of a RPUD site. The setback for parking structures, including decks and ramps, shall be 35 feet from local streets and 50 feet from all other street classifications, except that in no case shall the setback be less than the height of the structure. Parking structure setbacks from external lot lines shall be 50 feet or the height of the structure, whichever is greater, when adjacent to residential properties; 35 feet, when adjacent to nonresidential pr operties. Parking structure setbacks from internal public or private streets shall be determined by the city based on characteristics of the specific RPUD site. Where industrial uses abut developed or platted single-family lots outside the RPUD site, greater exterior building and parking setbacks may be required in order to provide effective screening. The city council shall make a determination regarding the adequacy of screening proposed by the applicant. Screening may include the use of natural topography or earth berming, existing and proposed plantings and other features, such as roadways and wetlands, which provide separation of uses. Property rezoned to RPUD shall be considered a residential district for purposes of determining building and parking setback requirements on adjacent high density residential, commercial and industrial property outside the RPUD. b. Height limitations. For properties guided for residential use in the comprehensive plan, a building height limit of 30 feet shall apply. For properties currently zoned or guided in the comprehensive plan for commercial use, height may exceed 30 feet but shall not exceed three stories (not including underground parking level) and shall maintain a residential character by incorporating pitched or hipped roof structure. No mansard or flat roofed multiple-family building will be allowed. Page 3 c. Outside storage limitations. Building materials, recreational vehicles, boats, RV's, snowmobiles, and other items of personal property shall not be stored outside within any site used for attached or multifamily uses. (8) Development standards for single-family detached dwellings in the RPUD district. Each RPUD site developed for single-family detached dwellings at medium density (i.e., densities ranging from one unit per acre to six units per acre) shall be subject to the following standards: a. Permitted locations: in areas of the city where smaller single-family detached dwelling lots will allow for clustering to preserve significant natural features, or in areas where a mixture of higher density attached dwellings and lower density detached single -family dwellings will result in a development that does not exceed the overall guided density. b. Minimum SFR lot size: 15,000 square feet. c. Minimum lot width at the setback line: 90 feet. d. Minimum lot depth: 125 feet. e. Minimum front yard setback: 25 feet on internal streets within the RPUD site. On exterior or through streets a setback of 35 feet must be provided on local streets and a 50-foot setback on collector or arterial streets, as defined in the comprehensive plan. f. Minimum side yard setback: ten feet along interior lot lines; 15 feet on lot lines along the exterior of the RPUD site. Side yards abutting streets must meet the minimum front yard setbacks as noted in subsection (8)e of this section. Structures in side yards abutting another residential zoning district shall meet the side yard setback requirement of the adjacent zoning district. g. Rear yard setback: minimum of 40 feet or 20 percent of the depth of the lot, whichever is less. h. Building height: maximum of 30 feet. i. 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. j. All dwellings shall have a permanent foundation in conformance with the state building code. k. Accessory structures shall conform to the setbacks established for principal structures, except as follows: 1. All accessory structures located more than ten feet from a principal structure may be located a minimum of ten feet from a rear or side lot line when that line does no t abut a street right-of-way. 2. No accessory structure shall be located closer to the front lot line than the principal structure, regardless of the principal structure setback. l. No accessory structure shall occupy more than 30 percent of the side or rear yard in which it is located, nor exceed 1,000 square feet in area, nor exceed 12 feet in height. m. Off-street parking shall be provided for at least two vehicles for each single -family dwelling. A suitable location for a garage measuring at least 20 feet by 24 feet without a variance shall be provided and indicated as such on a survey or site plan to be submitted when applying for a building permit to construct a new dwelling or alter an existing garage. (9) More than one building allowed. More than one building may be placed on one platted or recorded lot in a RPUD site. (10) Single housing type permitted. Any RPUD development which involves a single housing type shall be permitted, provided that it is otherwise consistent with the objectives of th is division and the comprehensive plan. Page 4 (11) Private recreational area. Each RPUD development shall provide a minimum of ten percent of the gross project area in private recreational uses for project residents. Such area shall be for active or passive recreational uses suited to the needs of the residents of the project, including swimming pools, trails, nature areas, picnic areas, tot lots and saunas. Private recreational area requirements are in addition to the standard park dedication requirements. (12) Ownership. All property to be included within a RPUD development shall be under unified ownership or control, or subject to such legal restrictions or covenants as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the approved master development plan and final site and building plan. (13) Signage. Signs shall be restricted to those which are permitted in a sign plan approved by the city and shall be regulated by permanent covenants. (14) Landscaping, screening and buffering. a. Landscape plan requirements. Landscape plans shall be prepared by a landscape architect or other qualified person acceptable to the city, drawn to the scale of not less than one inch equals 50 feet and shall show the following: 1. Boundary lines of the property with accurate dimensions; 2. Locations of existing and proposed buildings, parking lots, roads, trails and other improvements; 3. Proposed grading plan with two-foot contour intervals; 4. Location, approximate size and common name of existing trees and shrubs; 5. A planting schedule containing symbols, quantities, common and botanical names, size of plant materials, root condition and special planting instructions; 6. Planting details illustrating proposed locations of all new plant material; 7. Locations and details of other landscape features, including berms, fences and planter boxes; 8. Details of restoration of disturbed areas, including areas to be sodded and seeded; 9. Location and details of irrigation systems; and 10. Details and cross sections of all required screening. b. Minimum landscaping requirements. 1. All open areas of a lot which are not used or improved for required parking areas, drives, trails or storage shall be landscaped with a combination of deciduous and coniferous species, including overstory trees, understory trees, shrubs, flowers and groundcover materials. The plan for landscaping shall include ground cover, bushes, shrubbery, trees, sculpture, foundations, decorative walks or other similar site design features or materials in a quantity having a minimum value in conformance with the following table: Minimum Tree and Shrub Requirements Vegetation Type Size Quantity Overstory deciduous trees 2.5-inch bb (Caliper) One tree per 1,000 gross square feet of building footprint area or one tree per 40 lineal feet of site perimeter, whichever is greater. Page 5 Coniferous trees 6-foot height bb Minimum of 30 percent of required overstory trees must be coniferous Understory shrubs 3-gal. potted or 18-inch One shrub per 300 gross square feet of building footprint area or one shrub per 30 lineal feet of site perimeter, whichever is greater. Ornamental deciduous trees 1.5-inch bb (Caliper) Not required; but two ornamental deciduous trees may be substituted for one required overstory deciduous tree (maximum substitution equals 25 percent of required overstory deciduous trees) Credits for existing trees: The city council shall have sole discretion whether credit shall be granted for existing healthy trees In instances where healthy plant materials of acceptable species exist on a site prior to its development, the application of the standards in subsection (14)b of this section may be adjusted by the city to allow credit for such material, provided that such adjustment is consistent with the intent of this division. 2. A reasonable attempt shall be made to preserve as many existing trees as is practicable and to incorporate them into the site plan. 3. All new overstory trees shall be balled and burlapped or moved from the growing site by tree spade. Deciduous trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2½ inches. Coniferous trees shall be a minimum of six feet in height. Ornamental trees shall have a minimum caliper of 1½ inches. 4. All site areas not covered by buildings, sidewalks, parking lots, driveways, trails, patios, or similar hardcover shall be covered with sod or an equivalent ground cover approved by the city. This requirement shall not apply to site areas retained in a natural state. 5. In order to provide for adequate maintenance of landscaped areas, an underground sprinkler system shall be provided as part of each new development, except one- and two-family dwellings and additions to existing structures which do not at least equal the floor area of the existing structure. A sprinkler system shall be provided for all landscaped areas, except areas to be preserved in a natural state. 6. Not more than 50 percent of the required number of trees shall be composed of one species. The city shall maintain a list of prohibited species, which shall not be used for landscaping. c. Interior parking lot landscaping. 1. All parking lots containing over 100 stalls shall be designed to incorporate unpaved, landscaped islands in number and dimension as required by the city. All landscape islands shall contain a minimum of 180 square feet. Islands whi ch are necessary to promote the safe and efficient flow of traffic shall not be subject to the 100-stall standard and shall be required by the city when warranted. 2. Parking lot landscape areas, including landscape islands, shall be reasonably distributed throughout the parking lot area so as to break up expanses of paved areas. Parking lot landscape areas shall be provided with deciduous shade trees, ornamental Page 6 or evergreen trees, plus ground cover, mulch and/or shrubbery as determined appropriate by the planning commission. Parking lot landscape trees shall be provided at the rate of one tree for each 15 surface parking spaces provided, or major fraction thereof. Parking lot landscaping shall be contained in planting beds bordered by a raised concrete curb or equivalent approved by the planning commission. d. Maintenance of landscaping. The owner, tenant and their respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan, and which have died, shall be replaced within three months of notification by the city. However, the time for compliance may be extended up to nine months by the city in order to allow for seasonal or weather conditions. e. Retaining walls. Retaining walls exceeding four feet in height, and staged walls which cumulatively exceed 16 feet in height or involve more than four tiers, must be constructed in accordance with plans prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect. f. Landscaping performance security required. When screening, landscaping or other similar improvements to property are required by this division, a letter of credit shall be supplied by the owner in an amount equal to at least 1½ times the value of such screening, landscaping or other improvements. The letter of credit shall be conditioned upon reimbursement of all expenses incurred by the city for engineering, legal, contracting or other fees in connection with making or completing such improvements. The letter of credit shall be provided prior to the issuance of any building permit and shall be valid for a period of time equal to two full growing seasons after the date of installation of the landscaping. The city may accept some other form of security in lieu of a letter of credit in an amount and under such conditions that the city may determine to be appropriate. If construction of the project is not completed within the time prescribed by building permits and other approvals, the city may, at its option, complete the work required at the expense of the owner and the surety. The city may allow an extended period of time for completion of all landscaping, if the delay is due to conditions which are reasonably beyond the control of the developer. Extensions, which may not exceed nine months, may be granted due to seasonal or weather conditions. When an extension is granted, the city shall require such additional security as it deems appropriate. g. Screening and buffering. 1. The following uses shall be screened or buffered in accordance with the requirements of this section: i. Principal buildings and structures and any building or structure accessory thereto used for residential uses at a density of greater than four units per acre shall be buffered from residential lots located in any R district. ii. Off-street parking facilities containing six or more spaces shall be buffered from streets located within 50 feet. Parking facilities shall be buffered with landscape zones. iii. Loading docks shall be screened from all lot lines and public roads. iv. Trash storage facilities shall be screened from all lot lines and public roads. v. Access roads serving multifamily buildings shall be screened as necessary to eliminate the impact of vehicle headlights shining toward adjacent residential neighborhoods. 2. Required screening or buffering may be achieved with fences, walls, earth berms, hedges, or other landscape materials. All walls and fences shall be architecturally harmonious with the principal building. Earth berms shall not exceed a slope of 3:1. The screen shall be designed to employ materials which provide an effective visual barrier during all seasons. Page 7 3. All required screening or buffering shall be located on the lot occupied by the use, building, facility or structure to be screened. No screening or buffering shall be locate d on any public right-of-way or within eight feet of the traveled portion of any street or highway. 4. Screening or buffering required by subsection (14) of this section shall be of a height needed to accomplish the goals of subsection (14) of this sectio n. Screening methods incorporating roofs over storage, trash or mechanical facilities to screen from higher adjacent properties or buildings may be required. Height of plantings required under subsection (14) of this section shall be measured at the time of installation. (15) Architectural standards. a. It is not the intent of the city to restrict design freedom unduly when reviewing project architecture in connection with a site and building plan. However, it is in the best interest of the city to promote high standards of architectural design and compatibility with surrounding structures and neighborhoods. Architectural plans shall be prepared by an architect or other qualified persons acceptable to the city and shall show the following for all structure s other than single-family detached dwellings: 1. Elevations of all sides of the building. 2. Type and color of exterior building materials. 3. A typical floor plan. 4. Dimensions of all structures. 5. The location of trash and recycling containers and of heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment. b. Unadorned prestressed concrete panels, concrete block and unfinished metal shall not be permitted as exterior materials for residential principal and accessory buildings. This restriction shall appl y to all principal structures and to all accessory buildings. The city may, at its discretion, allow architecturally enhanced block or concrete panels. c. Accessory buildings shall be architecturally compatible with principal structures. d. All rooftop or ground-mounted mechanical equipment and exterior trash and recycling storage areas shall be fully enclosed or screened so as to be not visible with materials compatible with the principal structure. e. Underground utilities shall be provided for all new and substantially renovated structures (the term "substantially renovated" shall mean when the renovations exceed 30 percent of the prerenovation value of the structure). (16) Flexibility. The uniqueness of each RPUD requires that specifications and stand ards 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 th e RPUD, the surrounding area or the city as a whole. (17) Traffic studies. The city may require a traffic analysis to be prepared by a registered traffic engineer approved by the city to assess potential traffic impacts on local streets. If impacts on service levels of roadways and intersections are anticipated, the project will be approved only contingent upon a traffic management plan that adequately mitigates those impacts. The plan may include travel demand management strategies, use of transit facilit ies or other appropriate measures to reduce traffic generation, and necessary improvements to road systems. The developer shall have the responsibility to install all necessary road system improvements. Page 8 (18) Building permits. No building or other permit shall be issued for any work on property included within a proposed or approved RPUD development, nor shall any work occur unless such work is in compliance with the proposed or approved RPUD development. (19) General regulations applicability. The requirements contained in this division pertaining to general regulations for residential districts and performance standards shall apply to a RPUD development as deemed appropriate by the city. (20) Lighting standards. All RPUD developments shall be subject to the general performance standards for lighting in this chapter. (21) Trails. When any portion of the project is within 1,000 feet of a public trail system, pedestrian access shall be provided to the trail system by means of a public trail constructed at t he developer's expense. Where public rights -of-way are available, at the city's discretion the trail may utilize the public right-of-way. Trails shall be of bituminous construction, or such other material as may be approved by the city and shall be not les s than eight feet in width. (Ord. No. 202 2nd series, § 1(5), 2-26-2001; Ord. No. 94 3rd series, § 2, 9-24-2012) Page 1 of 6 Planning Commission minutes – excerpt May 16, 2016 3. #16-3827 RICK DENMAN ON BEHALF OF DDK, LLC, 2525, 2535, AND 2545 SHADYWOOD ROAD, SKETCH PLAN, 6:38 P.M. – 7:12 P.M. Rick Denman, Applicant, was present. Barnhart stated this is a sketch plan for a seven unit single-family residential development, with access provided by a new cul-de-sac off of County Road 19. The site currently consists of three lots. The proposed lots range in size from 0.16 acres to 0.39 acres. Outlot B is the cul-de-sac street, which will be eliminated, and Outlot A is shown protecting the wetland that is on the southern half of the lot facing Kelly Avenue. The property is currently zoned for business use. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this property, or at least the property adjacent to Shadywood, as mixed use, with a density range of 4-15 units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan also shows low-medium density residential along Kelly Avenue, primarily within the wetland. To allow this project, the property would need to be re-guided and rezoned. The proposed development is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s guidance for the property because the density is too low. The rezoning process would occur concurrently with preliminary plat review. The project will likely be developed as an RPUD, with several variances likely being required. The applicant is proposing single-family residential with a full basement and floor layouts are included in the Planning Commission’s packets. One of the things Staff and the applicant are looking for is feedback on the concept plan. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Rick Denman, Charles Cudd Company, indicated he would be able to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Schoenzeit asked what the price range of the homes will be. Denman indicated the homes would range between $650,000 and $750,000. Schoenzeit asked if there is a demand for this type of housing in Orono since it is not located on the lake. Schoenzeit noted there are a substantial number of homes in the same price range being built not far from this area. Denman stated they currently have a villa neighborhood that they are constructing in Medina and that he would welcome the Planning Commissioners to take a look at it. The design for this parcel is similar and is targeting the empty nester, which has a strong demand. Thiesse requested Staff discuss the Comprehensive Plan and the recommended changes to it. Barnhart stated the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is a long-range vision for the area to look for appropriate projects that fit with those goals. The property currently is zoned business. The Navarre plan identified a potential for mixed use on this site in order to meet some density goals of the City. The idea was that these areas had the potential for redevelopment, which would call for mixed use. Barnhart stated the challenge is that mixed use generally requires higher density to accommodate the expense of acquisition, clearing of the land, and the different developments. This project does not have PC Exhibit J 16-3847 Page 2 of 6 those expenses. There are currently 27 or so acres in the Navarre mixed use area identified for 10 units per acre. Barnhart stated this proposal would not be meeting the City’s goals based on the current plans but that he is comfortable the City can make up the three acres somewhere else. The question for the Planning Commission is whether this is an appropriate use for the property. Landgraver asked if the mixed use is specific to a certain portion of the site. Barnhart stated the City has identified a potential for redevelopment when it is listed as mixed use and that it could be commercial or something else. Leskinen noted a few years ago a memory care facility was discussed for this site, which was fitting for this location. Leskinen stated in her view seven homes crammed into a few acres does not meet the City’s density goals and that she is not sure about changing the zoning for this particular property given the fact that there is a church next to this property and a couple of grocery stores nearby. Leskinen noted this area also has a substantial amount of traffic. Schoenzeit asked if this project is far enough along to ask Hennepin County about the access. Barnhart stated it is not but that Staff has been meeting with them on a couple of other projects and that they have informally indicated they would not be opposed to it. Thiesse stated the guided use is greater than what is being proposed and that he would be surprised if Hennepin County would be opposed to it. Barnhart stated as this segment of Shadywood develops or redevelops, the accesses for the church, the subject property, and the former Freshwater parcels will be consolidated and coordinated, which will help to reduce the turning movements in that stretch of roadway. Hennepin County is supportive of that coordination. The proposed access also closely lines up with a future shared access for the Freshwater properties. Landgraver asked if the applicant has considered increasing the density, such as having a townhome or two. Denman stated from an economic standpoint, the risk goes up when the homes are attached. Denman stated from a marketing and financial standpoint, it is easier to construct single-family homes. Thiesse asked how the stormwater would be treated before reaching the wetland. Denman indicated there would likely be a stormwater pond in the corner but that the engineering has not been completed at this point. Thiesse asked what zoning would apply if the lots are combined. Barnhart stated as part of the process, the platting, rezoning, and Comprehensive Plan amendment would all be done at the same time. Leskinen asked if this proposal would require approval by the Metropolitan Council. Barnhart indicated it is Staff’s belief that it will. Barnhart stated the Metropolitan Council recognizes the market demands and that they just want to make sure the City provides the opportunity for higher density. Staff will be looking for other areas of the City that could be developed at a higher density. Page 3 of 6 Schoenzeit asked if there is any opportunity to include any of the neighboring property to avoid the orphaned sections. Denman stated the church is next door, with single-family residential next to that and does not connect due to the wetland. Denman stated he is not sure what property he could combine with it. Thiesse stated what he likes about this is the fact that there is residential to the south, with no entrances or exits on Kelly. Thiesse stated it seems to be a relatively good start to a compromised transition zone for this area. Schwingler indicated he is in agreement with that. Schwingler stated the issue of density has to be taken into account along with the traffic. Schwingler stated not hitting the density goal is a good thing in a way. Schwingler asked if finding the other three acres elsewhere in the City would be difficult. Barnhart stated in his view Staff would be able to find three acres elsewhere. Thiesse asked whether the applicant would like direction on any specific items. Denman stated they would like to construct a berm with fencing along County Road 19. Denman stated they do want to create a buffer zone along County Road 19 with landscaping and a fence. Leskinen asked if Charles Cudd would be the sole builder of the property. Denman stated that is their intention currently. Barnhart stated Staff would like to see some buffering to separate the living space from County Road 19. Denman stated this is a good location for the product. Denman stated if the Planning Commission has any concerns about small homes on small lots, he would encourage them to visit some of their other sites that they have developed. Denman stated on the west side of the Medina Country Club there are two model homes that are both villas that are on 55-foot lots. These are 50-foot lots but the setbacks are the same, with 14 feet between the buildings at a minimum. Thiesse noted since this is a sketch plan, a public hearing is not required. Barnhart noted the City did receive a comment that has been distributed to the Planning Commissioners. The first concern related to the wetland and the other concern related to the wildlife areas that will be impacted. At the time of preliminary plat, there will be a public hearing. Barnhart stated he expects an application in August, with the public hearing likely occurring in September. As part of that application there will be a rezoning request. Landgraver noted these units would likely not qualify for affordable housing. Landgraver asked whether the Planning Commission should discuss affordable housing. Barnhart indicated affordable housing is a goal of the Comprehensive Plan and that these homes would not be considered affordable homes. Barnhart stated if affordable housing is a goal of the Planning Commission, this would be the time to discuss that. Schoenzeit stated in his view whenever residents come to a meeting, they should have a chance to speak even if a public hearing is not required. Page 4 of 6 Thiesse asked whether anyone from the public would like to comment on this item. No public comments were received. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. Page 5 of 6 City Council minutes – excerpt June 13, 2016 10. #16-3827 RICK DENMAN/CHARLES CUDD, LLC, FOR OWNER DDK, LLC, 2525 KELLY AVENUE, 2535 AND 2545 SHADYWOOD ROAD, SKETCH PLAN Community Development Director Barnhart stated the applicant is seeking comments related to a sketch plan for a proposed subdivision of three separate parcels into seven building lots and two outlots. The project will ultimately require preliminary and final plat, Comprehensive Plan and zoning map amendments. The project includes seven single-family home sites ranging in size from 0.16 acres to 0.39 acres. Access for all lots will be via a new road off of Shadywood Road that will line up with a future access for the Freshwater parcel on the east side of Shadywood. No direct access will occur off of Kelly Avenue and the existing wetland on the lot fronting Kelly Avenue will not be impacted. The homes will be served by city water and sanitary sewer. The applicant has provided some elevation samples for a 1,400 square foot single-level home with a full basement. The layouts are tentative and are intended for discussion purposes. The developer has also provided a monument sample. The issue that Staff has is that the property is guided for mixed use/residential, with a guided density of four units per acre. The project proposes 2.99 units per acre, but the final density is expected to increase above three units when the wetland and buffer boundaries are better defined. The property is zoned B-4 Office/Professional, which does not allow residential uses. The units are proposed to be detached and are consequently lower than what is proposed in the Comprehensive Plan. The City Council should discuss whether single-family residential is appropriate on this site. Staff and the applicant are looking for direction as to the appropriateness of the proposal. Printup asked if the site is guided for mixed use. Barnhart indicated it is and that it is guided for four units per acre. Barnhart stated one of the things Staff looked at was along Shadywood. A number of comments have been received in the past about the traffic on Shadywood and that Staff and the MN Department of Transportation are attempting to look at long-term solutions to ease traffic in that area. One option is to consolidate some of the turning movements, with this parcel being one of those pieces being looked at for consolidation. Barnhart stated this application provides the City with the opportunity to combine all of those accesses into one area. The applicant has set this up so that when the Freshwater parcel develops, that access will line up and shift to the corner of that site and at some point the access to the church will be changed as well. Walsh stated a big office building will likely generate more traffic to this site. Walsh commented consolidating the accesses is a long-term vision and that he is in agreement that it is a tough area for traffic. Walsh stated hopefully the City can get that cleaned up at some point. Cornick stated it is critical to note that Staff feels that if the City goes ahead with this project, there are other areas where the City can increase the density. Page 6 of 6 Barnhart stated this represents one of the few green field areas for new growth and that those are typically the easiest to develop. Barnhart stated there are other opportunities but that they are limited, especially in the Navarre area, and that the City Council will need to discuss that component of it. Rick Denman, Charles Cudd, stated it is a unique piece of property. The site is bordered by single-family to the southeast side and is a transitional piece. Denman stated the property allows them to showcase a viable product for the site and that they have done a lot of luxury detached homes for empty nesters in other areas. Denman noted Mayor McMillan visited one of their sites in Medina and that he would invite the rest of the Council to visit it. Denman indicated they would like some feedback to see whether they should pursue this. Printup stated it makes sense overall to align the driveways. Printup noted the density issue was also raised during the Planning Commission meeting, which was good, and that he would like to hear from the neighbors. Andrew Whitehead, 2620 Kelly Avenue, stated single-family housing would be nice on this site since there is other single-family housing in the area. Whitehead stated he is assuming the pond will stay and that runoff might be their only concern since they have had water issues in the past. Whitehead stated he does not have a comment on how many houses should be on the site but that if it is too many, he is assuming there will be some complaints from the neighbors. Walsh asked what he thinks about mixed use for the site. Whitehead stated he likes the single-family and that he is not sure whether more businesses are required in that area. Whitehead stated he definitely prefers single-family housing versus an apartment building. Walsh commented he likes detached housing for this site and that from a commercial standpoint, given the location of the site, there would need to be a destination business to make it viable. Walsh stated he likes the direction the applicant is proposing from the direction of detached housing given the residential housing nearby. Whitehead stated if the homes could be nestled in that would be nice. Whitehead noted there is also a lot of wildlife in there as well. Printup noted the question regarding the size of the lots came up. Barnhart indicated the lots would range in size from 0.16 acres to 0.39 acres in size. Barnhart stated the challenge from the density question is where else the City can put higher density and that most of the areas in Navarre are established neighborhoods, which makes it difficult to increase the density on those sites or other nearby sites. Walsh commented those are good points and is something the Council needs to think about. Walsh stated when there is a good opportunity in front of the Council, they need to deal with that as well. Printup stated he likes the single-family concept as well. Cornick stated he also likes the concept. The City Council took no formal action on this item. Comprehensive Plan Density analysis Most recent development: Comprehensive Plan, Review File 20637-6 Eisinger Amendment Category Min Max Low Density (D, E)0.5 2 125.71 63 251 Table 2. Affordable Housing Table Medium Density 3 7 17.56 58 123 Land Available between 2010-2020 Med-High (A)7 10 40.27 282 403 Category Min. Dens.Acres Min. Units High Density (A, B, C)10 15 14.81 148 222 Med-High 7 40.274 282 Mixed Use (F)4 15 27.52 110 413 High Density 10 14.81 148 Plat Monitoring 2000-2014 91.67 287 TOTALS 55.084 430 317.544 948 1412 3.0 4.45 Administratively approved July, 2016 Test for Shadywood Villas Category Min Max Low Density (D, E)0.5 2 125.021 63 250 Table 2. Affordable Housing Table Medium Density 3 7 19.00 57 133 Land Available between 2010-2020 Med-High (A)7 10 40.27 282 403 Category Min. Dens.Acres Min. Units High Density (A, B, C)10 15 14.81 148 222 Med-High 7 40.274 282 Mixed Use (F)4 15 26.08 104 391 High Density 10 14.81 148 Shadywood villas 2 3 2.129 7 Plat Monitoring 2000-2014 91.67 287 TOTALS 55.084 430 318.984 948 1399 Still above 311 2.971 4.39 TOTALS Overall Density TOTALS Overall Density 2008-2030 Change Density Range Net Acres Min Units Max Units 2008-2030 Change Density Range Net Acres Min Units Max Units Council Exhibit G REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 8, 2016 ITEM NO: 14 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Jessica Loftus JML City Administrator's Report Title City Administrator Item Description: School Subcommittee At the July 25th meeting, Councilmember Walsh suggested the City could establish a subcommittee to meet regularly with the school district. This topic was also discussed at the April work session (item and minutes attached). Walsh proposes to meet as needed, at least once every 6 months, with the purpose of keeping both parties informed of each other’s plans and issues. Walsh expressed a willingness for Printup and himself to serve on this subcommittee now through the end of 2016. Subsequently, the appointment could be added to the regular annual appointments in January for 2017 members. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion directing staff on how to move forward. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: August 8, 2016 ITEM NO: 15 ______________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Ron Olson JML City Administrator’s Report Title Finance Director _____________________________________________________________________________ Item Description: Accept Donation - Livingston Park _____________________________________________________________________________ The City has received a donation from Rick Meyers in the amount of $650. The donation is for the purchase of a bench to be installed at Livingston Park. By accepting this donation the City is agreeing to install this amenity at the specified location. 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. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to adopt the attached resolution to accept the donation for Livingston Park. A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A DONATION FROM RICK MEYERS FOR USE AT LIVINGSTON PARK 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 is specifically authorized to accept gifts and bequests for the benefit of recreational services pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 471.17; and WHEREAS, Rick Meyers wishes to make a donation of $650 to the City; and WHEREAS, the donation will be used to purchase a bench for Livingston Park; and WHEREAS, The City Council finds that it is appropriate to accept the offered donation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of Orono, Minnesota that the City acknowledges and accepts the donation from Rick Meyers for purchase of the identified equipment to be installed at Livingston Park. ADOPTED this 8th day of August 2016, by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota. Approved: Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor Attested: Diane Tiegs, City Clerk REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: Aug 8, 2016 Item No. 16 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 105623 to 105694, totaling $449,427.14. Noteworthy payments include: US Bank National Assoc. $ 29,501.84 Payment to Orono Woods of the TIF funds received with the 1st half tax settlement. Valley Paving $245,751.87 Payment of RFP#1 for Watertown Road Phase 2. Payment was approved by the Council on 7/25/2016. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve payment of the claims list as presented. City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 1 Check Issue Dates: 7/26/2016 - 8/8/2016 Aug 04, 2016 08:37AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 08/08/2016 105623 309797769 101-41900-413 copier lease 7/20 to 8/20 Central Services 1,319.00 Total 105623:1,319.00 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 08/08/2016 105624 309824423 101-42110-413 pd copier lease 7/20 to 8/20 Police Department 335.40 Total 105624:335.40 ATOM 08/08/2016 105625 94437261 101-42110-437 training J. Barnes Police Department 175.00 Total 105625:175.00 BECKER, TIMOTHY 08/08/2016 105626 80316 101-22205 Escrow refund 16-3821 2,500.00 Total 105626:2,500.00 BERTELSON ONE SOURCE 08/08/2016 105627 216040-1 101-41900-201 office supplies Central Services 101.46 BERTELSON ONE SOURCE 08/08/2016 105627 32969-1 101-41900-201 office supplies Central Services 506.50 Total 105627:607.96 BIFFS INC 08/08/2016 105628 6044471 101-45200-415 Bederwood park Parks 190.00 BIFFS INC 08/08/2016 105628 604472 101-45200-415 Summit beach Parks 160.00 BIFFS INC 08/08/2016 105628 604473 101-45200-415 Hackberry Beach Parks 125.00 BIFFS INC 08/08/2016 105628 604474 101-45210-415 Golf Course Golf Course 62.79 BIFFS INC 08/08/2016 105628 604475 101-45200-415 Crystal Bay Playground Parks 92.50 BIFFS INC 08/08/2016 105628 604476 101-45200-415 Navarre Playground Parks 160.00 BIFFS INC 08/08/2016 105628 604477 101-45200-415 French Creek Park Preserve Parks 62.50 Total 105628:852.79 BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF 08/08/2016 105629 72516 101-15998 Cobra 1,361.50 Total 105629:1,361.50 BOLTON & MENK INC.08/08/2016 105630 191821 602-16500 2015 Sewer projects 1,993.50 BOLTON & MENK INC.08/08/2016 105630 191822 437-48965-304 Brown Road Trail Brown Road Trail 2,539.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.08/08/2016 105630 191823 101-43280-304 15-3716 3850 Watertown Rd Special Services 512.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.08/08/2016 105630 191824 101-43280-304 13-3626 Pine View Special Services 76.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.08/08/2016 105630 191825 101-43280-304 1070 Hunter Drive Special Services 112.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 2 Check Issue Dates: 7/26/2016 - 8/8/2016 Aug 04, 2016 08:37AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount BOLTON & MENK INC.08/08/2016 105630 191826 101-43280-304 15-3770 Orchard Farms Special Services 245.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.08/08/2016 105630 191827 101-43280-304 16-3807 Orono Preserve Special Services 1,120.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.08/08/2016 105630 191828 101-43280-304 15-3763 Kintyre Preserve Special Services 952.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.08/08/2016 105630 191829 402-48057-304 Fox Street feasibility study Fox Street 248.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.08/08/2016 105630 191830 437-48965-304 2016 Mill and Overlay project Brown Road Trail 1,920.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.08/08/2016 105630 191831 601-49400-304 Watermain looping Water 55.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.08/08/2016 105630 191832 601-49400-304 AT&T Antennas Water 1,064.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.08/08/2016 105630 191833 601-16500 Well #4 5,023.90 BOLTON & MENK INC.08/08/2016 105630 191834 602-16500 2016 Sewer projects 5,364.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.08/08/2016 105630 191836 101-43280-304 15-3723 Lakeview Addn Special Services 293.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.08/08/2016 105630 191837 601-49400-304 Verizon antenna Water 266.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.08/08/2016 105630 191838 402-48056-304 Watertown Rd phase 2 Watertown Road 17,238.50 Total 105630:39,021.90 BUDGET PRINTING 08/08/2016 105631 1511 101-42110-201 printing Police Department 17.59 BUDGET PRINTING 08/08/2016 105631 1791 101-45210-201 GC supplies Golf Course 2.76 BUDGET PRINTING 08/08/2016 105631 1824 101-45210-201 GC supplies Golf Course 34.42 BUDGET PRINTING 08/08/2016 105631 2150 101-45210-201 GC supplies Golf Course 30.56 BUDGET PRINTING 08/08/2016 105631 2162 101-45210-201 laminating Golf Course 5.00 Total 105631:90.33 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 08/08/2016 105632 JL72516 101-41110-439 food for worksession-Jimmy Johns Mayor & Council 61.19 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 08/08/2016 105632 JL72816 101-41300-439 meeting Country Cake Administration 5.77 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 08/08/2016 105632 RO70716 601-49400-227 PW laptop Water 160.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 08/08/2016 105632 RO70716 602-49450-227 PW laptop Sewer 160.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 08/08/2016 105632 SO71816 101-43000-224 food/beverages for crew-Holiday Public Works Department 22.68 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 08/08/2016 105632 SO72616 101-43000-224 food/beverages for crew-SA Public Works Department 14.98 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 08/08/2016 105632 SO72616 101-43000-224 food/beverages for crew-SA Public Works Department 5.00 Total 105632:429.62 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 08/08/2016 105633 72516 601-49400-381 6/21 to 7/21 Water 431.38 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 08/08/2016 105633 72516 602-49450-381 6/21 to 7/21 Sewer 173.44 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 08/08/2016 105633 72516 101-41900-381 6/21 to 7/21 Central Services 88.48 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 08/08/2016 105633 72516 101-42110-381 6/21 to 7/21 Police Department 33.60 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 08/08/2016 105633 72516 101-45210-381 6/21 to 7/21 Golf Course 23.72 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 3 Check Issue Dates: 7/26/2016 - 8/8/2016 Aug 04, 2016 08:37AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105633:750.62 CENTURY LINK 08/08/2016 105634 71916 101-45210-321 GC phone/dsl Golf Course 197.51 Total 105634:197.51 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 08/08/2016 105635 13974 101-42110-402 #238 oil change Police Department 42.74 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 08/08/2016 105635 13992 101-42110-402 #241 oil change, filter Police Department 107.38 Total 105635:150.12 CITY OF ST PAUL 08/08/2016 105636 16928 101-42110-437 training Boris Police Department 229.00 Total 105636:229.00 CLEVELAND, BRADLEY 08/08/2016 105637 80316 101-22205 Escrow refund 2013-00471 10,000.00 Total 105637:10,000.00 COMMERCIAL ASPHALT 08/08/2016 105638 160715 101-43000-224 street materials Public Works Department 165.09 Total 105638:165.09 DELANEY, JANIE 08/08/2016 105639 80116 101-45210-223 reimb GC supplies Golf Course 180.28 Total 105639:180.28 DEPUTY REGISTRAR 08/08/2016 105640 72216 231-45650-441 2015 Hyundai 15-14246 20.75 Total 105640:20.75 DIAMOND MOWERS INC.08/08/2016 105641 113568 101-43000-221 flail mower, #450 parts Public Works Department 261.38 DIAMOND MOWERS INC.08/08/2016 105641 113799 101-43000-402 #450 door Public Works Department 1,751.26 Total 105641:2,012.64 DIANE TIEGS 08/08/2016 105642 72816 101-41410-221 reimb election supplies Elections 30.11 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 4 Check Issue Dates: 7/26/2016 - 8/8/2016 Aug 04, 2016 08:37AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105642:30.11 EARL F ANDERSON & ASSOC 08/08/2016 105643 111660 101-45200-404 sign-French Creek Park Parks 219.20 Total 105643:219.20 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 08/08/2016 105644 378479 101-41900-352 legal ads Central Services 89.40 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 08/08/2016 105644 378480 101-41900-352 legal ads Central Services 29.80 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 08/08/2016 105644 382428 101-41410-340 election notice Elections 41.72 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 08/08/2016 105644 382429 101-41900-352 legal ads Central Services 71.52 Total 105644:232.44 FRED VARGAS 08/08/2016 105645 72716 101-42110-437 meal reimb for training Police Department 7.78 Total 105645:7.78 G & K SERVICES 08/08/2016 105646 1006798992 101-43000-221 towels Public Works Department 6.38 G & K SERVICES 08/08/2016 105646 1006798992 101-43000-226 uniform Public Works Department 27.82 G & K SERVICES 08/08/2016 105646 1006798992 601-49400-226 uniform Water 13.91 G & K SERVICES 08/08/2016 105646 1006798992 602-49450-226 uniform Sewer 13.92 G & K SERVICES 08/08/2016 105646 1006810295 101-45210-404 GC mats Golf Course 18.34 Total 105646:80.37 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 08/08/2016 105647 318200 101-43000-221 supplies Public Works Department 1.79 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 08/08/2016 105647 325867 101-42110-221 ball mount Police Department 22.48 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 08/08/2016 105647 326213 601-49400-402 battery Water 144.00 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 08/08/2016 105647 326808 602-49450-402 blower motor Sewer 88.68 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 08/08/2016 105647 326821 602-49450-402 fuse Sewer 3.69 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 08/08/2016 105647 326879 101-43000-402 back up alarm Public Works Department 39.99 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 08/08/2016 105647 327103 601-49400-402 brake pads Water 68.26 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 08/08/2016 105647 327111 601-49400-402 brake pads Water 25.46 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 08/08/2016 105647 327310 101-43000-222 step rails #422 Public Works Department 268.95 Total 105647:663.30 GONYEA HOMES 08/08/2016 105648 80216 101-22205 Escrow refund 2015-00950 10,000.00 GONYEA HOMES 08/08/2016 105648 80316 101-22205 Escrow refund 2015-01236 2,500.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 5 Check Issue Dates: 7/26/2016 - 8/8/2016 Aug 04, 2016 08:37AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105648:12,500.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNE 08/08/2016 105649 72516 231-35610 2001 Intrepid 10-003516 60.30 Total 105649:60.30 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF 08/08/2016 105650 1000079178 101-41600-309 jail charges Law/Legal Services 260.87 Total 105650:260.87 HUELIFE LLC 08/08/2016 105651 81216 101-41300-437 training J. Loftus Administration 250.00 Total 105651:250.00 INTEGRA TELECOM 08/08/2016 105652 14025349 101-42110-321 Phone service Police Department 289.09 INTEGRA TELECOM 08/08/2016 105652 14025349 101-41900-321 Phone Service Central Services 404.72 INTEGRA TELECOM 08/08/2016 105652 14025349 601-49400-321 Phone Service Water 67.45 INTEGRA TELECOM 08/08/2016 105652 14025349 602-49450-321 Phone Service Sewer 202.37 Total 105652:963.63 JACKIE YOUNG 08/08/2016 105653 73116 101-45200-319 Park Commission 7/05/16 Parks 165.00 JACKIE YOUNG 08/08/2016 105653 73116 101-41300-319 CC meeting 7/11, 7/25 Administration 405.00 JACKIE YOUNG 08/08/2016 105653 73116 101-42400-319 PC meeting 7/18 Building & Zoning 190.00 Total 105653:760.00 JESSICA WERDER 08/08/2016 105654 72016 101-42110-437 mileage reimb training Police Department 51.84 JESSICA WERDER 08/08/2016 105654 72016 101-42110-437 reimb meal for training Police Department 41.39 Total 105654:93.23 KUSSKE CONSTRUCTION 08/08/2016 105655 72616 651-16500 Watertown Road phase 1 8,750.00 Total 105655:8,750.00 KUZNIK, TONY 08/08/2016 105656 80316 101-22205 Escrow refund 2013-01293 10,000.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 6 Check Issue Dates: 7/26/2016 - 8/8/2016 Aug 04, 2016 08:37AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105656:10,000.00 Land Source LLC 08/08/2016 105657 80316 101-22205 Escrow refund 16-3811 2,500.00 Total 105657:2,500.00 LOGIS 08/08/2016 105658 42009 101-41900-401 ASA upgrades Central Services 35.00 LOGIS 08/08/2016 105658 42037 101-42110-310 police records Police Department 6,017.00 LOGIS 08/08/2016 105658 42037 101-41900-329 internet Central Services 194.50 LOGIS 08/08/2016 105658 42037 101-42110-329 internet Police Department 194.50 LOGIS 08/08/2016 105658 42037 101-41900-319 backups Central Services 980.00 Total 105658:7,421.00 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 08/08/2016 105659 B341843 101-45210-223 supplies Golf Course 4.79 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 08/08/2016 105659 B342513 101-45200-223 supplies Parks 18.60 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 08/08/2016 105659 B344065 602-49450-221 supplies Sewer 62.85 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 08/08/2016 105659 B344225 101-43000-224 sign truck supplies Public Works Department 32.28 Total 105659:118.52 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 08/08/2016 105660 581440 101-43000-212 Diesel Public Works Department 614.91 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 08/08/2016 105660 581441 101-42110-212 Fuel PD Police Department 2,251.21 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 08/08/2016 105660 582740 101-42110-212 Fuel PD Police Department 234.62 Total 105660:3,100.74 MEDIACOM 08/08/2016 105661 72616 101-45210-415 GC cable Golf Course 14.68 Total 105661:14.68 Menards HSBC Business Solution 08/08/2016 105662 3282197160 101-45200-223 park supplies Parks 229.55 Menards HSBC Business Solution 08/08/2016 105662 3282197160 101-45200-223 park supplies Parks 9.78 Total 105662:239.33 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTA 08/08/2016 105663 1058275 602-49450-383 Sep wastewater service Sewer 32,877.48 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 7 Check Issue Dates: 7/26/2016 - 8/8/2016 Aug 04, 2016 08:37AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105663:32,877.48 MIDWEST COCA COLA BOTTLI 08/08/2016 105664 178536403 101-45210-092 beverages Golf Course 231.84 Total 105664:231.84 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 08/08/2016 105665 14708 101-43000-403 tractor repair parts Public Works Department 55.65 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 08/08/2016 105665 15104 101-43000-221 #450 repair parts Public Works Department 5.30 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 08/08/2016 105665 46801 601-49400-402 #755 parts Water 55.16 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 08/08/2016 105665 46801 101-43000-402 #450 parts Public Works Department 86.15 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 08/08/2016 105665 46897 101-43000-226 safety supplies Public Works Department 26.95 Total 105665:229.21 MN DARE OFFICERS ASSOCIA 08/08/2016 105666 3069 101-42110-437 DARE conference-Sonnek Police Department 100.00 Total 105666:100.00 MN HIGHWAY SAFETY CENTER 08/08/2016 105667 629430-5251 101-42110-437 driving school Raze, Vargas Police Department 792.00 Total 105667:792.00 MN NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS 08/08/2016 105668 6732816 101-21710 Pera life 8/16 224.00 Total 105668:224.00 MOORE, KIRK 08/08/2016 105669 80316 101-22205 Escrow refund 2014-01415 2,500.00 Total 105669:2,500.00 MORRIES PARTS AND SERVIC 08/08/2016 105670 543351 601-49400-402 repair parts Water 108.14 Total 105670:108.14 MOUND TRUE VALUE 08/08/2016 105671 136654 101-42110-221 locks for speed trailer Police Department 23.99 Total 105671:23.99 MTI DIST CO 08/08/2016 105672 1078238-00 101-45210-223 supplies Golf Course 289.64 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 8 Check Issue Dates: 7/26/2016 - 8/8/2016 Aug 04, 2016 08:37AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount MTI DIST CO 08/08/2016 105672 1080222-00 101-45210-403 sharpen greens mower Golf Course 176.85 Total 105672:466.49 NAVARRE HARDWARE 08/08/2016 105673 2595987 101-41900-223 supplies Central Services 3.99 NAVARRE HARDWARE 08/08/2016 105673 295619 101-43000-226 supplies Public Works Department 13.99 NAVARRE HARDWARE 08/08/2016 105673 295692 101-45210-223 supplies Golf Course 72.03 NAVARRE HARDWARE 08/08/2016 105673 295745 651-49910-227 supplies Storm Water 17.99 NAVARRE HARDWARE 08/08/2016 105673 295994 101-41900-223 supplies Central Services 22.27 NAVARRE HARDWARE 08/08/2016 105673 296059 101-41900-223 supplies Central Services 11.28 Total 105673:141.55 NEWEGG INC 08/08/2016 105674 1202008647 101-41900-201 battery, tools Central Services 55.98 Total 105674:55.98 OFFICE DEPOT 08/08/2016 105675 8517694320 101-42110-201 office supplies Police Department 123.29 OFFICE DEPOT 08/08/2016 105675 8517695290 101-42110-201 office supplies Police Department 24.24 OFFICE DEPOT 08/08/2016 105675 8517695300 101-42110-201 office supplies Police Department 27.99 Total 105675:175.52 OFFICE DEPOT 08/08/2016 105676 8507617110 101-41900-201 office supplies Central Services 12.29 OFFICE DEPOT 08/08/2016 105676 8507617730 101-41900-201 office supplies Central Services 48.99 OFFICE DEPOT 08/08/2016 105676 8507617740 101-41900-201 office supplies Central Services 21.59 Total 105676:82.87 PERGOLA TRUST 08/08/2016 105677 80116 999-10015 Utility refund 2800 Shadywood 34.02 Total 105677:34.02 PIRTEK 08/08/2016 105678 2313526.001 101-45210-221 supplies Golf Course 91.24 Total 105678:91.24 PROLAWNS 08/08/2016 105679 80116 101-41900-319 weed control at parks Central Services 318.00 PROLAWNS 08/08/2016 105679 80116 101-45200-319 weed control at parks Parks 2,556.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 9 Check Issue Dates: 7/26/2016 - 8/8/2016 Aug 04, 2016 08:37AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105679:2,874.00 RANDYS SANITATION INC 08/08/2016 105680 71916 101-41900-404 July service Central Services 250.63 RANDYS SANITATION INC 08/08/2016 105680 71916 101-45200-404 July service Parks 360.91 RANDYS SANITATION INC 08/08/2016 105680 71916 101-45210-404 July service Golf Course 59.18 Total 105680:670.72 REED VENDING 08/08/2016 105681 9240 101-45210-094 concession supplies Golf Course 112.50 Total 105681:112.50 SELECT ACCOUNT 08/08/2016 105682 72616 101-21719 FLEX 897.07 Total 105682:897.07 STREETER & ASSOCIATES 08/08/2016 105683 80316 101-34410 Refund advance plan review 2016-00439 670.23 Total 105683:670.23 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 08/08/2016 105684 73116 101-21713 LTD Aug 1,362.63 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 08/08/2016 105684 73116 101-21710 Life Insurance Aug 1,161.20 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 08/08/2016 105684 73116 101-21714 STD Aug 378.41 Total 105684:2,902.24 THE HOME DEPOT 08/08/2016 105685 2080125500 651-49910-240 supplies Storm Water 33.48 THE HOME DEPOT 08/08/2016 105685 2808012209 651-49910-240 sign Storm Water 23.29 THE HOME DEPOT 08/08/2016 105685 72116 101-41900-404 finance charge Central Services 1.00 Total 105685:57.77 UNITED FARMERS COOPERATI 08/08/2016 105686 34629 101-45200-223 weed killer Parks 121.98 Total 105686:121.98 US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIAT 08/08/2016 105687 73116 235-45690-489 1st Half TIF payment 29,501.84 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 10 Check Issue Dates: 7/26/2016 - 8/8/2016 Aug 04, 2016 08:37AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105687:29,501.84 VALLEY PAVING INC 08/08/2016 105688 PAY 1 402-48056-590 Watertown Road Phase II Watertown Road 258,686.18 VALLEY PAVING INC 08/08/2016 105688 PAY 1 402-20600 Watertown Road Phase II 12,934.31- Total 105688:245,751.87 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTE 08/08/2016 105689 46799 101-41900-407 Janitorial service Central Services 1,435.50 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTE 08/08/2016 105689 46799 101-42110-407 Janitorial service Police Department 1,039.50 Total 105689:2,475.00 WINDSTREAM 08/08/2016 105690 59585957 601-49400-321 water plant phone Water 56.71 Total 105690:56.71 WOODDALE BUILDERS 08/08/2016 105691 80316 101-22205 Escrow refund 2014-01464 2,500.00 Total 105691:2,500.00 WYER, DAVID 08/08/2016 105692 72716 999-10015 Utility refund 2130 Shevlin Dr 166.43 Total 105692:166.43 XCEL ENERGY 08/08/2016 105693 510798366 101-41900-381 6/22 to 7/24 Central Services 1,807.96 XCEL ENERGY 08/08/2016 105693 510798366 101-42110-381 6/22 to 7/24 Police Department 1,252.83 XCEL ENERGY 08/08/2016 105693 510798366 101-42110-381 6/22 to 7/24 Police Department 38.69 XCEL ENERGY 08/08/2016 105693 510798366 101-43000-381 6/22 to 7/24 Public Works Department 151.91 XCEL ENERGY 08/08/2016 105693 510798366 101-43000-386 6/22 to 7/24 Public Works Department 2,026.87 XCEL ENERGY 08/08/2016 105693 510798366 101-45200-381 6/22 to 7/24 Parks 35.17 XCEL ENERGY 08/08/2016 105693 510798366 601-49400-381 6/22 to 7/24 Water 4,618.12 XCEL ENERGY 08/08/2016 105693 510798366 602-49450-381 6/22 to 7/24 Sewer 2,467.80 XCEL ENERGY 08/08/2016 105693 510798366 101-45210-381 6/22 to 7/24 Golf Course 1,361.63 Total 105693:13,760.98 YAMAHA GOLF & UTILITY INC 08/08/2016 105694 01-175314 101-45210-403 cart repair Golf Course 108.46 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 11 Check Issue Dates: 7/26/2016 - 8/8/2016 Aug 04, 2016 08:37AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 105694:108.46 Grand Totals: 449,427.14