HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-09-2015 Council Packet Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, February 9, 2015, 7:00 P.M.
Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356
952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us
The public is invited to address the 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 Work Session of January 26, 2015 *
3. Regular Council Meeting of January 26, 2015 *
Planning Commission Comments –Bruce Lemke, Representative
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.
Planning Department Report
4. 14-3664 David Schmid & Angela Ciliberto, 3309 Crystal Bay Road – Amend Variance & CUP
Approvals for Revised Retaining Wall
5. 14-3704 Hennepin County Property Services - 3880 Shoreline Drive - CUP & Commercial site plan
review
6. 14-3707 Amend Zoning Ordinance Text: Add Language to 78-1405 Non-Encroachments Section
Regarding Retaining Walls – Second Review
7. 15-3714 Create Section 14-142 Wellhead Protection Ordinance
8. 15-3715 Amendment to Municipal Code Section 14-134: Service Pipes
9. Storm Water & Drainage Trunk Fee Review
Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, February 9, 2015, 7:00 P.M.
Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356
952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us
Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us – follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notification
Public Works Director/City Engineer’s Report
10. Navarre Light Pole Decorations
11. Navarre Street Light and Sidewalk Project – Engineering Fee Change Request
12. Utility Mapping Improvements for Sanitary Sewer, Water Distribution and Storm Sewer
13. Public Works Steel Toe Boot Reimbursement
Mayor/Council Report
City Administrator's Report
14. 4th Quarter Financial Report
15. Claims/Bills *
City Attorney's Report
Adjournment
Upcoming Events
2015
02/16 – Holiday – President’s Day – Offices Closed
02/17 – Planning Commission Meeting,*Tuesday, 6:30 p.m. (Council Liaison –Jim Cornick, Jr.)
02/23 – Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m.
02/23 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m.
03/02 – Park Commission, Monday, 7:00 p.m.
03/09 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m.
03/16 – Planning Commission Meeting, 6:30 p.m. (Council Liaison –Lizz Levang)
03/23 – Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m.
03/23 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m.
04-13 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00p.m.
COUNCIL MEETIN��
���0 FEB 0 9 2015
CITY OF ORONO
�
y� �
�
��kESHo�`�`
CITY OF ORONO
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
Notice is hereby given that the Orono City Council will meet at 6:15 p.m. on
Monday, February 9, 2015 to tour the Orono Police facilities and for emergency plan
review.
f
I
MEMORANDUM
To: Jessica Loftus
From: Mike Gaffron
Date: February 9, 2015
Subject: 3384 Shoreline Dr. SAC -Anderst Sewer and Water Letter 2/5/15
Mr. Anderst is requesting a letter from the City to the Met Council that he should not be charged
any SAC units for the new restaurant he will be opening in the west half of his building. His
position is that the past history of uses of the building should negate any additional SAC charges.
Unfortunately,the City cannot readily honor that request because there is no documenta.tion
unearthed to date to support a credit to the property for SAC charges, based on Met Council
policies and calculation methods, which are spelled out in great detail in the Met Counci12015
SAC Procedural Manua1. I would note the following:
- The building was connected to municipal sewer in June 1965.
- Met Council did not have a SAC Charge or SAC program until 1973.
- Existing businesses and homes already connected to sewer in 1973 did not have to pay a
SAC Charge for their existing or continued use unless/until the use changed to require a
higher sewer capacity demand.
- No SAC Charges have ever been paid for the property.
- SAC Charges for commercial users per Met Council policy are collected whenever there
is new construction or a significant change in use that increases the demand on the metro
sewer system. No revisions in usage since 1973 have triggered the need for SAC
Charges to be paid for this property.
- The proposed conversion to restaurant use of the west half of the building constitutes a
new use that potentially adds to the demand on the metro sewer system per Met Council
policy.
- Met Council has calculated that the new use constitutes 5.76 SAC units based on seating
capacity, and has assigned a"Grandparent Credit"of 0.44 SAC units based on past use of
the space prior to 1973. Met Council rounds down, so that the Anderst will be charged
5.0 SAC units at$2,485 per unit or$12,425 total.
- The City merely acts as a pass-through collection agency for SAC Charges. The City
functionally cannot make SAC determinations that do not comply with Met Council
policy. The City can, however, assist the determination process by providing records of
past uses of the property.
- Mr. Anderst's issue regarding the lack of records is problematic. The City has excellent
records of which properties paid SAC Charges,how much they paid, and when they paid
it. However,the level of detail requested by Met Council, as to exactly how the various
spaces in the building were used in the past including very specific uses and square
footages, is information that simply doesn't exist in City records. We are checking with
Met Council to see whether providing them past water billing information(based on
quarterly gallons used) would be of use, but that data only goes back to 2002.
�
f
Lyle Oman November 25, 2014
Building Official
City of Orono
PO Box 66
Orono, MN 55323-0066
Dear Mr. Oman:
The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) Division has determined the SAC to be
charged for the wastewater capacity demand for Graze to be located at 3382 Shoreline Dr. within the
City of Orono.
The City will be charged 5 SAC Units for this project, as determined below.
Charges: SAC Units
Bar
20 ft@ 1.5 ft/seat @ 23 seats/SAC 0.58
Indoor Seating (Non Fixed)
777 sq. ft. @ 15 sq. ft. /seat @ 10 seats/SAC 5.18
Total Charge: 5.76
Credits:
Retail (Grandparent 1937)
1661 sq. ft. x 80% usable space @ 3000 sq. ft./SAC �
Net Charge: 5.32 or 5
It is the Council's understanding there will be no outdoor seating. If at any time oufdoor seating is
added, a determination is required, as it is also subject to SAC evaluation.
The business information was provided to MCES by the applicant at this time. It is also the City's
responsibility to substantiate the business use and size at the time of the final inspection. If there is a
change in use or size, a redetermination will need to be made. If you have any questions email me at
karon.cappaertnametc.state mn us.
Sincerely,
%��
Karon Cappaert
SAC Program Technical Specialist
KC:fa: 141125A7
Determination expiration: 11/25/2016
cc: James Anderst, Orono Liquor Inc(email)
Rachel Dodge, Orono (email)
File, MCES
ME�"�'�O NO cIT'�t�
w
City of Orono
City Council
2750 Kelley Pkwy
Orono, MN 55356
February 5, 2015
Re:Sewer and Water Connection
I have researched what was in the Narrow's building back to the early 50's to show the City of Orono so I
can get an affidavit for the Met Council stating the use of the two bays I'm building the new restaurant
in and also ssssat the Narrows location just in case.
The sewer and water was brought in back in 1965, 1966 and 1967, it took 3 years to complete. I can't
say for sure but I believe the building was constructed in the late 40's and have pictures from as far back
as 1952 which show Magic Cleaners and a laundry mat and next to it was the Magic Mirror which then
became Juliann's Hair Salon.
Axel and Bob's Meat Market was next to Juliann's and next to Juliann's was the Keveney Drugstore
which had a diner in it.After the Keveney Drugstore it became the Unicorn Night Club then Jimmy's
Lounge and now The Narrows.
With this being the history of the building I would think that I should not be charged any SAC charge by
the Met Council.What I need is an affidavit stating this seeing there are no Records on file at the City of
Orono. I seem to be shuffled back and forth between the Met Council and the City of Orono and I
certainly don't think I should be penalized for the lack of records.
I will be at the Council meeting on the 9th to address the Council on this matter so it can be resolved.
Jim Anderst
3380 Shoreline Drive
Navarre, MN 55392
MINUTES OF THE �OUNEI�.M�ETING
ORONO CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Monday,January 26, 2015 FE� Q 9 2Q�5
5:00 p.m.
C9TY OF ORONO
Present: Mayor Lili McMillan, Council Members Lizz Levang and 1im Cornick; representing Staff
were City Administrator Jessica Loftus, Senior Planner Mike Gaffron, City Planner
Melanie Curtis, Public Works Director—City Engineer Adam Edwards and City
Attorney Soren Mattick.
Administrator Loftus noted the resignation of Andrew Mack and the BCBS grant process which
is mid-stream. The Navarre Community Initiative will be picking up the ball for the grant
project moving forward. Mayor McMillan introduced a celebration titled "Navarre Night"that
is proposed for Apri130th. The event would focus on Navarre History and include a book signing
from author Joan Wolfe on her the newly released Navarre, the Hub of Lake Minnetonka.
Loftus presented a sketch that the architect recommended for a new focal point in the Council
Chambers. The council discussed the new wood build-out with logo and supported the
concept.
Administrator Loftus informed the council that the building official intends to retire this
summer after thirty years of service. She recommended proactively planning for his successor
to have some overlap for training purposes given summer is a very busy time for the building
department. The council discussed the advantages of having the position in-house rather than
outsourcing and asked to review a recruitment request in February.
Pursuant to the previous council meeting, an opportunity was provided to discuss public input
at City Council meetings. Councilmember Walsh submitted comments via email due to his
absence that he requested be distributed to the group. Mayor McMillan also suggested
language to clarify the public comments section on the agenda. Both suggestions were
intended to invite comments and clarify the public input process. Councilmember Cornick
asked whether the city has received any resident complaints on our current system and
whether we should develop a handout for the public on when to speak at meetings. The
councilmember's in attendance supported the language proposed by Mayor McMillan and no
one favored a formal comment card system.
Senior Planner Mike Gaffron provided an update on code amendments in progress, including a
table identifying proposed text changes. Additionally in the works are non-zoning items not
requiring Planning Commission hearings, as well as specific zoning items that will require
Council consideration and direction in order to move forward.
Gaffron and Attorney Mattick introduced the easement/access issue on the Whalen property.
Past activities in relation to providing access to that property were reviewed and the
ramifications of actions requested of the City were considered. Council indicated no interest in
approaching Hennepin County on the Whalen's behalf.
Administrator Loftus gave a verbal update on city operations.
No time remained to discuss agenda item #5, videotaping planning commission meetings. The
council agreed the topic should be placed on the February work session agenda.
The meeting closed at 6:50 p.m.
ATTEST:
Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor
, .
� MINUTES OF TAE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING COiJNCIL MEETING
Monday,January 26,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m. F�a � 9 20�5
ROLL CALL ;�����0
The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor
Lili Tod McMillan,Council Members Jim Cornick,Jr.,and Lizz Levang. Representing Staff were City
Administrator Jessica Loftus, Senior Planner Michael Gaffron, City Planner Melanie Curtis,Public
Works Director/City Engineer Adam Edwards,City Attomey Soren Mattick,and Recorder Jackie Young.
Mayor McMillan called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT AGENDA
Item Nos. 9, 10, 12,and 13 were added to the Consent Agenda. Item No. 2 was taken off the Consent
Agenda.
Levang moved,Cornick seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 3,
Nays 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 12,2015
McMillan requested the minutes on Pages 12 and 13 be corrected to read junior season pass rather than
junior senior pass.
Levang moved,Cornick seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of
January 12,2015,as amended. VOTE: Ayes 3,Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS—KEVIN LANDGRAVER,REPRESENTATIVE
Landgraver stated he had nothing to report but would be available for questions.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT
3. #15-3705 AMEND CHAPTER 78,ARTICLE IV,DIVISION 7 AND 8,ELIlI�TATE
RR1B-1 AND M-6 DISTRICTS—ORDINANCE NO. 130
Senior Planner Gaffron stated the RR-1B-1,Rural Residential Sub-district,was created to accommodate
the Spring Hill Conference Center back in the 1970s. Gaffron noted that was the only property that was
ever zoned RR-1B-1 and it simply allowed study and research centers in that two acre single-family zone.
The Spring Hill Conference Center went away approxixnately 15 years ago and became a golf course.
Gaffron indicated there has never been any property before that and since that has been zoned RR-1B-1
so Staff recommends that be eliminated from the City Code.
Page 1 of 14
, A
MINUTES OF THE .
ORONO CITY COUNCII,MEETING
Monday,January 26,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(3. #15-3705 AMEND CHAPTER 78,ARTICLE IV,DIVISION 7 AND 8,ELIMINATE RR1B-1
AND
M-6 DISTRICTS—ORDINANCE NO. 130 continue�
Gaffron stated the M-6 Multiple Family Planned Residential District was created in 1976 to provide
standards for multiple-family development but has been superseded almost entirely by the 1989 PUD
zoning ordinance as well as the RPUD,which was created in February of 2001. The City has never, since
1976,had any property zoned M-6,this is an outdated piece of the City Code. Staff recommends those
two districts be removed from the City Code.
Levang stated the changes are straight forward.
McMillan indicated she also is fine with the changes.
Levang moved,Cornick seconded,to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 130,Third Series,an Ordinance
Amending the Orono Zoning City Code by Eliminating the RR-1B-1 and M-6 ZONING
DISTRICTS. VOTE: Ayes 3,Nays 0.
4. #15-3706 AMEND SECTION 78-1211 REGARDING CLARIFICATION TO THE TOE OF
BLUFF DEFINITION—ORDINANCE NO. 131
Gaffron stated this definition was questioned by an attorney as the City was going through a variance
application last year. Gaffron stated the City's definition exactly mimics the State Statute's definition,
but there was a question about how many different points on a slope might be defined as the toe of bluff.
Gaffron stated from a practical standpoint,there can only be one toe.
The proposed language changes the language it to state that the toe of the bluff is the lower point of the
lowest 50-foot segment with an average slope exceeding 18 percent. Gaffron stated essentially that
means when it is a steep slope and it ends right at the lakeshore,you would not go out into the water to
get to that 18 percent. As a result,when the toe is defined as lakeward of the OHW,the OHW becomes
the toe and not some point out in the lake.
Levang stated she does remember that discussion on the variance application and that she is happy there
is a clarification on the defmition.
Mayor McMillan asked if there is any public comment on the amendment.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Levang moved,Cornick seconded,to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 131,Third Series,an Ordinance
Amending the Orono Zoning City Code by Amending the Definition of"Toe of Bluff." VOTE:
Ayes 3,Nays 0.
Page 2 of 14
, MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,January 26,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
5. #15-3707 AMEND SECTION 78-1405(a)(5)TO CLARIFY RETAINING WALL AND
LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE SETBACKS—ORDINANCE NO.(Tabled)
Gaffron stated this is a change to the list of allowed non-encroachments on yard requirements in the City
Code. T'he clarification states that retaining walls cannot be closer than five feet from any side or rear lot
lines,cannot be closer than ten feet from the traveled right-of-way, and cannot be installed within an
easement area.
Gaffron stated because of some potential confusion and because it is not currently in the non-
encroachment section, Staff would recoxnmend it be added. Gaffron stated essentially the new ordinance
section states that"No retaining wall of any height shall be located closer than five feet from any side or
rear property line,never fewer than ten feet from the edge of a traveled roadway,or placed within a
drainage,utility,or other easement, except upon approval in writing for an encroachment agreement by
the City or similar approval from another regulatory and/or utility agency."
McMillan noted she attended the January Planning Commission meeting when this item was discussed
and that some of the discussion revolved around the fact that the City requires a permit for a 4-foot higher
retaining wall.
Gaffron stated a 4-foot or higher retaining wall requires engineering.
McMillan asked if somebody can construct something below that.
Planning Coordinator Curtis indicated it would require a zoning permit.
McMillan asked if a 2-foot high boulder wall would require a permit.
Curtis stated it is associated with the grading permit. Curtis stated the City's permit form for a zoning
permit has several line items that need to be filled out and that the land alteration permit has a$50 permit
fee. The person would also need to indicate on the pernut application whether they are going to construct
a retaining wall or other structure.
McMillan asked if a raised garden bed would need a zoning permit if it is less than four feet.
Curtis stated the City Code threshold is 0 to 500 cubic yards and that nowhere in the City is there a low
threshold of one yard or ten yards.Curtis indicated Staff does use discretion when people call and ask
about planting a garden or planting trees or moving some dirt around to level for sod, and in some cases
will consult with the City Engineer to see if it really requires a permit. Since the City Code does have a
zero cubic yard threshold, any earth movement technically requires a zoning permit.
McMillan stated that was one of the issues a Planning Commissioner had with the change. McMillan
asked at what point it becomes a reta.ining wall versus a decorative wall.
Curtis stated technically a 1-foot wall would be holding soil,but it is not a retaining wall that requires an
engineer design.
Page 3 of 14
MINUTES OF THE .
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,January 26,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(5. #15-3707 AMEND SECTION 78-1405(a)(5)TO CLARIFY RETAINING WALL AND
LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE SETBACKS—ORDINANCE NO.(Tabled)continue�
Edwards stated when retaining walls start to become a structure at four feet or above,the City requires a
building permit and also an engineered design signed by a licensed engineer. Edwards stated there is
some leeway between four and six feet,but generally the City uses four feet as their threshold for
requiring an engineered design. Edwards stated that requirement typically kicks in when there is grading
being done.
McMillan asked what would happen with e�sting situations if this City Code change is approved.
Gaffron stated existing retaining walls are not affected by this unless the wa11 is changed in some way.
Gaffron stated when it says that no retaining wall shall be located closer than five feet;the City would not
go back and require the resident to remove it. Gaffron stated the one dissenting vote on the Planning
Commission was questioning the raised garden beds in a small area within five feet of the property line.
Gaffron stated every situation will be different,but that there are possible ramifications to neighboring
properties if a wall is closer than five feet to the property line. Gaffron stated there is the possibility that
utility companies could find that an obstruction. Gaffron stated the City Council could define what a
retaining wall is or include some exemptions in the City Code but that Staff is not prepared at this time to
define exactly what those things are.
Levang noted the Council is not specifying what the retaining wall is constructed out of.
Edwards stated the main issue that Staff reviews is the drainage and whether the proposed work is going
to alter the drainage patterns to drain onto the neighboring property. Edwards stated when someone is
placing a simple, small retaining wall next to the property line that does have the potential to alter the
drainage and could cause runoff to the neighboring property.
Gaffron stated another potential issue is the need to go on to the neighbor's property to maintain the wall
if it is right against the lot line.
McMillan asked if the edge of a traveled,established roadway needs to be ten feet from the property line.
Gaffron stated in situations where there may not be an easement and there is a roadway,the City has the
right to maintain and to claim for public use the first ten feet past the pavement or past the traveled
roadway. Gaffron stated in many cases that ten feet leaves someone within the right-of-way but in some
cases it puts them into the actual property itself. There could also be a visual aspect issue in certain
situations.
McMillan asked whether there would be an exemption if someone has a deteriorating timber wall within
the right-of-way by the roadway and they need to replace it. McMillan noted in certain situations it may
not be possible to re-grade the area.
Gaffron stated the City does have an encroachxnent agreement to handle these situations and that Staff
would review it to ensure that replacement does not make the situation worse.
Page 4 of 14
, MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,January 26,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(5. #15-3707 AMEND SECTION 78-1405(a)(5)TO CLARIFY RETAINING WALL AND
LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE SETBACKS—ORDINANCE NO.(Tabled)continue�
McMillan asked if that would be an administrative approval.
Gaffron noted Staff has brought encroachment agreements to the Council in the past.
Curtis indicated it would depend on the encroachment and what was being encroached upon.
McMillan asked if there is a fee for the encroachment agreement.
Curtis stated the fee is$150 because City Attorney and StafFtime is involved in drafting the
encroachment agreement.
City Attomey Mattick stated the more items that are included in the utility easements;the more likely it
could impact the easement,which is the reason for the review. Mattick stated if there is an encroachment
in the right-of-way,the property owner is notified that they may need to remove it at some point at their
own cost.
McMillan stated her issue is with the one or two-foot high retaining wall but that basically a retaining
wall is a retaining wall regardless of the height of it. McMillan noted there are some people that have
walls within the right-of-way. McMillan suggested this change be clarified in the newsletter.
Cornick stated he is a little troubled by the zero tolerance. Cornick asked if this could lead to neighbor
disputes and whether that is something the City should attempt to address.
Gaffron stated if there are specific changes the Council would like to see,he would recommend tabling
the amendment.
Cornick stated he would like to give it a little more thought.
McMillan stated she is in agreement with Council Member Cornick and that she would also like to
understand how it could potentially impact the different zones of a property.
Levang moved,Cornick seconded,to table Application No. 15-3707,Amend Section 78-1405 of the
Orono Zoning City Code by Clarifying Retaining Wall and Landscape Structure Setbacks.VOTE:
Ayes 3,Nays 0.
6. #15-3709 AMEND SECTION 78-1001(6)TO ADD NAVARRE AREA TO PUD MIXED
USE PROVISIONS—ORDINANCE NO. 132
Gaffron stated in April of 1989,the City adopted an ordinance that included revisions to the B-1
commercial district,created the B-6 highway commercial district,and established provisions for
development by the PUD process. PUD City Code Section 78-1001(6)authorized utilization of the PUD
Zoning District only in the Highway 12 corridor,which was set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan
Amendment#2 adopted in May of 1988.
Page 5 of 14
MINUTES OF THE ,
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,January 26,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(6. #15-3709 AMEND SECTION 78-1001(6)TO ADD NAVARRE AREA TO PUD MIXED USE
PROVISIONS—ORDINANCE NO. 132 continue�
Since then,the City has not been able to use the PUD process or create a PUD district outside of the
Highway 12 corridor area. This change to the City Code would allow that process to be used within the
Navarre area. GafFron noted there is the potential for redevelopment in the Navarre area and that the
PUD District would allow for mixed use development. Gaffron indicated this would be the first step in
allowing mixed use in the Navarre area and that a set of standards for PUD use should eventually be
established.
Cornick stated it sounds like good planning.
Levang asked if any specific corridors should be specified or whether it just applies to the general
Navarre area.
Gaffron stated the way it was drafted initially only talks about Navarre in general. Gaffron stated there is
mixed use potential on certain guided properties in Navarre and there are also properties that were not
guided for mixed use but might develop at some point in the future. Gaffron stated an example is the
Freshwater property,which was not guided for xnixed use,but the PUD process could be used in that
situation if it is redeveloped or on larger properties that might redevelop. Gaffron stated the Council has
the opportunity to review and consider whether it is appropriate for any particular piece of property.
McMillan noted Highway 12 corridor is not limited to just commercial.
Gaffron stated the B-6 highway commercial district was initially commercial but that the PUD process
was also used for Otten Brothers and the Stone Bay development,which is residential and commercial.
McMillan stated it is probably best not to limit it since different properties could be combined at some
point in the future.
Gaffron stated if the City's guiding changes for Navarre in the future,the City Code would need to be
changed if it is limited to specific properties or specific zones. Gaffron stated he would prefer to leave it
more open but that Staff could better define what the Navarre area is. Gaffron noted the highway
commercial district that was created was fairly specific in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and
defined which properties were parts of it and which ones were not.
McMillan stated that is something that could also be accomplished with the next Comprehensive Plan
review. McMillan stated in her view that might require a significant study and public input.
Gaffron stated in many cities PUD is allowed anywhere.
Levang stated she would prefer it be more general at this point since it will take a more in depth study if
specific streets and corridors are identified.
Cornick asked what the boundaries of Navarre are.
Page 6 of 14
. MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,January 26,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(6. #15-3709 AMEND SECTION 78-1001(6)TO ADD NAVARRE AREA TO PUD MIXED USE
PROVISIONS—ORDINANCE NO. 132 continue�
Gaffron stated anything east of the two gas stations and Culvers is probably outside the defined Navarre
area and anything west would go to the border with Spring Park. On the north end the boundary could be
perceived as the railroad and that the southern boundary goes to approximately Lydiard.
Cornick asked if it would be wise to define the boundaries.
Gaffron stated eventually the City should do that but at the present time it is not necessary.
McMillan asked if there is any public comment on this item.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Levang moved,Cornick seconded,to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 132,an Ordinance Amending the
Orono Zoning City Code by Adding the Navarre Area to Section 78-1001(6)as Eligible for
Development Via the PUD Process. VOTE: Ayes 3,Nays 0.
7. #15-3710 AMEND SECTION 78-1286(b& d)REGARDING CHANGES TO THE
REQUIItEMENTS TO TOPOGRAPHIC ALTERATIONS/GRADING&FILLING ACTIVITIES
ORDINANCE N0. 133
Gaffron stated since the 1990s,the City has had a number of exceptions to the Conditional Use Permit
requirement. One of those exceptions was that grading, filling or excavating of ten cubic yards or less
within the shore setback zone of all lakes was outlined in Article IX of the zoning chapter. This ten cubic
yards exception,the rough equivalent of one dump truck load,was added to the City Code in the 1990s to
accommodate requests for topdressing,rut repair,animal burrowing damage, etc,without the need for a
rigorous conditional use permit review process.
The proposed change increases the administrative pemut threshold from ten cubic yards to fifty cubic
yards for shoreland properties within the 0-75 foot setback area. This allows for administrative zoning
permit approvals for things like in-ground stairs, ice ridge corrections, landscaping,etc.
The Planning Commission supported changes to increase the ten cubic yards to fifty,but did not support
changing the 500 cubic yards conditional use permit threshold to 1,500 cubic yards. Gaffron stated 500
cubic yards equals approximately 50 truckloads.
Gaffron stated the change before the City Council is simply to change the ten cubic yard limit in the
lakeshore to fifty cubic yards.
McMillan asked if someone would require a permit for less than fifty cubic yards.
Gaffron stated it would be an administrative permit and that Staff would likely have the City Engineer
review it. Gaffron stated if filling of a wetland was proposed, it would require a different level of review.
McMillan asked if there is a zero threshold.
Gaffron stated it was 0 to 10 and the change would increase it from 0 to 50.
Page 7 of 14
MINUTES OF THE .
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,January 26,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(7. #15-3710 AMEND SECTION 78-1286(b& d)REGARDING CAANGES TO THE
REQUIREMENTS TO TOPOGRAPHIC ALTERATIONS/GRADING&FILLING ACTIVITIES
ORDINANCE NO. 133 continue�
Levang asked if this is only in the shoreland.
Gaffron indicated it would be in the 0-75 foot zone.
Levang stated she appreciates being told that ten cubic yards equals one dump truck load. Levang stated
in her view this is very straight forward and that she has no problem with the change.
McMillan asked if D2 would be the shoreland overlay district.
Gaffron indicated D2 is the shoreland district but it is outside the 0-75-foot setback. Gaffron stated it
would still leave the 500 cubic yard threshold. Gaffron stated anything over 500 cubic yards or 50
truckloads on the rest of the lot would require a conditional use permit.
McMillan asked how that would compare with non-shoreland property.
Gaffron stated a non-shoreland property would have a limit of 500 cubic yards without a conditional use
permit. Gaffron stated one of the exceptions would be a driveway for a house that requires over 500
cubic yards,but if someone were to haul in over 500 cubic yards to change a pasture,as an example,that
would require a conditional use permit.
Cornick asked how the City would know if someone dumps 600 cubic yards.
Gaffron stated it can be difficult to estimate how much fill is brought in. Gaffron stated Staff would have
an engineered plan that shows exactly the boundaries of the area and how deep it is supposed to be.
Gaffron stated if it looks like it is way out of whack, it would need to be verified.
Gaffron stated the new conditional use permit process that has been put in place requires a
preconstruction meeting with the developer or the property owner as well as the grading contractor.
Gaffron stated before any fill is added,there is a process where everybody is told what they are allowed to
do and not allowed to do. Gaffron stated with a conditional use permit, someone cannot just go from
10,000 to 15,000 cubic yards without a higher level of review and oversight.
Edwards stated it generally is caught when Staff looks at the as-builts and there are topographical features
that were not there before. Edwards stated it is very difficult to determine if it is 50 cubic yards versus 51
cubic yards but that Staff would likely catch it is if it greater than that.
Cornick asked if there is a certain person that would be responsible for that review.
Edwards stated the City inspector would typically look at that.
McMillan asked if the City has a lot of grading requests for over 500 cubic yards.
Page 8 of 14
. MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,January 26,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(7. #15-3710 AMEND SECTION 78-1286(b& d)REGARDING CHANGES TO THE
REQUIl2EMENT5 TO TOPOGRAPHIC ALTERATIONS/GRADING&FILLING ACTIVITIES
ORDINANCE NO. 133 continue�
Gaffron stated other than what is associated with a building project, such as a private road or a berm;
there is probably one or two applications in a year for over 500 cubic yards.
Cornick asked if this would apply to someone who would like to remove more than 500 cubic yards.
Gaffron stated it relates to grading and filling, so it would apply to fill being removed as well, and if it is
over 500 cubic yards,it would require a conditional use permit.
McMillan asked if it would be a conditional use permit rather than a variance.
Gaffron stated it would be a conditional use permit and would not necessarily require a variance.
McMillan noted it would be more of a permanent change and asked if historically they have been treated
as a variance.
Mattick indicated they have not been and that reasonable conditions will be attached to it as part of the
conditional use permit process.
Gaffron stated what is allowed on a 2-acre lot versus a 10-acre lot would also be different and that it
would be difficult to put a limit on it.
Mattick stated the review of the conditions would pretty much come down to an engineer review to
determine that the lot can handle that amount of fill and what the impacts on the drainage would be.
Mayor McMillan asked if there is any public comment on this item.
Ralph Kempf, 3675 Togo Road, stated if he understood correctly,it sounds like the fifty truck load rule
applies the same to a 40-foot frontage of lakeshore as a 250-foot frontage of lakeshore. Kempf stated in
his view it would be more equitable if the threshold was tied to the amount of land in the 0-75 foot zone
or the amount of lakeshore frontage.
Gaffron stated on a lot with 400 feet of frontage, fifty cubic yards would not be very noticeable but could
still have an impact depending on where it is being spread. Gaffron stated basing it on the amount of
frontage would require an extra layer of review.
Levang moved,Cornick seconded,to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 133 an Ordinance Amending the
Orono Zoning City Code by Revising the Provisions for Topographic Alterations and Grading and
Filling Activities Within 75 Feet of the Lakeshore and to adopt the SiJMMARY ORDINANCE for
publication. VOTE: Ayes 3,Nays 0.
Page 9 of 14
MINUTES OF THE .
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,January 26,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
PUBLIC WORKS DIItECTOR/CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT
8. BULK FUEL CONTRACT
Edwards stated before the City Council is the City's bulk fuel proposal for 2015. Prior to 2014,the City
did not do an advanced fixed price purchase of fuel for the City's fleet. Last year the City explored and
entered into a fixed price contract for approximately 90 percent of the overall fuel purchases for the City.
Edwards noted that did result in some fairly considerable savings for the City last year. The savings
amounted to almost$10,000 in gasoline and about$7,700 in diesel.
Edwards stated the City's bulk fuel contract is up at the end of the month and that it is time to determine
whether the City should enter into a similar agreement for 2015. As of last week,the fixed price being
quoted for 87 percent octane gasoline was$2.22 a gallon before tax and diesel was$2.51 a gallon before
tax. Edwards noted those prices are above what someone can currently purchase at the pump if the state
gas taxes are removed.
Edwards stated the Council could enter into a fixed price contract at those approximate nuxnbers. The risk
with entering into that contract is that prices may stay below the fixed price offered,which would result in
the City losing an opportunity to save additional money. The advantage to entering into the contract is
that the City would know what the budgeted numbers for the year will be. Edwards stated at the current
rate,there will still be some savings over last year.
Edwards stated the way the fixed pricing works is the City has to enter into a contract with a bulk fuel
provider. The City provides them with a price range, a low and a high,at which the City is willing to
enter into a contract with the provider. Once the contract is entered into,at that point the City is
committed to purchasing a certain amount of fuel at that price for the rest of the year. Edwards stated the
City would never want to enter into an agreement to purchase 100 percent of the City's fuel since the
demand changes on the conditions, such as the number of patrols the police are on and the amount of
snowplowing that is required. Edwards stated that way the City is not purchasing fuel that they do not
need.
Edwards indicated he included in his report what he feels are the acceptable low and high costs as well as
the quantity. The proposed quantity is the same as last year's contract. Edwards stated gasoline is
currently$2.00 a gallon,and if the state gas tax is removed,that would amount to approximately$1.70 a
gallon. Edwards noted the summer blend of fuel will increase in price between 30 and 40 cents per
gallon. In addition,prices for the Midwest region will increase a little higher than the rest of the country
given some refinery and maintenance issues that are projected for this year.
Levang noted the City is not using their snow equipment as much as last year,and asked whether those
numbers should be adjusted.
Edwards stated the majority of the gasoline is used by the Police Department and the majority of the
diesel is used by the Public Works Department. Currently the Public Works Department uses around 600
to 700 gallons of diesel a month,with more being used in the winter. Edwards stated he feels comfortable
with those quantity numbers. Edwards noted the police chief does anticipate some decrease in their fuel
consumption given the indoor squad car parking.
Page 10 of 14
. MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,January 26,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(8. BIJLK FiTEL CONTRACT continue�
Levang stated by only contracting for 75 percent of the City's fuel needs,there is some cushion there, and
that the savings last year were significant.
Edwards stated the City does not want to enter into more than what they might use because they would
need to pay for any overage.
Cornick asked if there is any advantage to negotiating a contract that would include Mound vehicles or
Spring Park vehicles.
Edwards stated to his understanding no other city contracts with Orono on this bulk fuel contract.
Edwards indicated there are a number of municipalities that enter into group agreements with the state but
that the state's rate is approximately$2.60 a gallon.
Cornick asked if there is money that could be saved if Orono would join with Long Lake in negotiating
this contract.
Edwards stated he has not explored that but to his knowledge they would not. Edwards stated Orono is
entering into a contract with the same contractor that provides the state's fuel.
Loftus stated the Long Lake Fire Department has asked about partnering with the City on its fuel
purchases but that Orono is limited on the size of its tanks. Loftus stated it did not make financial sense
to purchase bigger tanks to accommodate their request in the past.
McMillan stated the positive is the City knows what their fuel budget is for the year,which was always
something that was a big variable.
Edwards noted the City would have lost money if they had gone in with the state contract.
Levang moved,Cornick seconded,to authorize Public Works Director Adam Edwards to enter into
a contract on behalf of the City of Orono at the prices and quantities listed in Paragraph 7 of Staff's
Memorandum dated January 26,2015. VOTE: Ayes 3,Nays 0.
*9. 2014 SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
Levang moved,Cornick seconded,to approve Change Order No. 1 for the 2014 Sanitary Sewer
Rehabilitation. VOTE: Ayes 3,Nays 0.
*10. CLEANING CONTRACT AMENDMENT
Levang moved,Cornick seconded,to approve the Cleaning Contract Addendum with a start date
of February 1,2014,and direct Staff to solicit bids for a new cleaning contract. VOTE: Ayes 3,
Nays 0.
Page 11 of 14
MINUTES OF THE .
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,January 26,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
PUBLIC WORKS DIItECTOR/CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT
Edwards reported approximately 85 percent of the work on the sewer lining project has been completed
and that work on the actual manhole lining and sealing will start in the spring once the ground conditions
are right for that.
Edwards noted there was a sewer backup last week on Casco Point and that they are currently working on
remediation. In addition,the Public Works Department has renewed their efforts on tree trimming and
cleanup at the parks.
Edwards reported within the last week there have been two fire hydrants that were damaged by vehicles.
Parts have been ordered and they should be repaired in the near future.
McMillan stated at some point the updated CIl'book will need to be distributed to the City Council.
MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT
Levang asked whether Ralph Kempf would like to talk about the upcoming meeting in Navarre.
Ralph Kempf,3675 Togo Road, stated he did send out a number of e-mails about the upcoming meeting
and that Andrew Mack was anticipating approximately 15 to 20 people at the second meeting. Kempf
stated he has stressed the importance of showing up and having strong numbers at these events since it
will reflect well on the community and have a positive impact on the people who are awarding the grant.
Kempf stated the meeting is scheduled for 6:30 on Tuesday,January 27, at the Navarre Fire Station.
Levang indicated she plans on attending the meeting.
McMillan reported she attended the January 14 LMCD meeting when Gabriel Jabbour was sworn in and
that she also attended the January Planning Commission meeting.
McMillan stated she and Council Member Cornick attended the Highway 112 advisory committee
meeting and that the group basically discussed the streetlights and retaining walls. A public open house
will be scheduled for March or April. McMillan stated one of the big issues will be the stabilization of
the south bank of Long Lake and that MN/DOT will need to bring in some heavy equipment and
stabilization equipment which will result in that portion of the road being closed for approximately six
weeks.
McMillan stated the public is welcome to attend the monthly meetings which are held the third Thursday
of the month at 8 a.m. in the Orono City Council Chambers. McMillan noted information on the
Highway 12 turnback is on the City's website as well.
McMillan reported the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is dredging the pond for the old Long Lake
sewer treatment plant on Orono Orchard Road and creating a natural wetland and flow through of the
water by removing the ditch. McMillan stated she is not sure how many truck loads or cubic yards will
be moved but that it will be a fairly big project. McMillan stated the soils were not contaxninated to the
point where it would require dumping at a special landfill,which will save quite a bit of money.
McMillan stated the project will bring a lot of wetland and wildlife value to the area.
Page 12 of 14
. MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,January 26,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(MAYOR/COiJNCIL REPORT continue�
McMillan noted Jessica,Adam,Mike and herself will be meeting with Hennepin County Director
Jim Grube on Thursday about accesses along County Roads 15 and 19 in the event the intersection is
redesigned.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
11. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
City Administrator Loftus noted Andrew Mack has tendered his resignation effective January 15. Loftus
stated since the Community Development Director position is important in moving forward with City
initiatives therefore she would recoxnmend filling it. Loftus stated she is not recommending any changes
to the salary level or job description at this time.
Loftus stated she is looking for two Council Members to be on the interview panel.
Levang indicated she would be willing to be part of the interview panel and that she would recommend
Kevin Landgraver also be appointed to the committee.
Levang stated she does not have any changes to the job description. Levang stated given how ixnportant
this job is to the City, she would entertain paying to advertise with professional planning associations as
well as using the League of Minnesota Cities and other avenues. Levang stated she would like to see a
healthy candidate pool versus just a handful of candidates.
McMillan stated she would recommend filling the position and that it would be helpful to have a Planning
Commissioner on the interview panel. McMillan indicated she would also be willing to serve on the
committee.
Cornick asked if there are any things in the job description that might have led towards the resignation.
Loftus indicated there was not.
Levang moved,Cornick seconded,to approve advertising the Community Development Director
position. VOTE: Ayes 3,Nays 0.
*12. WESTERN COMMUNITIES ACTION NETWORK(WeCAN)REQUEST FOR CDBG
SUPPORT
Levang moved,Cornick seconded,to approve sending a letter of support for the CDBG grant
application being submitted by the Western Communities Action Network. VOTE: Ayes 3,Nays 0.
*13. ORONO POLICE GARAGE—PAY REQUEST NO.5
Levang moved,Cornick seconded,to approve the payments to the contractors working on the
Orono Police Garage Project as listed in an amount totaling$382,472.34. VOTE: Ayes 3,Nays 0.
Page 13 of 14
MINUTES OF THE .
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,January 26,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
*14. LICENSES&PERMITS
Annual Tobacco Licenses
1. John O'Sullivan—O'Sullivan's Holiday#546
2420 Shadywood Road .
Navarre,MN 55392
2. John O'Sullivan—O'Sullivan's Holiday#547
3340 Shoreline Drive
Navarre,MN 55392
Levang moved,Cornick seconded,to approve the above-listed licenses. VOTE: Ayes 3,Nays 0.
*15. CLAIMSBILLS
Levang moved, Cornick seconded,to approve payment of the All Funds Account. VOTE: Ayes 3,
Nays 0.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
City Attomey Mattick stated he had nothing to report.
ADJOURNMENT
Levang moved,Cornick seconded,to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 8:15 p.m. VOTE:
Ayes 3,Nays 0.
ATTEST
t�2�
iegs,City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan,Mayor
Page 14 of 14
West Crysta!Bay
����
.� >
ti �
�. �`
�qkfSH���
Legend
Railroad
� Ciry Limits
TOGO RD �� ❑ Parcels(11-1-2014)
��
e Q`Q'
NORTHERN A�E CRYSTAL+PL R�2i� �,JP
-�"� � o�� '°� �
�� n W LlVINGSTON AVE �'F,q
�'�4 n 2 `F
� gsfO�i cf m m LYRIC AVE
SHORELINE-DR
�
��y sti.� �
0
00 ��0 �oo Q
� OQ�`� ��o � s�o,. � � �
� GPSG .F.t�` W �'y�i�s � � r"
� � �
`~ � � �
9`� � � Z
Q �
�0 � �
P� � 2
� � 02-09-2015
GP� �� Q Council Agenda
d �
4 DiScWmer.
This drawmg is neither a legally recorded map nor a
survey and is not mtended to be used as one Th�s
e dravnng rs a mmpAanon of records,mformat�on,and data
0 768 Feet located in various ory,county,and state offices,and
other sources atfecting the area shown,and is to be used
for reference purposes only The Ciry of Orono is not
�Bolton&Menk,Inc-Web GIS 2/6/2015 922 AM �.������nia�,.a����a«��.a��.�n..P�����rA��Pn
.
COUNCIL MEETIN(� �
FEe o s z���
Date Application Received: NA
Date Application Considered as Complete: NA CI.����0
60-Day Review Period Expires: NA �
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date: February 3, 2015
Item No.: �
Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section:
Name: Michael P.Gafi'ron Planning Dept.
Title: Senior Planner
Item DescripNon: 14-3664 David Schmid &Angela Ciliberto, 3309 Crystal Bay Road
-Amend Variance & CUP Approvals for Revised Retaining Wall
Zoning District: LR-1C, One Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre/100'
Lot Area: 5,237 s.f. exclusive of traveled road (0.12 acre)
Lot Width: 52' at Shoreline, 59' at 75' Setback Line
Application Summary: Amend approved site plan to re-orient the open parking space
adjacent to Crystal Bay Road and replace the pre-existing block retaining walls along Crystal
Bay Road with a boulder wa11.
Planning Commission Recommendation: At its October 20, 2014 meeting the PC voted 7-0
to recommended approval of the proposed revisions to the parking sta11 orientation and
associated retaining walls. At that meeting applicants indicated they were also considering
the use of a steel wa11 system rather than the proposed boulder walls. Planning Commission
indicated they would not oppose the use of a steel wall system rather than the boulder walls
depicted in the proposed survey, but directed that a steel wall design be submitted for staff
review before this is presented to the City Council for consideration. The applicants have
abandoned the steel wall idea and are requesting approval for the initially proposed boulder
walls.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the request
with conditions.
List of Ezhibits
A-Draft Resolution
B -PC Minutes 10/20/14
C -Notice of PC Action 10/21/14
D - Pla.nning Commission Memo and Exhibits of 10/14/14
Background
The applicants were granted variance and CUP approvals to construct a new residence via
Resolution No. 6407 on June 9, 2014. While they have been issued permits and begun
construction on the home based on the approved site plan, they are proposing a site plan revision
regarding the front parking sta11 along Crystal Bay Road. That stall was approved in the location
�
File#14-3664
February 3,2015
Page 2
of the pre-existing detached garage, and included revisions to the walls abutting the garage
space.
The applicants are now proposing to replace the pre-existing walls (since removed) along Crystal
Bay Road and replace with boulder wa11s, all of which will be less than 4 feet in height. Further,
rather than creating a parking stall perpendicular to the road, they propose to create a parallel
stall, approximately 24 feet in width and 7-10' deep, in the location of the existing driveway and
slightly west of it. The front walkway and steps will also be slightly reconfigured. These
revisions require an amendment of the approved site plan.
Please review the 10/14/14 PC memo and 10/20/14 PC minutes for additional detail. Public
Works Director Adam Edwards reviewed the proposed layout and found it acceptable.
Staff Recommendation
Crystal Bay Road is narrow with minimal if any areas wide enough for on-street vehicle parking
without causing difficulty for other vehicles. The proposed parking stall appears to be located so
as not to intrude into the traveled right-of-way, and will be located no closer to the traveled road
than the existing concrete walls. Crystal Bay Road exists via a prescriptive easement, not
dedicated on any plat or through any formal easement process. The public by virtue of many
decades of use and maintenance has the right to continue use of the traveled roadway. The
parking stall will be on private property (but within 10' of the paved roadway), and it will be up
to the property owner to manage any unintended public use of the stall.
Staff recommends approval of the reconfigured walls/driveway/sidewalk, and installation of
boulder walls per the proposed plan, subject to a11 other conditions of the 2014 variance & CUP
approval including the limitation to 36.6%hardcover, and that the area streetward of the walls be
paved.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Adopt or amend the attached Resolution Amending the Conditions of Resolution No. 6407 -
File#14-3664.
� Council
Exhibit A
A RESOLUTION
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 6407
- FILE NO. 14-3664
WHEREAS, David Schmid, a single person, and Angela Ciliberto, a single
person (hereinafter"the Applicants") are the owners of the property located at 3309 Crystal Bay
Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as follows:
Lot 1, Wallace' s Addition to the Village of Minne�onka Beach, together with a
portion of vacated street lying northeasterly of and adjacet�t to said lot described as
follows: That part of said vacated street lying southwesterly of a line drawn from a
point on the Southeasterly line of saad vacated street distant 10 feet northeasterly
from the most southerly corner of said vacateAd street, to a point on the
Southwesterly line of said vacated street di��ant 113.91 feet northwesterly from said
most southerly corner, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
(hereinafter the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2014 the Applicants were granted variances and a
conditional use permit for oo�truction of� new residence to replace their existing residence on
the property, which approvals �lso included � variance and �onditional use pernut pursuant to
Section 78-966 and 7$-1286 to allqv� grading a�d the construction of retaining wa11s within the
0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no grading is normally allowed, subject to specified
conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have requested a revision to the site plan approved
via Resohttion No. 6407 ua order to a11ow replacement of the pre-existing block retaining walls
along Cryst�l Bay Road with boulder wails, all of which will be less than 4 feet in height; and to
a11ow re-orierrtation of the approved parking stall to be parallel to Crystal Bay Road rather than
perpendicular to it,such stall to be approximately 24 feet in width and 7-10' deep, in the location
of the existing driveway and slightly west of it. The front walkway and steps will also be slightly
reconfigured; and
Page 1 of 5
WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes and the Orono, Minnesota, City Code, the Orono Planning Commission held
a public hearing on October 20, 2014 at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning
this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as an amendment of Zaning File number 14-3664.
2. The Planning Commission revicv�d this application at a public hearing held on
October 20, 2014 and voted 7 for and 0 against on a motion to approve the
requested site plan revisions including wall replacement, parking stall re-
orientation and sidewallc reconfiguration,�on the following findings:
a. The proposed revisions re5ult in a wa11 system that avoids the 8-foot high wall
system that would have required additional safety measures such as fencing.
b. Re-orientation of the parking s'tall as propo�d will not impede City street
maintenat�ce and will likely creat� a safer situ2ition for a vehicle exiting the
sit�given the hill on the n�ighbt�ring properiy to the east.
c. Gradi�g in the area of the parking stall will create a slope that is less steep and
will tie in better wiiith the ex�sting grades on the adjacent property. Site
drainage will still be muted along the west side of the stairway as previously
approved.
d. Aesthetically, the b�oulder walls may create a more natural look than the pre-
existing fielc�stone-f�ced walls. As part of the project, the existing concrete
steps will be replaced with a curved stairway leading up from the street to the
flatter area near the house,plus some stepping stones around the house.
e. The proposed stall has been configured and sized to be equivalent to the
existi�g amount of hardsurface associated with the existing driveway. The
stall wi'�l be required to be paved. Hardcover with the proposed configuration
has been held to the 36.6% approved in the original plan.
3. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and
recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by
the Applicants and the public, and the effect of the site plan revisions to the
approved variances and CUP on the health, safety and welfare of the community.
Page 2 of 5
4. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this Property are peculiar to
it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting
approval of revisions to the site plan previously approved for variances would not
adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger
to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the
Applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty; is necessary to
preserve a substantial property right of the Applicants; and would be in keeping
with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code�nd Comprehensive Plan of the City.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDTTiONS
Based upon one or more of tl�t; above findings, the Orc�o City Council hereby
grants a revision to the site plan approved via Resoiution No. b407 in order t0 allow replacement
of the pre-existing block retaining wa11s along Crystal Bay Road with boulder�vvalls, all of which
will be less than 4 feet in height; and t4 a11ow re-orientation of the approved parking stall to be
parallel to Crystal Bay Road rather °Ghhan �etpendicular ta i�, such stall to be approximately 24
feet in width and 7-10' deep, in the location of the existing driveway and slightly west of it; and
to allow reconfiguration of the front walkvvay and�; all subje�i to the following conditions:
1. Council approt�a� is based vn the revis�site plan survey submitted by the Applicants and
annotated by eity staff, attached to thi� Resolution as Ezhibit A, Any amendments to
the revised site plan whic�i are not in co�ormity with City codes will require further
Planning Commission�d City C�ncil review.
2. Appiicants shall obtain a separate buii+ding permit for construction of the boulder walls
priar to commencem�nt of c;onstruction.
3. Under the revised site plan, Comlition 4 of Resolution No. 6407 requiring a fence or
other positive safety barriers shall be placed above the retaining walls that surround the
lower parkit�area, is no lt�ger required.
4. All other conditions of Resolution No. 6407 shall remain in full force and effect.
5. Authorities granted by #his resolution run with the property not with the Applicants, but
are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a land alteration permit for the
boulder wall system within one year of the date of Council approval, or the approvals
granted herein will expire on that date (February 9, 2016).
Page 3 of 5
8. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution
shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority
granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor.
9. The undersigned Applicants have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this
resolution and on behalf of the Applicants and the Applicants' heirs, successors and
assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the
Property.
Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 9�' day o£February, 2015.
ATTEST:
Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Li1i�'od McMillan,Mayor
Property Owner(s)
Page 4 of 5
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
This instrument was acknowledged before me this_day of , 2015,by
David Schmid, a single person.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
This instrument was acknowledg�before me Lhis_day of , 2015, by
Angela Ciliberto, a sin,�e�rsran.
Notary Public
Page 5 of 5
• MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Councii
Monday,October 20,2014 Exhibit B
6:30 o'clock p.m.
ROL ALL
The Orono ' g Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following mem s present:
Chair Denise Le ' en,Commissioners Bruce Lemke, Christopher McGrann,Chad Ol ,Loren
Schoenzeit, and Jo 'esse. Representing Staff were Community Development ' ector Andrew
Mack, Senior Planner el Gaffron, City Planner Melanie Curtis,Consult' City Engineer David
Martini, and Recorder Jacki oung. Council Member Printup was prese . Commissioner Jon
Schwingler arrived at 6:38 p.m.
Chair Leskinen called the meeting to or at 6:30 p.m.,fo ed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA
*1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING MIVIISSIO ETING MINUTE OF SEPTEMBER 15,
2014
Mack noted under Item N the name of the architect was misspelled would be corrected by Staff.
Schoenzeit mo ,McGrann seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as a ded. VOTE: Ayes
6,Nays 0.
N BUSINESS
2. #14-3664 DAVID SCHIVIID AND ANGELA CILIBERTO,3309 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD,
VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERNIIT AMENDMENT,6:35 P.M.—6:45 P.M.
David Schmid and Angela Ciliberto,Applicants,were present.
Gaffron noted this application was before the Planning Commission earlier this year and was approved by
the City Council in June of 2014. The applicants have chosen to request some revisions to the paxking
area that exists along Crystal Bay Road. The parking area originally was going to be created from a
portion of the existing underground garage,which was to be removed,and construction of a new concrete
rear retaining wall within the garage footprint. That retaining wa11 would have been approximately 8.5
feet high and would have required fencing or similar barrier at the top for safety purposes.
The applicants are now proposing a parking sta11 as a parallel stall to the road,which requires an
amendment to the approved site plan. The stall will be approximately 24 feet in width and seven to ten
feet deep,in the location of the existing driveway and slightly vvest of it. In addition, all existing walls
will be removed and replaced with boulder walls,all of which will be less than four feet in height.
Public Works Director Adam Edwards has reviewed the proposed plan and notes that the paza11e1 stall
will not impede City street maintenance and will likely create a safer situarion for a vehicle exiting the
site given the hill on the neighbori.ng property to the east. Grading of the area of the pazking stall will
create a slope that is less steep and will tie in better with th existing grades on the adjacent property. Site
drainage will still be routed along the west side of the stairway as previously approved.
Gaffron stated aesthetically the boulder wa11s may create a more natural look than the existing fieldstone-
faced walls. As part of the project,the existing concrete steps will be replaced with a curved stairway
Page 1 of 28
MINLTTES OF THE ,
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 20,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
leading up from the street to the flatter area near the house as well as some stepping stones around the
house.
The proposed stall has been configured and sized to be equivalent to the existing amount of hard surface
associated with the existing driveway. The stall will be required to be paved. Hardcover with the
proposed configuration will not be increased.
Staff recommends approval of the revisions.
Lemke asked what the surface will be on the parking area.
Gaffron stated the parking area will be required to be paved.
Angela Ciliberto noted Staff s report states the walls would be boulder walls. Ciliberto asked if they
would be allowed to use any steel as part of the retaini.ng wall or whether they would need to submit a
new request. Ciliberto indicated they are attempting to make it appear as na.tural looking as possible.
Gaffron asked if she is speaking of steel pilings.
Ciliberto indicated it would be a solid sheet similar to a wall with some reinforcement.
Gaffron stated Staff would like to see some type of drawing or engineering design. Gaffron noted the
wall would be four feet high, and if boulders are not going to be used,it likely will have a different
appeara.nce than what is before the Planning Commission tonight.
Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission could request an engineered plan if the wall is under four feet.
Gaffron stated if the wall is less than four feet high,the City does not require it to be engineered,but since
the work is in the 0-75 foot zone and is facing the zone,there may be other issues that should be
addressed.
McGraxin asked if the original application called for the wall to stay.
Gaffron stated if the walls stay the way they are depicted in the picture,the new walls would have had to
be engineered.
McGrann indicated he was referring to the stones around the walk and asked whether that area is going to
stay the same.
Gaffron pointed out that area that is to be changed.
McGrann asked whether another notification would need to be sent out given the changes.
Gaffron stated notification was sent out within the required notification area and that no word was heard
from any of the neighbors.
Leskinen asked if the horizontal walls around the sidewalk will be put back. Leskinen noted they have
been removed.
Page 2 of 28
. MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION MEETING
Monday,October 20,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaffron stated the pictures were taken last fall and that there was no intent at the time the building permit
was issued for the wall to go away.
. Lemke noted the plan does say proposed wall on that side.
Gaffron stated the proposed plan shows a new wa11 in two locations. Gaffron sta.ted if those walls are
now gone,the applicants' intent is to replace them with something different, and what is before the
Planning Commission is what is being proposed.
Ciliberto stated a11 of the walls were removed during the beginning stages of demolition. Ciliberto
indicated the walls were actually connected to the stairway and was one piece of concrete.
Chair Leski.nen opened the public hearing at 6:40 p.m.
There were no public comments.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:40 p.m.
Leski.nen stated in her view the revisions are an improvement and that she was not comfortable with the
8-foot retaining wall given the safety issues. Leskinen stated she was surprised when she visited the site
yesterday that the other walls were gone,but that there is silt fencing up and it appears to be holding the
ground in place. Leskinen stated it is a reasonable request.
Thiesse stated he would like a condition of approval to be tha,t a plan be presented regarding the steel.
Thiesse stated a steel sheet wa11 has a maritime look,which would be okay,but that it does not appeaz the -
applicants have a good idea of what type of wall it will be specifically.
, Schoenzeit moved,Thiesse seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 14-3664,David .
Schmid and Angela Ciliberto,3309 Crystal Bay Road, granting of a variance and a conditional use
permit,subject to Staff's recommendation and subject to submittal of a plan depicting how the steel
is to be used prior to appearing before the City Council. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
3. #14-3691 SOURCE LAND CAPTTAL,405 NORTH ARM D1tIVE,PRELIMIN
PLAT, P.M.—8:25 P.M.
Pat Hiller, Source Lan ital,was present.
Grittman stated before the Planning 'ssion tonight is the prel' ' plat for the Lakeview project.
This application first appeared before the P ' g Commission in October of 2013 as a concept
subdivision review and the Planning Commission r ' wed material generally. The preliminary plat
application was previously brought before the Plannin 'ssion at its September meeting. At the
time of that hearing, Staff recommended tabling t application, 'ch was done,to a11ow the applicants
time to submit additional material.
Grittman stated some of the reque material has been submitted and Staff has an opportunity to
review the documents.
Page 3 of 28
' Council
Exhibit C
NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
CITY OF ORONO
2750 Kelley Parkway ZONING FILE: 14-3664
PO Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
952.249.4620 DATE OF NOTICE: October 21, 2014
TO: David Schmid &Angela Ciliberto COPIES
3309 Crystal Bay Road via angelaciliberto@hotmail.com
Wayzata, MN 55391 email: davidatthela@aol.com
TYPE OF REQUEST: Variances&CUP- Revised Site Plan ( Parking Stall&Retaining Walls)
DATE OF MEETING: October 20, 2014
The Orono Planning Commission voted on a motion to recommend approval of the proposed revisions
to the parking stall orientation and associated retaining walls. Planning Commission indicated they
would not oppose the use of a steel wall system rather than the boulder walls depicted in the proposed
survey, but directed that a wall design be submitted for staff review before this is presented to the City
Council for consideration.
VOTE: 7 FOR 0 AGAINST
This application is tentatively scheduled for review and action by the City Council at its November 10
meeting pending submittal of additional information,as follows:
- Revised survey showing the proposed steel retaining walls.
- Retaining wall design plans.
This information must be submitted no later ihan Monday, November 3,2014 in order to be placed on
the following meeting agenda:
Monday, November 10,2014 This is a City Council meeting. The meeting begins at 7 PM.
If that schedule cannot be met,we would need your submittals by Monday, November 17 in order to be
scheduled for the November 24 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
Senior Planner Mike Gaffron at mqaffron@ci.orono.mn.us or 952.249.4622.
. �
Council >
V Exhibit D
Date Application Received: 09/10/14
Date Application Considered as Complete: 09/10/14
60-Day Review Period Ezpires: 11/9/14
To: Chair Leskinen and Planning Commission Members
Jessica Loftus, City Administrator
From: Mike Gaffron, Senior Plann
Date: October 14, 2014
Subject: #14-3664, David Schmid&Angela Ciliberto, 3309 Crystal Bay Road
- Site Plan Amendment-Variance & CUP
- Public Hearing
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zoning District: LR-1C, One Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre/100'
Lot Area: 5,237 s.f. exclusive of traveled road (0.12 acre)
Lot Width: 52' at Shoreline, 59' at 75' Setback Line
Application Summary: Amend approved site plan to re-orient open parking space
adjacent to Crystal Bay Road and replace retaining walls.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the
request with conditions.
List of Exhibits
E�ibit A. Revised Survey &Proposed Site Plan
Exhibit B. Originally Approved Survey& Site Plan
E�ibit C. Resolution No. 6407
E�ibit D. Applicant Correspondence
Exhibit E. Site Photos
Exhibit F. Revised Hardcover Calculations (No change)
E�ibit G. Property Owners List
E�ibit H. Plat Map
E�ibit I. Code Section 18-136
E�ibit J. PC Memo of 5/15/14
Background
The applicants were granted variance and CUP approvals to construct a new residence via
Resolution No. 6407 on June 9, 2014. While they have been issued permits and begun
construction on the home based on the approved site plan, they are_�roposing a site plan
revision regarding the front parking stall along Crystal Bay Road. That stall was approved
in the location of the pre-existing detached garage, but is now being proposed as a parallel
stall to the road, requiring an amendment of the approved site plan.
The originally approved proposal included retention of the existing fieldstone-faced
concrete retaining walls abutting Crystal Bay Road, removal of the underground garage, and
construction of a new concrete rear retaining wall within the gazage footprint. That wall
would have been approximately 8-1/2 feet high and would have required fencing or similar
barrier at the top for safety purposes.
FILE#14-3664
October 14,2014 °
Page 2 of 3
The applicants are now proposing to remove all existing walls and replace with boulder
walls, all of which will be less than 4 feet in height. Further, rather than creating a parking
stall perpendicular to the road, they propose to create a parallel stall, approximately 24 feet
in width and 7-10' deep, in the location of the existing driveway and slightly west of it.
Orono Code Sections 18-136(b) and (d) limit driveway approaches to 20' in width, but
allow an additional width of 10' for curb cuts. While the Code does not address parallel
stalls such as that proposed, Public Works Director Adam Edwards has reviewed the
proposed plan and notes that the parallel stall will not impede City street maintenance and
will likely create a safer situation for a vehicle exiting the site given the hill on the
neighboring property to the east.
Grading in the area of the parking stall will create a slope that is less steep and will tie in
better with the existing grades on the adjacent property. Site drainage will still be routed
along the west side of the stairway as previously approved.
Aesthetically, the boulder wa11s may create a more natural look than the existing fieldstone-
faced walls. As part of the project,the existing concrete steps will be replaced with a curved
stairway leading up from the street to the flatter area near the house, plus some stepping
stones around the house.
The proposed stall has been configured and sized to be equivalent to the existing amount of
hardsurface associated with the existing driveway. The stall will be required to be paved.
Hardcover with the proposed configuration has been held to the 36.6% approved in the
original plan.
Conditional Use Permit Analysis
The CUP approved in June for grading work within 75' of the lake was supported by
findings noted in the PC memo dated 5/15/2014 attached as Exhibit J. Staff suggests that
that those findings remain valid under the currently proposed reconfiguration.
Issues for Consideration
1. Does Planning Commission find that the creation of a parallel parking stall at this
location is a reasonable and better alternative to the originally approved re-use of the
driveway and garage footprint?
2. Does the Planning Commission find that the proposed configuration will not
alter the essential character of the neighborhood?
3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Staff Recommendation
Crystal Bay Road is narrow with minimal if any areas wide enough for on-street vehicle
parking without causing difficulty for other vehicles. The proposed parking stall appears to
be located so as not to intrude into the traveled right-of-way, and will be located no closer to
the traveled road than the existing concrete walls. Crystal Bay Road is a prescriptive
easement, not dedicated on any plat or through any formal easement process. The public by
. FILE#14-3664
October 14,2014
Page 3 of 3
virtue of many decades of use and maintenance has the right to continue use of the traveled
roadway. The parking sta11 will be on private property, and it will be up to the property
owner to manage any unintended public use of the stall.
Staff recommends approval of the reconfigured walls and driveway.
Planning Commission options for action:
1. Recommend approval as presented, or with specific conditions or revisions; or
2. Recommend denial, stating reasons; or
3. Table for more information or submittal of a revised plan (provide applicant with
specific direction).
1V111V1� � 1 V1V111-�
a �
= �
a
W CRYSTAL BAY � �'� �
a 4 //���
� � /
/ �_
' � �
V1 /
�''�J
�
� I
� � 929.4 + ' /���
� CONTOUR•., ��' �
o -• L�VE
4'' R1P R�'P �� {932.4) �
�
Q /' '/.. I
/' �i���
�� �� ' I ��
� � ,`J
SURVEY �� �''� Z(�p$ � 2p � �
� LIN�.����� �J ' `
�
�
�� + � �
��„�r/ �-- ��' � �6 � �t� � ( �
f �, ��-�—��— o ,�� 5 i � ����
_ �� 't932.4) i .`, �� � � �OF
_,_ '- •._......... �j � A. /.�� , .��
�-� MH �
� r � �
� � p\1.�P�p �l r- � ,� �� i
� W�'�E�REM�v 9�� � lf� i� �� I �j'�/
�� ��N�ARS �� B �� i�= �� ��� /
�� ''� 5 . � ��' � � �
�` R-� . �o e��°� �i� ��� �� .�
3�. �/ l•, �,..--•-' r ,`�,i :�,.�"
Q.� • p��( � � /• � !��
�0 (Q . AREA L r /� / .;,=' �/,�
J� � �,,.�F� �� /� BW�833.7 / ,�"t:'� I
TW�937. � -
O 8W�933.4 . / �• ,;I'; �/ /
�O � TW=936.4 .'�E�� _ � r" WNd.�� � � ,�—� I �c
J� � ��.-���►a�. :. � 9� �;I'� � /`�
� (933�4�i. C—��.1 -g�, ... . • _ _ " -f'. ;(942.4) I �
/�; :��. 9�. _ i �/
/ �� � �j/ �� I :-•-•: � � NOTE: IF
2s�� oAK— �—'� �•., ... 9 �----' ��:�'i�PLACE[
__�— � �� �����o�:: °�o � -- '1
_ o �.. : �.:
� ,�+ ,,��—H�: ..': :� � _
/(941.1) 9¢ ��',, �,�,b,`,y��' �� ».:s. ,/ I �_.----�—`
_� PROPOSED �3�''�� � _.,.:��-�"'' -T
f��— � �M�STAIRS � � G� �.r�I •�•;;• � ' (
�� _ --���� .:.... I
/ NG gETBACK L.OVEy.-��"_ O � . : �
�� ' AVER__A��BUILDI_� �ui.� � � :.-�.= / �
�`�VERED � • �� " � �'Y'
�� �_��-—— ,_._ 'g� 940.3 ~ DECK[es�. �B� � -. • ' 32 OAK .A.� �
�——�r � �
� 34.0 I
��..•� a---LOOKOUT--s /
::'. i�, � I
��10"x10" ASH .......�--�.. � � �
� 942 �-- .
Ir �� �............... ' . O �� 1 ' '
! ........--"..._. I � n �� W
•— .-----�-- -�� � � �- �s �
12" ASH, �p S( )
` N PROP4SED Q K�---: � = 944.4) �
� � ,�....-. N o� i
75' � 9 4 : , '�'
� SETBAC � / 2.5 g O ?..i..� � ,� I
LINE �� � H C�U S E o ':, (J) ��p i....... � (
co �� �
r� .
� — cov�
o � #3309 ^ �"� o° � •_-•�' 2a °- I
N . .�. tio,i'`:,. �- I
.. 10;0 _ 13.5 6.0 1 '. �
� .PROPOSEO cov�o I ��� (/)
ENT Y r A� ��':��. ,
� SILT FENC � � � �'~'' (
��.-- �_ ` � � . �''' I
i �4�,, � � �
� z —�� ��:.o
/ 944 NG HOUSE N _ _ . N I � I
� '.EXI571 pVED . •- F �� I
/ :,T 0 BE REM . 1 �Z v\ I
� . � �i I o� � �(944.8)
� . „ T � pt- . � (
, �14 WALNU _ ��
� I a cn I SW' LY LINE OF
� 24.0 � VACATED STREI
`i. �? s�s.o �,
(945.2);' ( •.
I `H� o� EXtSTING SF�D PRQPOSED � � ��
� TO BE REMOVEO DRIVEWAY , �
54 �� � i
(945.1) .....�10.00�'''�726" LINDEN_
•\
` •,MOS7 S' LY CORNER
OF VACATED STREET ,
. :
., , ,
-s 54°45� oo�� w � �
� ... .......... 60.00-------��-�- �
(945.8� ��
� �ii
24" ELM
BLACKTOP DRIVEWAY /
/
�
/
. �
�
�
�� - •
_—
. _ �— ,�
�J v-
m /j/ �
;� �
� �� � �
� �
t �
w '
� I
U �
a 929.4 + ' /���
�j CONTOUR•., ��' �
� a- LINE
2 R1P RAP �� (932.4) (
� ' '
, � / //.
� � (
� ,� ,
� ' .
�
1 � � //i//�i . I ��C
, � � � SURVEY � ���� ('p8�. � ( �J
�
� LIN����� �2" I 20 � 0
� J/ �� � I (
�,�/ + ' �-- �� ��� � �
�,���r �— �� �i 932'6 � J � I ��I�
.-- �, ,�• �� �01� I
; _——--rss2.4) :`,.— 3 �� �
_-- . ......_... -N DA,�J I ,�-� ,�
--` MH � g I r % �
� � r ' , �i
� � M , / I ��i
� (933.3) � � � i� '
� � / /
r� ,i �i�� /
� � r/ � � �
3� �g� ,
��r- i� •;•.�- � ��
� ° CONCRETE � / �:'' � �
, �p � 9���� DRIVEWAY i� / �:'��.��i
• � / ��r I
J� � � �Pa� I �i /
° o �' . ' � �
� � p �,��`� ....PROPO�ED �.'-... I //
J� � g�5 9 W �P�•�C� . ;PARKING•...�G�__ � i /
� (933 4� �/ —��J N � 940 • AREA :��-.. ;(942.4) /
( � � i ;�� I /
1936�� CONC. WALLS W � ' • ' , I /
5"
(E) � �� �:�:;�= =="::
/ Z �'� g3a.3 � � � NOTE: IF
2s�� oAK� ��———� v (941.4) ''� '��—9�2 0 �� �-•--� ��. "REPLACEC
PROPOSED ' � EXISTING�
�� / � .
�� � / 19�p a� WALL ��' UNDERGROUND � •� �'. �
' � / g4 I GARAGE-TO �•.-° •j� ( - _
BE REMOVED I •:,. _��. -----""'
_� �� (941.1) '•., ''I �:.:�.��
�'� ' CK LINE I 942 ___----�� ::::.. � �
� BUILDING SETBA�— — .— . / �
/ —�VERAGE _-----— _�, i..: ' / I
/ _—_'_— " .!
�� / -i�__ — � COVERED �B� �� ..� '32" OAK .%-.� �
-g� 940.3 DECK � I
�
i 34 0 I
LOOKOUT--►
.� •' / I
:::.. ��. .i I
�-—�o"x�o�� ASH 942 --......���.o � �
' —�� . .-�----��...............� , . �
_--— /� '. ^ ►�J
................. ,, � � I
12" ASH, �o ' I
' PROPOSED i �-- `°
N ,i'... •' r =(944.4) �
, 9 ..: cv ��.
75 ��/ 2.5 �4 • ' r � �
' � SETBAC � H 0 U S E ~����. I
LINE � � �
� M .- �? COVE � I . •--• � I
� � #3309 ^ �'�Y � ;'''� zo ° I
N T'� . .�. ,o -�•:. �' I
' � 10;0 13.5 6A � I
i � .... _..._ . . cov�o I .... (n I
' � PROPOSED Y C A) '''...
O SILT FENC � � �'`•• (
�—
; �' �_ � � . ''' I
�
� `�4� , I �
/ Z �'� �:.o
o � . ..�.....--; �
�
/ 944 ��:EXISTING HOUSE N N I O�Z� � (
/ •.'TO gE REMOVED.. • • • •
W 1; � I
IWZ : v�
� . � � I o� �(944.8)
I ,� � 0� � I
14 WALNUT_ I a�
I ,24 p � SW'�Y LINE OF
� I VACATED STREI
'f, :�4 946. `` n,•
(945.2):' (H : .
' ' ` � v� EXISTING SHED PRO.POSED 1 O
'� TO BE REMOVED DRIV;EWAY � '
i
� 5•4 ••---•10.00�''��26" LINDEN-
I (945.1) ,, � �
` •,MOST S'LY CORNER
OF VACATED STREET ,
. ,
'• •' /
-- ...S 54°45' 00" W 60.0�-..........- ' �
(945.8� ��
� vi
24" ELM
BLACKTOP DRIVEWAY �
/
/
�
�
�—
��
_—
�
_ �
---- ,
-- - ,
------- — 94 . `- ---'---------'-' — —9
---------- ----- `���
� — .�
ao ���� �v .
� / �
�
a / ��� �
� �
x �
w �� I
U / i�
a 929.4 + ' '
�j CONTOUR•., ��� �
� � ] O.. LINE R`P RPp �� (932.a) �
I � � ��/. �
� � / '
i � �� �/ �
, � �- � ,-���� � I I ���
� �' SURVEY ������ rp$� � I �
� / LIN�.���� �J2' 20 � �
, / ��' �� I �
� + � � � �� � �
�=�� � �-� �.i 93�'6 �� GJ� � I �3',I�
_' �� .��� i'�/ ��� ` � �/ �
'_ _-t932.4� �.. .... -N � I ,�� �-
/� .... R. ,
r�� MH 1'O I r ' I ,i�
, �� . � �. ,
$ � �, , � �,
� � �. � ,, �
� (933.3) �
� / i
i /
�� ,� ��I� �Q�
�� r� � ( A.1�'i
� GR' -��/—' -,..�- —'
3 l, � � '" �j�
O � CONCRETE i �;'� � �
� p� CO l �� ORIVEWAY � � ..:`• �, �
�
� �' � 9'��' � y�'"' I
�
, OJ� � o � �O I ��� •• �" .
� P - � I �
� ��,�'�`� ...�PROPO�ED�--� ... I �.�
J� � 9��9 W �Q ��I� 'AREAING•...�G� ( i /
,� .,.;.....
,� (933 4) �/ _...--��_ � / (940 �::::I%'j'� .(942.4) � //
.. � ,.� � /
19g6�� CONC. WALLS W / 5„ .•',�-� .
� � ../�
� �E� � z �`� g34.3. � . � � NOTE: IF
�--——� o (941.4) '�� ' �.��� :....f REPLACEI
26" OAK'' � v PROPOSED --' 942� ��'� .
. :„
� � /� � ` EXISTING �.�'•, '• ��''�
`� <940 a� WALL �' UNDERGROUND �
� � / g4 I GARAGE-TO �:;;-' j� I _ _
��, BE REMOVED ( :,. �} --�-'
/ (941.1) . .-I "== '� �-
� '....��
_� ' �
� CK LINE` I 942 __—=�i --�• / �
�"� pING SETBA_._—— � . .. � �
/ AVERAGE BUIL_,�—— � :.� / (
� �' —�� �_ � COVEREO �B��� '32" OAK '-�`� �
-g� 940.3 DECK ' � I
l ---�"- -- � s
� '
i 34.0 I
�oacout
• . � I . / i
1V11 l� l� L� �1� U l� �5,. 1�. � .
a ��.�
W CRYSTAL BAY ��!o-- '
a Q- ./�i
� � / ��� ''
�
V� �
�
� I
�
� � 929.4 + � ���
� CONTOUR•., �%'� I
Qo -r LINE R1P R�'p �� (932.4) �
� � ' I
, �
, �
� ,, ���� • I ��
,� �� � � ��
SURVEY �� �� �Z.rOa � 20 I �
� LIN�,���� ` I
/ � � �
J �
/ �
�—�' �-- '� i 3 6 � Qr�, � � ( g'.I�
�--._.- �� �� 5 � I ��
� �' �,�.�i� �j° ,
��,- �(932.4) i . A\ �" � ( , �� � �
�� � � • •--..... .. '``� � � ��
__ MH gas � r i- �� i
� �� �s, p��o�o ,�.y:�l � t� �� ��� ��
. $ E�� w P`g� REM 9 �� � ��'
� �NCR s �0 �,v � i �� i
� � 5�P�R (�). - ''�� i � i �
S� , � �
,� �o��`"°�: �� � �
� g t , �- , �;�.,,.
� C --�-�--��� � ��
a P� / �'' I
' P�tivac(�) i / .;,� ��
�� � �- �A � / "• �/
�" M �;�F: �� BW=933.7 • / /'�''«/ �
• ' '• � TWs937.6 �i '
J� Cfl o _...'.,� / '',. `,`. � . � OE
p � p ew-eas.4 �'�,�E). / �:. � Wµ.� � �' ( �
jrw-9as.4 - - P�°sE° I /
-� � .r-<�w�,W •* `./' 9� �:I i
� �933.4) �r''���� �� ..- - ='� -�r J' ��' ;(942.4) 1 //
,� _.__ /: :�.-:.� � �
� �';'�• % : ; � NOTE: IF
��$ � / �ti � :...: I 'REPLACE
26" OAK� �'�� '•. O, 9 I �'�..
.—` \ // �.'.,�p�.:: �O '��, .. �.'1
--" '. . O ��p-`�',. ,.; '� I _
� � 940 �.': ����'� �I ..�:���_,���—^!�'
(941.1) PROPOSED � �� �, r..-� . � I
� —-� / �M�STAIRS � ;"'�'
� . i , � _ �- _�i�r I ✓: � i
. �
. , � 33OC1 / <<n ,��_ � PC ExhibitC
�_�+"� ����
14-3�
Doc No A10101982
Certified, filed and/or recorded on
Jul 28, 2014 12:00 PM
Office of the County Recorder
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Martin McMormick, County Recorder
Mark Chapin, County Auditor and Treasurer
Deputy 47 Pkg ID 1135737M
Doc Name: Variance
Document Recording Fee $46.00
Document Total $46.00
,�
This cover sheet is now a permanent part of the recorded document. �j�
� �°�o
C ITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
y�'�,� �,G~ N o. 6 4 0 7
kFSHO�
A RESOLUTION
GRANTING VARIANCES TO
MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTIONS 78-350, 78-1279(1), 78-1286, 78-1680 AND 78-1700(1);
AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PURSUANT TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-966
- FILE NO. 14-3664
WHEREAS, David Schmid, a single person, and Angela Ciliberto, a single
person (hereinafter"the Applicants") are the owners of the property located at 3309 Crystal Bay
Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as follows:
Lot l, Wallace' s Addition to the Village of Minnetonka Beach, together with a
portion of vacated street lying northeasterly of and adjacent to said lot described as
follows: That part of said vacated street lying southwesterly of a line drawn from a
point on the Southeasterly line of said vacated street distant 10 feet northeasterly
from the most southerly corner of said vacated street, to a point on the
Southwesterly line of said vacated street distant 113.91 feet northwesterly from said
most southerly corner, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
(hereinafter the"Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a
variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-350 to allow construction of a new
residence on a lot of 5,237 s.f. in area where a lot area of 21,780 s.f. is normally required, and of
width 52' at the shoreline and 59' at the 75' setback line where a lot width of 100' is normally
required, and with a setback of 1.7' from the rear lot line where a 30' setback is normally
required; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have applied for variances to Orono Municipal
Zoning Code Sections 78-1279(1) and 78-1279(2) to allow construction of a new residence 57'
from the OHW of Lake Minnetonka where a 75' setback is normally required, and 24' from the
traveled portion of Crystal Bay Road where a 30' setback is normally required; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have applied for variances to Orono Municipal
Zoning Code Sections 78-1680 and 78-1700(1) to allow construction of a new residence and
associated hardcover in the amount of 36.57% within Hardcover Tier 1 where only 25%
hardcover is normally allowed; and
Page 1 of 8
�-��o� .
C ITY OF ORONO
I�ESOLUTtON OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ti �
6407
.
�'� G No.
9KFSH���
WHEREAS, the Applicants have applied for a variance and conditional use
permit pursuant to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-966 and 78-1286 to allow grading and
the construction of retaining walls as well as excavation and grading to accommodate
construction of a new home, all within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone; and
WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes and the Orono, Minnesota, City Code, the Orono Planning Commission held
a public hearing on May 19, 2014 at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this
application were given the opportunity to speak thereon.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File number 14-3664.
2. The Property is located in the LR-1 C One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning
District which requires a minimum lot area of 0.5 acre and a minimum lot width
of 100'.
3. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on
May 19, 2014 and voted 7 for and 0 against on a motion to approve the requested
variances and conditional use permit subject to certain conditions and based on
the following findings:
a. The Property contains 5,237 square feet in area outside of the traveled right-
of-way of Crystal Bay Road and has a defined width of 52 feet at the lalce and
59 feet at the 75-foot setback.
b. The existing residence and attached garage exhibit a number of
nonconformities including excess hardcover, substandard side and lake
setbacks and attached garage encroachment of nearly 8 feet into the Hennepin
County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) right-of-way. The proposed
residence will be similar in footprint and shape to the existing but is being
reoriented to meet the required 10' side setbacks and to be located entirely
within the property boundaries.
c. In order to accomplish eliminate the HCRRA encroachment while retaining a
viable footprint, the house is proposed be placed 57' from the OHWL,
resulting in a rear lot line setback of 1.7 feet. The HCRRA has indicated in an
Page2of8
. �o�o
C ITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
��'� �,G' No. 6 4 0 7
kESHO�
email dated 4/9/2014 that they view the elimination of the encroachment as an
improvement and do not object to the resulting substandard rear setback.
d. The applicants' property and the homes to its east gain vehicular access via a
shared driveway that exists within the HCRRA right-of-way under a 2007
easement agreement between HCRRA and the CiTy. Applicants' property is at
the end of that shared driveway, and neighboring property owners have
indicated that construction traffic is a two-fold concern in that the Applicartts
and their contractors must maintain access for the other users of the driveway,
and any damage to the driveway caused by the construction process should be
rectified by the Applicants. Planning Commission recommends that the City
inspect the driveway prior to commencement of home demolition/construction
and establish a baseline condition for comparison after construction is
complete.
e. Crystal Bay Road is unique in that the street was never platted but exists by
prescription between the homes and the lake. The rear of the lots abut the
HCRRA railroad right-of-way. In many cases along the road, lots are not very
deep and therefore a number of properties have been granted variances to the
lake setback over the years. The proposed lake setback of 57 feet is not
inconsistent with past variances granted for other homes on Crystal Bay Road.
The proposed home location will not encroach on the established average
lakeshore setback.
f. In addition to the house replacement, Applicants propose to remove an
existing underground garage that opens to Crystal Bay Road approximately 10
feet back from the traveled road. Applicants propose to keep the driveway and
a portion of the garage floor to create an open parking stall approximately 20'
deep, which requires the construction of a new back retaining wall
approximately 8 feet in height. This parking area constitutes 0-75' hardcover;
however, a significant amount of fill would be needed to eliminate this
parking area, as the grade on either side is quite steep and additional retaining
walls would likely be needed to stabilize the 80% slope that would result. A
guard rail or fence above this parking area is likely to be required for safety.
g. Without variances the majority of the subject property is unbuildable as all but
the rear 26'-40' is located within 75' of the OHWL. This creates a practical
difficulty for redevelopment of the property. However, the applicants do have
the right to replace the existing residence in-kind if they choose to do so.
From a footprint perspective, the existing house and proposed house are
nearly identical at approximately 1450 s.f. The proposed house will be 2 full
Page 3 of 8
���o .
C ITY OF ORONO
2ESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
y� G� No. b4 07
qkFsxo��`
stories rather than the existing 1-1/2 story structure. While the applicants'
proposal will not increase hardcover, it will increase the visual bulk and
massing as compared to the existing home. The propose low-pitch roof will
help to keep the new home from visually towering over the neighbor to the
west.
h. Due to the very small size of the lot, proposed hardcover of 36.67% is
necessary to accommodate the house, driveway retaining walls, sidewalks and
parking area, and this level of hardcover is a slight decrease from the existing
hardcover level of 37.7%. There is not sufficient room on the property to
provide mitigation measures for the excess hardcover.
i. City Code Section 78-966(a)(2) indicates that landowners must obtain a CUP
from the City prior to engaging in activities that include fill to elevate or alter
the existing natural grade. In this project the Applicants propose grading that
will direct runoff from the HCRRA right-of-way around the house and to the
front, with the intent to not direct drainage to neighboring properties. The
CUP is required because a portion of the grading work and the new retaining
wall at the lower parking area are within 75' of the lake. In relation to the
findings necessary for issuance of the CUP for grading and retaining walls,
Planning Commission finds that:
1) The proposed retaining walls and grading improvements are residential in
nature and are compliant with the zoning code.
2) The proposed improvements are appropriate and in character with the
surrounding land and neighborhood, and the proposed new residence
partially within the 75-foot setback zone will have little impact on
surrounding lands. Drainage patterns for runoff leaving the site will be
altered with the intent to significantly improve them.
3) The grading activity will not impair the use and enjoyment of the property
in the area or have an adverse impact on the property values in the area
when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses.
The proposed use of the property for a residence, coupled with the
changes in use of the lower garage area, will result in minimal impacts to
the use and enj oyment of adj acent properties.
4} As long as the Applicants and their contractors are vigilant in ensuring
construction activity does not impair other driveway and Crystal Bay Road
users, and that any damage is repaired, the grading activity and its results
will not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets or the
Page4of8
���� ITY OF ORONO
C
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
y�'�q �G~ tv o. � � � �
kESHO�
shared driveway, parking needs that cause a demonstrable inconvenience
to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, nor unsafe access.
5) The proposed grading is designed to take into account the natural and
scenic features of the area. The proposed grading on this lot is minimal
and as a result will have minimal if any environmental impacts but will
alleviate an existing drainage issue for the Applicants' property.
j. Applicants' initial plan to relocate onto the property the small 5'x9' shed that
is partially in the HCRRA right-of-way may be difficult to accomplish in a
conforming manner. Therefore Planning Commission recommends that based
on the small size of the proposed attached garage, it would be reasonable to
provide the Applicants the option of eliminating the shed entirely and
increasing the width of the garage by the square footage of the shed, as long as
the required side setbacks can be maintained.
k. Planning Commission finds that the property owner proposes to use the
property in a reasonable manner, i.e. for residential purposes, in a manner
similar to other homes on the block, on a parcel similar in size to a number of
others in the immediate neighborhood. The small lot was created and
developed for residential use long ago, a circumstance not created by the
owner. The proposed new residence will result in a home that is similar in
scope to other homes in the immediate neighborhood on small lots with
substandard setba�ks and will not alter the character of the locality
l. The Applicants' request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the
ordinance.
m. The Applicants have demonstrated that enforcing the provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance deprives the Applicants of the reasonable use of their Property.
4. The Applicants have submitted a revised proposal that eliminates the shed and
adds approximately 49 square feet to the garage area by widening it by 2 feet
while maintaining the required side setbacks.
5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and
recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by
the Applicants and the public, and the effect of the proposed variances and CUP
on the health, safety and welfare of the community.
6. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this Property are peculiar to
. it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district;that granting
the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire
Page 5 of 8
�o�o �
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
y`�l,g F,�'~ N o. 6 4 0 7
kFsxoa
hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a
convenience to the Applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty;
is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the Applicants; and would
be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive
Plan of the City.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants
variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-350 to allow construction of a new
residence on a lot of 5,237 s.f. in area where a lot axea of 21,780 s.f. is normally required, and of
width 52' at the shoreline and 59' at the 75' setback line where a lot width of 100' is normally
required; and grants a variance to Section 78-350 to allow a setback of 1.7' from the rear lot line
where a 30' setback is normally required; and grants variances to Sections 78-1279(1) and 78-
1279(2) to allow construction of a new residence 57' from the OHW of Lake Minnetonka where
a 75' setback is normally required, and 24' from the traveled portion of Crystal Bay Road where
a 30' setback is normally required; and variances to Sections 78-1680 and 78-1700(1) to allow
construction of a new residence and associated hardcover in the amount of 36.57% within
Hardcover Tier 1 where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed; and grants a variance and
conditional use permit pursuant to Section 78-966 and 78-1286 to allow grading and the
construction of retaining walls as well as excavation and grading to accommodate construction
of a new home, all within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no grading is normally
allowed; subject to the following conditions:
l. Council approval is based on the survey submitted by the Applicants and annotated by
City staff, attached to this Resolution as Eghibit A, and the conceptual building plans and
elevations submitted by the Applicants and attached as Exhibit B. Any amendments to
the site plan or building plans which are not in conformity with City codes will require
further Planning Commission and City Council review.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicants shall submit a final grading and
drainage plan that addresses any City Engineer concerns regarding slope stability and
retaining wall design; subject to adherence to the City's erosion control regulations as
well as the permitting requirements of the MCWD. Timely re-vegetation and stabilization
of the site will be a requirement of the permitting process.
3. Applicants shall take all necessary precautions to ensure that the mature oak ash tree
within the 0-75' setbacic zone is not affected by construction. The mature oak tree next to
the underground garage area is anticipated to be disturbed by the proposed construction,
Page 6 of 8
�°�o
C ITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
� � 6407
`� � N O.
`qkESH���
and if darnaged or removed a replacement tree of a size and species approved by City
staff shall be planted.
4. Fencing or other positive safety barriers shall be permanently placed above the retaining
walls that surround the lower parking area.
5. Applicants and their contractors shall be vigilant in ensuring construction activity does
not impair other shared driveway and Crystal Bay Road users. Applicants and their
contractors must maintain access for the other users of the shared driveway.
6. The City shall inspect the shared driveway prior to commencement of home
demolition/construction to establish a baseline condition for comparison after
construction is complete. Any damage to the shared driveway caused by the construction
process shall be rectified by the Applicants.
7. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the Applicants, but
are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new
home. A framing inspection must be completed for the home within one year of the date
of Council approval, or the variances and CUP granted herein will expire on that date
(June 9, 2015).
8. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution
shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority
granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor.
9. The undersigned Applicants have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this
resolution and on behalf of the Applicants and the Applicants' heirs, successors and
assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the
Property.
Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 9`h day of June, 2014.
ATTEST:
�) �^ `
`i�C:�.-�-��� ��b �� - � /��
Rachel Dodge, City Clerk � Lili Tod McMillan, M r � ��J
Page 7 of 8
� �o�o� .
C ITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
y � 6407
�' �` N O.
rqkFSH���
�
� �
Prope y Owner s)
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
This instrument was acknowledged before me this 4 day of J u. , 2014,by
David Schmid, a single person.
BARBARA G.SILUS ' ^ , 1 �a ����
,�t�.�;i NO7 ARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA ��U
�, 'emmission EzptCs Jen•3���18 Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
This instrument was acknowledged before me this�day of J u- , 2014,by
Angela Ciliberto, a single person.
BARBARA G.SILUS ����
� NO�ARY PUBLIC-F�INNESOTA Notary Public
My Commission Expues�Jen.31,Z018
Page 8 of 8
. MINNETONKA RExhibitA
CRYSTAL BAY 6 4 O 7��,
� �
�
� ,��
929.4 +� ���/ �
C�Olkt•., ���'� I
R,P RPP �, (ea2.a) �
��
� �����'/// ' I
� L NRVEY\/� �� �rL 6a.. ��� I , 20 �
� �i�
_� ��� � � � i i
�►—/ " � i� ��
_�=�� � Jo�`/�i 93�•6 � GJ �
,�- 01� �,
� •
__-�932.4, : i `\ �5 g � ��-�
�� I_'__ I � .! i�.. ••\`� MM O�� I � i�
— — .$ A� � � ' � J�g�
' SEWER � �� n � tf')i�/ �� �
R1 (933.3) �
g�S.1 i ,� , ,I,,�
� C , �,, ,,,
�Q' : �'r-�i •;,_�,�
Q.O� � jq� DR WAY / i�/��_ � i.
3 �
OJy CD p l9 ��� � / ��'.��" �
Q� o �+ �
0 �`?;,
�J`r2 � g3`�9 �a �`'�v/� .PARK G��('a� I �/// �
� �933.4) i � �JC� :!AREA •. � � I
J �——'—�'�_ � � (940 '/��' .;� .(942.4) � /
/ 1g36�� CONC. WALLS � � �
r (E) � �, �. . ,;r.:: I /
—� � (941.4) � 93,�, � :•�1 � � NI
_ �� 26" OAK\ ,�� � PROPOSED � 2•0� ,-••, f �'RE
_��� / 194pe� WALL � EUN�ERGR�I �/�..
' / 94 1 � BE REMOVED I �f ': / I
_� //(941.1) ,.r^' :' . �rl---
'___ � � 1 � �I �—� �
, 942 _�_,� "i /
'�/ � AVERAGE BUILDIN�TBA��E- i / I
/ - -"° /
/ _ —� �COVERED R ^�' �ti
/ _�— �� 940.3 DECK �B�' 32 OAK �
� _ � �
� �oououT 4'i I
/ ' / �
i �
«_... � /
��10"x1� I I
��—� 942 /o I �
12" ASH, o /'' ^ �� w I
N PROPOSED ' i ��-t � 9.,.4, �
� � 94 �---� � � �
� 2.5 i ; i � I
� 75� ' HOUSE =-A�-
SETBAC
� LM1E � � o �pk I i_..... � I
�
��� I .•:'' p �
O � �
N #3309 �,r.� �. � zo �
� 1....+.e:±:�:,.. �
- 6.0 _'_� i. ..y
,10;0,,,_, 13.5 I
� PROPOSED � r�0 !Al I ..�•' V� I
O SILT FENC I \ / I
//�.---�� \ �4�` I '. I
�� Z � o ,o � I
, N � ��, I
/ 944 EX15TN REM�VED N `
10 BE
W I
� iWi \
� ���i �o� � : �(944.8
I 14" WALNUT_ I�� I
� 24.0 ,. I �SW'Ll
`% � C VACA1
(945.2)/
� �H�a� EX5TMIG SHED PRdPOSED " � � "
J8� � TO BE REMOVED DRIVEWAY
� 5.4 �� i .
� (945.1) ......10.00�•'�726" LR�IOEN_
� �`•.MOST 5'LY CORNER
' 'OF VACATED STREET .
� - ------...-S 54°45' 00" W '�
� �, .. 60.00........::.
1 �c as.e)
I 24"�ELM
i
� BLACKTOP DRIVEWAY ��
i /
34'-0"
14'-6" 14'-U" 5'-6"
_ -----------------
.� COV REO OECK ABOVE
0
�
� �
DINING �
PANiR
I
I
GREAiR00M
��—T— 36'H
f___J 3s'R
I
I
- KITCHEN �
o L
N
R� - oa�----
UP
COVERED ENTRY
O ENTRY
DN
POWDER
9'-0" `�
STAIRWAY WINDO S �N WALL LINE ABOVE
� 5�-U� GARAGE
COVERED ENTRY
13'-6" 24'-0"
0
I
N
SCHMID "
3309 CRYSTAL BAY RD, RONO
FIRST FLOOR P N rn �
1 3-2�-14.REV 5-29-14 1/8" = 1'-0" o � O
1463 SOR.FEET HW�g GARAGE �
+53 SOR.FEET COVERED DECK/PORCH AREAS � � � �
= 1516 Sqft.FEET iOiAL FOOT PPoNT � �
U � �
'J
34'-0"
14'-6" 14'-0" 5'-6"
° COVERED DECK
i
�
� O
LEDGE M BATH 0
( I
M BEUROOM
54"H LINEN �
� i i
� i ii
�' ' � � � BENCH
, i � i
i i
i i
� � s+�v�s
i i
c�os� PLATE LINE BELOW
DN
STAIRWAY WINDOWS � �
�D � ��BAT LAUNDRY �
\
� I
PLATE LINE BELOW �°
13'-6" -- - ��
0
i
�
SCHMID �
3309 CRYSTAL BAY RD, OR NO OFFICE/8R 3 BR z
SECOND FLOOR P N
1 3-2a-ia.r�v s-zs-i4 1/8" = 1'-0" �' N
.b. �
� z4�-o� � o .L
_ v
� � � �
� � � .
-�,'�" �
...-
� .
{ � �
� �� �
�
=
�e- o � .
�� � f
� i 1�--�------�
� �
�
.4�' � �
°l �.�..
��'
� �
� -
,
W
� °A-�
� L
O
�
. 1�
�" O .
� �
�, `� �� � �
n„
�
. �
�w
_ �
. 0 4
_, �
� �
�, =
�. �
___ �`
:a .��.
� � J
1' �
\ �
m V_
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The undersigned, being duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of
Orono, Minnesota, certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at the
meeting of the Orono City Council on June 9th, 2014, with the original thereof on file in
my office, and the same is a correct transcription thereof.
WITN�SS my hand officially as such City Clerk and the corporate seal of the
City#his��day of � �-t `- , 2014.
- � -��1 F -����-c` -�
,��� City Clerk �
�.�f� '^ ".
.� �. �.,�,
.{,��� ,� „ ;;
�: � �� �
; ,y _
, ..' �Y,�•; p..
. � �kk•+'
,i.'.
. ,`,
�fiK n'
�5;�
• PC Exhibit D
Christine Mattson
From: Angela Ciliberto[angelaciliberto@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 6:39 AM
To: Christine Mattson
Subject: 3309 Crystal Bay Road/Survey& Hardcover Calc. for building permit
Attachments: Temp00695.PDF; Schmid HC 9-9-14.pdf
Good Morning Christine,
Attached is the amended survey w/hardcover calculations for David Schmid/Angela Ciliberto's 3309 Crystal
Bay Road building permit . I know that you need a printed version. We will be able to get that to you on
Thursday, but I wanted to forward a copy to you so that you know they are on there way.
Tom Betz informed us that the changes on the survey after we got our variance approved would not slow our
building permit. However I want you to know that a corrected survey w/hardcover calculations will be
delivered to you by Thursday.
It was never our intention to increase the hardcover, esp after going through the variance process.
Somewhere along the way there was a communication breakdown between our surveyor and our request to
modify the lake side parking area. We actually wanted to keep it the same or to reduce the hardcover by the
lake and to reduce the height of the retaining walls to have more of a lawn/tree area.
Please feel free to call (949-228-1623) or email me if you have any questions. I believe Betz have contacted
you as well.
Thank you Christine & have a great day!
Angela & David
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: 3309 Crystal Bay Rd Permit Application
From: Betzbuilders <BetzbuildersQyahoo.com>
Sent: 11:12am, Thursday, September 4, 2014
To: CMattson@ci.orono.mn.us
CC: David Schmid <davidatthelaQaol.com>
Hi Christine, just checking in on permit application for 3309 Crystal Bay Rd. It's got to
be close, do you think ? I�11 like to alert excavator and Cementman for scheduling.
Thanks for your help.
Tom Betz
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 22, 2014, at 8:55 AM, Betzbuilders <Betzbuildersc�yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Good morning Christine
> I know it's been only 10 days, but I just wanted to check in to see if we making any
progress and if there is anything you need?
> Thank you
> Tom Betz
>
> Sent from my iPhone
1
From: markg@gronbergassoc.com
To: angelaciliberto@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: 3309 Crystal Bay Road -Survey Hardcover 36.57%approved by the city, needs correction for
building permit
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 13:39:09-0500
Here you are.
From:Angela Ciliberto [mailto:angelaciliberto@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday,September 08, 2014 9:41 AM
To:markg@gronbergassoc.com
Subject: 3309 Crystal Bay Road -Survey Hardcover 36.57�o approved by the city, needs correction for building permit
Hi Mark,
Thank you for taking my call this AM.
The city approved our variance with a hardcover total of 36.57%, but no more. Normally they only allow 25%,
which you prob already know.
For our building permit, David had requested that the parking area by the lake be a pull up (subtle half moon
shape) parking area to reduce the hardcover total and to also reduce the height of the retaining walls that we
will need, instead of the pull in parking area.
All we want adjusted on the survey is the lake side parking area -we want the hardcover to either be reduced
or to remain the same (but no more) and to have less of a retaining wall than on what was used for our
variance.
If you could get this to us today that would be wonderful as we need this for our building permit and our
builder is waiting too. They have actually contacted the city 2 times as they want to start now. We thought
you were already working on this, or I would have called you sooner.
I am at work and do not have a copy of the "approved" variance, but here is copy of the meeting agenda
which was approved. It has the hardcover%that was approved on it (which is 36.57%).
Please call me if you have any questions, my cell is 949-228-1623- and or email us a copy of the updated
survey to review before getting it to the city.
Thank you!
Angela Ciliberto & David Schmid
From: MGaffron@ci.orono.mn.us
To: an�elaciliberto@hotmail.com; davidatthela@aol.com
2
,��•.
� � �,- . �.�` il,r�'.
�S'�
Y., #�+�. '`��jy¢:�,A'i.� g
��� T
•F. � . . � � o.'d.M�
.. �+�t:.::r y
_w w"I:J�1��—
+.. �.�G�i�
�°` � �
� `.�� 3� �� �, . . #+, ;„s�i
�.,:,- �, `��x<
;�( ���� { + _ ��y,,�
t !\�' 7W I. � j. ..M� �^y� Tw
!11 t �p�
V .� T l^'! y 'y �� Y�'T���I�
� -�' rj m;. � .�S .,. ��`:. �Y':W ~ ��i�A
._=V`..�.A �'� 1��� :' .'� . - x r..a r '.w"�.., ���
�•� '�`.. ��. F {�� .� 4 .
' _ � � :�'� R'k��� �L�}��
, . � �N a. ..; .- �; 6.r
yt = 1�'' ir�A$� � ,,, ''�'�`�09 �� �z� .1•�,:.
� r� .—',_�: v }''���'� . `F'�At �:.F'�a I�.w,m +rt'I�pIY �.rtx d.M y�� ..
� ����.�. � '�tl . � �� � ,:,,}E�r.r,+ �" � �
��. i �� � �'. .v�' �`,��Y�r
.. � .. -�y 'Y.: .` ��.c ?M��*r✓.�°.;,-
� � a� �� ���..
Fi ��.. � - _ r- :.,�� �,�,_ �.,� ��.tir ?\�►�,r.
S ' _ , r'� .. _ i 'a
. ._ �} , -, -� _. . . . :. _ '1
��} 7 ....�r� ,� ��
F�
.;; "�+�r. . . _ �a' .��►�.� i-� s 14��► s[ � ����i �
x� � .! q t n, 1'�r � y `� �'.�r ,��
_
,
'��.L' �,:. . . '.- ��� �� .[ a! ��_, . � ,aaa,, �
.� _
��� ; "- �,. _ ��+` . '�v�r�t � '�' �ti.�.
t ,� . r _ �� f.. : : � � � �
� �
� '` .�^ti. .�. . -. "� .��.� "E 4"':�, . y�Yi ���.c,' .. . "�""_L_�' ��� .. ��
_
� z�`,� �' y � , a ; ' _ , ,_� � .�� .� '
e� ; . � � � � �
�(' � � .: � i.L_-��,�E �j�1 �ti
t ;3 e i `� ,��,! `4, �
i - x'.
..�, iW 1
,; ��'��"�"a-"��- � 'r a j �'v,. ����v � �';��iM� .�l���
F t' '���"` ��'1 � i '"'J"��= � � �7�'..��;� � �'.
�.,. �
� F: � � - � � � � _` '�"�" ~ '�..�i ��; ��U
. ,.
.� ,
� , �� ��, "�:�,. �
__.,� � � '+r+ ��9� � r'�,��� �•���� ``�' �
�..�c i• a v� �f�� ".
.A _ ..,, ��'� c�:
_ �
;: _ •.
k�'` ^ � � �ML1rn 31� r 1'�w, i
.�� �,� �� �, 1� . , � �1�+1���}t �:.. .. , 'N1�/ .
��M 1 � . fi. i aj�� a[� '�1�
. i . .� � . ..- ♦.. �/1',R� �i
+�� � �� ' ��� w.. �� ��''F
�` ` t �`.
. Ta r � � . 9e�:.tt.
� ,�
x� �� . , � �. `
� ��►1
� . . . i��'� � wr�" 'r,."� .
�v * � F
� � �� I �
� ���t �t�6';�'�;
., >
._ ,� , .
�� :��=� ��,�,.
� ..
c - f;;:
�,
. � ���,,
� � � e��, �
�.. � � � 1 :�;1�:�_`
� � ,�.
• PC Exhibit F
City of Orono
�oNo Hardcover Calculation Worksheet
� !�� � Property Address: 3.�a 9 CR'a'�"�,�t� B�� .�fc�pi� ��dvrp ..s"�,�r'�s-1�� �
� > >
�"^��'�\ Prepared by: Date:
�Ron�4F2C= f �'.�sc���$,��¢„�� rR--�, , `6";�`-' ,�..�,./�'
Stormwater Quality Overiay District Tier: (Circie one) Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5
Step 2: PRt3POSED HAR�iDCOVER�
In the fo!lowing table, id�ntify all ifems of proposed hardcover on the praperty, keyed by letter to
Certificate of Survey(survey must accompany this form). Include all existing hardcover items that are
intended to remain, as we1!as a11 proposed hardcover items that will be added. Use as many lines as
necessary to accurately depict proposed hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify
any features by letter which are split at the 75' setback line and calculate hardcover square footage
se araiel for each portion.
Key to Hardcover Item (Desc�ibe) Length x Width Total
Surve (S uare Feet
Exani le Gara e 24'x 30' 720 S F
A r. / G.r /�o � S.F.
g �� ,;,; R E ' D c s"f� - ---�-- S.F.
C P.taJra� rvf'<.v S S.F.
'' D �.• �'c"�t= zcvE -�-� S.F.
� E av�o} _ �- S_F.
F �-� -.� _a. . .. -._--�«-- � �" t�tr�'� __-�• _ S.F.
G 7�s ,BE' .f��� �`�'' S.F.
H !'ro� �-it f.�o s�c�`r S F.
� �c�./ F.vTR`/ 2. p S.F.
� g 3 Z S F.
K � 4�'.r e�r� �.�r .�L✓fL%'IC.T �� .S.F.
L r9 n r�'t> �o/�K ;�" R - ° /S S.F.
M �����r�--.1`7"iit R S 7 S F.
N p er �'r%^ �-t.� S F.
O �•• .- � S F.
p S.F.
Q S F.
R S.F.
S _ S.F.
T � S.F.
U S•F•
U S.F.
�/ a.F �
X - --- � —��
Y S F. i
Z S F.
1) Total Pro osed Hardcover �' /J' S.F.
Excludable Hardcovsr See Cit Code Sec 78-1 fi84 :
S.F.
� S.F.
i S F.
S F=.
S F.
21 Total Excludable Hardcover d 5•�
"3} Net Pro osed Hardcover Subtract line 2 from line (1)) ` _ __��/$ � S F.
4 Total Lot Area G3$S - /l Ll y ��s,� r,� E�, C�' R .!'TA��Y �1'.� .23?�5..�;,�
Proposed Hardcover Percentage [(3)=(4)] ,j�,,;'R"J� h
_ �...�.o...�--- ---�.-_ ._r
RECEIVED
January 8,2013
SEP 10 2014
_ __ _�.---- --- ------ ----- - -- CITY OF ORONO
_--� • --' ------ � ��'•��•�•.�....�'� � ��
Use Avery�Template 5160� � Feed Paper �� expose Pop-Up EdgeT"" �
PC Exhibit G
• 3R 17-1I7-23 34 0052 38 17-117-23 41 0001 38 17-117-23 41 0002
HENNEPIN COUNTY DONNA E KABANUK DONNA E KABANUK
REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY 5233 TWIN LAKE BLVD E 5233 TWIN LAKE BLVD E
701 4TH AVE S SUITE 400 BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429
MINNEAPOLIS MN SS415
3k 17-117-23 41 OOQ3 3R 17-I17-23 41 0004 38 17-117-23 41 OOOR
JAYtiE MARIE PAASCH PAUL MARKUSEN IOHN HOROSHAK
��5(1 KENWOOD WAY 2160 KEN WOOD WAY ALEXA HOROSHAK
WAl'2ATA MTv 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 3159 NORTHVIEW RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 17-I 17-23 41 0009 38 17-117-23 41 0012 3R 17-117-23 41 0013
BRADLEY&LORI BAKKE C WILLIAM WOLFE MARK C ZAGARIA
7101 LANHAM LA 3255 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD 1526 21 ST AVE N E
EDINA MN 55439 WAYZATA MN 55391 ROCHESTER MN 55906
3k 17-117-23 41 0014 38 17-117-23 410015 38 17-117-23 41 0016
LEROY J ERGER HEATHER M JOHNSTONE DAVID A SCHMID
3265 CRYSTAL BAY RD P O BOX 141 3309 CRYSTAL BAY RD
WAYZA'iA MN 55391 MINNETONKA BEACH MN 55361 WAYZATA MN 55391
3R 17-117-23 41(H)17 38 17-117-23 41 0018 38 17-117-23 41 0019
DALE OLSEN&JONMARI OLSEN CHRISTINE S 1ENSEN CHAD&REBECCA MCSHANE
3315 CRYST.4L BAY RD 15810 NURSERY DR 3329 CRYSTAL BAY RD
N'AYZATA M�i 55391 MINNETONKA MN 55345 WAYZATA MN 55391
38 17-117-23 41 0021 38 17-117-23 41 0027 3R 17-117-23 41 002R
JONATHAN fi.THERESA HOFER DUSTIN J&TERESA M DANIELS JULIE COPELAND
3?39 CRYSTAL BAY RD 2190 KENWOOD WAY 2180 KENWOOD WAY
WAYZAiA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391
3R 17-117-21 41 0029 38 17-117-23 41 0030 3R 17-117-23 41 0031
DONNA E KABANUh DONNA E KABANUK DONNA E KABANUK
5333 TWIN LAKE BLVD E 5233 TWIN LAKE BLVD E 5233 TW1N LAKE BLVD E
BROOKLYh CENI'ER MN SSd29 BROOKLYN CEN'fER MN 55429 BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429
3R 17-117-23 41 0033 38 17-]17-23 41 0034 38 17-117-23 41 0035
PATRICIA A STUDSRUD PAUL J&LOIS E REHMAN CLIFFORD G OWEN
JASC)N T S'fUDSRUD 3335 CRYSTAL BAY RD 11LL L HUGHES
313(1 OLD COUNTY RD WAYZATA MN 55391 2175 KENWOOD WAY
WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391
3R 17-117-23�t 0057 3R 17-117-23 44 0104
DAVID A KUPKA CLAIR T ROOD
3?15 KENWOOD WAY 32R0 NAVARRE LA �tECEI��ED
WAl'ZATA MT� 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391
APR � 1 7�14
CITY OF ^�'�" "'
3 �,
� 6 �
�tiquetEes fatiles�peler i � Repiiez�ia hachure afin de� �wvw.avery.com �
Utilisez le abarit AVERY�516Q� � Sens de reveler le rebord PopdipT^" � 1-80Q-GO-AVERY '
9 i charaement t t
. Hennepin County Mailing Label Map PCExhibitH
Provided By: Taxpayer Services Department
,�_'' i; � j � `l i k��.�-�'�,.-, �
� ,,,�._t, 4 � (12"r �^"�$.ar"
� t13� t ��F,,.
_ ;,s,. - �g- � � i1f) ,� ���� `�t��
-. ' _ , y�, -�k . °}�1t��� ' -
� _ - ..'•__ � :.i';,= i?.;''_ �:��'� � '��2� 12�9
' _ . :'y`�,r�t i_fi�"r.�a�,�.iM�': :ii�x ,�:f`F'f' i.c 1 +..
, " . .' �� 'J�. t- _ •.�`�e•-r'_Y.��,;='i}-�-'-�¢ n�°'. ff
�V:;;�, �., �;�.Ys�a.-r�;:' `-"_,��,+`� ?�#Y, r �„
. � ��,,f`` `�:.-;.s,.,,�::�,_ ,.� ,.��`x:a'- .: �'
.r. .,, . ,'.� ; ,r•.,;•..t : --•-= .: < t� -�, � --
' .- � . _ ' 'r,�5:?`e't};.fs"xS...,y.,. . `"�Y:ta,.*c:� ; ,
.:�;� .�,_: �,5 =�'-�' ��.,_•-.,. ;,`;':,
.�h.,`��`� ',z:�:+.; ,-;y,�,r�'.° a,
I' �� ��� �� ��� �
�Hi
- `�"��:�+=�'���-:�.��.�- k,,������ ��` {28y
,`;""'� � �`s�.�'�#�'�+'�'>`�*`�*`�"���� r•�` �4at 0`
' -';,'$i}�. �.0 j� 7��t°,;Y,:n,�.`h`X�';xa,t'�`,::t�r_� �Lpi � /
, _ . 'i^.h: 7.��4<Y}•,�:yg.� �.� WVf i
_ _ - - ,4�°r.;.`L"YP-@-" �` �£�
_ .. ��•• . �l���i• .��:,-`^�..�.xy�5;ija��4Y4 � '�Ns.'� ,� � ��!�i ���
' L,2t'�y�'�t , ,�,Y���t';,Y.`+,�i�3C,:�j,`"'�ay-
. - iet���'p,i 4ry'�'ii "E<M h�vY4.'.,y'!_ '.�
..l � Sr ,��e' �"fSt�'�'(��Y
- � � • <,ja't�' 6 R��si. '��'"'.� _
R `��.`F n""�`2t'.�..��' .
. ��.`a�..,���.��.�;�.��''� t�i�
° _ ��"n
. _ - ��
'.. - " � i�M �S6) {37x �56�
. }
; �r :�.
�.�> -'y; v,»� �
_, [� v,�
..sa" � , ..� ,..sti��-�g.. ��k
y t�
�'�t _�'��i: - _��.��:"_ _. ,,_ ..�•__ �Q��
�-�.. �17# 1�� i�'! • - - � '� _ -�lCi�tl�i7'V
._ ,r,-•.. : ' ,��,.: FN,�;;,a�;.- �,, ;
�`..�. _;-'..=:z�-�- �.s:�'r:_';�J�';���a, . � �`= . ��:;�'��'
t30 (44} (183 ' _ -�e>,_ �:>Y _ �m, ` ' �
� `__ ,+- �.�a �.'. '~"�"�}. '3?t; .�". � �8t (1 _ e
� , �(>p..^^a�c=�,;- �f' -. =�,�t:�.�>;�,'= � t 1�
�{ ,tµ•, ��bh4 "y~ �x; � �f
121j �=F - _�`.�.�•r•`v _ -'� - - ,?*?�A:'-`-�- �`c� e;, -:��''.,��.�-x' ,• � i�
�'�� xv„ :t,:.�*i;�•ti-�,xr_, +�� �f,14I `Z.7� �,.
;,g�'`- � `.. -`�:s::,�� �;^".a;":'�s;g��:? '� lK+
..--'`y. �«-�'"�.- -` '� '"'��'.�'�"��=�:=�°;N. �� .3� ��! � ` � -
. '��v'�� / 11ior �,;�.., . _ - _`_, .,T __ ,'�` ��p -- E��� '� f�s�
' a:�''�tBTh `G A ' - r =- _-*
y``Y� e""'�i'�! `�. f�i�I�, ,#tM,r`}F` .. : � {�� � t12�'� ti
For more information contact: P�int Date' 4/3/2014 Map Legend:
Hennepin County GIS Division
300 South 6th Street Map Scate: 1" = 222'
Minneapolis,MN 55487 Buffer Size: 350 feet
gis.info@co.hennepin.mn.us � Water � Maaor Roads
Park Minor Roads
Map Comments: L � Pucel ►a
17-117-23-41-0016
� Buffer Region ,Fr�� : E
����� Selected Parcels '
. ti
3309 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD � -
ORONO, MN 55391
.,�c.,.
r-��a»
i:l�i� NBNNEPJNy
t�I �
i�fi� L�
RECEI�!'�D
APR 21 2014
CITY OF ORONO
� 366�
• Orono,MN Code of Ordinances
PC Exhibit I
Sec. 18-136.- Residential driveways, approaches and turnaround.
(a) One driveway approach shall be allowed from up to two single residential parcels of land to the
same road, provided that appropriate easements exist between parties sharing the driveway and
driveway approach. Parcels having frontage on more than one public road shall be allowed a
driveway approach to one public road.
(b) Residential driveway approach shall not exceed 20 feet in width at the intersected right-of-way line.
(c) The total width of driveway approaches to up to two single parcels of land from a single road shall
not exceed 20 feet.
(d)A curb cut shall not exceed the width of the driveway approach at the property line by more than
ten feet.
(e) No portion of a driveway approach, except the curb return, shall be constructed within 100 feet of a
corner.
(fl For residences constructed afterJuly 25, 1986,the driveway approach and that part of the driveway
and turnarounds which drain to the road shall be paved with bituminous concrete blacktop or
equivalent paving. Where it has been determined by the city's public service director that driveway
and/or driveway approach existing on July 25, 1986, is causing a maintenance problem on the road,
including but not limited to the washing of dirt and gravel into the road,the public services director
shall order that the property owner pave such portion of the driveway and/or driveway approach as
is necessary to remove the maintenance problem. Portland cement concrete will only be allowed
from the driveway up to the public right-of-way.This requirement shall not be construed to reduce
paving otherwise required by performance standards in chapter 78 () or required as a condition to
the granting of a conditional use permit, lot division, subdivision or as designated in the approved
site plan.
(g) Driveway turnarounds shall be required on all driveways or driveway approaches entering onto a
state highway, county road or collector roadway as determined in the comprehensive plan, and on
all entrances to public roads within the city where deemed necessary by the public services director,
based on traffic counts, sight distances, street grades and other relevant factors. If a driveway
turnaround is required by the public services director, such requirement shall be stated on any
permit issued by him pursuant to this article.
(Code 1984,§§6.05(9), 6.06(9))
about:blank 10/16/2014
• PC Exhibit J
Date Application Received: 04/21/14 -
Date Application Considered as Complete: 05/05/14
60-Day Review Period Egpires: 07/04/14
To: Chair Leskinen and Planning Commission Members
Jessica Loftus, City Administrator
From: Mike Gaffron, Asst. City Administrator
Date: May 15, 2014
Subject: #14-3664, David Schmid&Angela Ciliberto, 3309 Crystal Bay Road
-Variances & CUP
- Public Hearing
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zoning District: LR-1C, One Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre/100'
Lot Area: 5,237 s.f. exclusive of traveled road(0.12 acre)
Lot Width: 52' at Shoreline, 59' at 75' Setback Line
Application Summary: The applicants request variances in order to construct a new
residence on the property 1.7' from the rear lot line where a 30' setback is required; and
57' from the OHWL where a 75' setback is required. A hardcover variance is also
requested to permit 35.0% hardcover where 25% is normally allowed. A conditional
use permit is also requested in order to conduct grading which exceeds 10 cubic yards
within 75' of the OHWL and retaining walls in conjunction with removal of the existing
home and an existing garage, and construction of the new home. Lot area and width
variances are required because the proposed use of the existing lot of record will not
meet the 25% hardcover limitation and will not meet required LR-1 C and Shoreland
setback standards.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the
request with conditions.
List of Ezhibits
Exhibit A. Application
Exhibit B. Existing Conditions Survey
Exhibit C. Proposed Site Plan& Survey
Exhibit D. Proposed Floor Plans& Elevation Views
Exhibit E. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
Exhibit F. Submitted Hardcover Calculations
Exhibit G. Submitted Photo - Drainage Issue at Rear
E�ibit H. Site Photos
Exhibit I. City Engineer Comments
Exhibit J. Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority(HCRRA) Comments
Exhibit K. Aerial Photos—Bing
Exhibit L. Neighbor Comments
Exhibit M. Adjacent Neighbor Acknowledgement forms
Exhibit N. Property Owners List
Exhibit O. Plat Map
FILE#14-3664
May 15,2014 �
Page 2 of 7
Background
Applicants have requested approvals to conshuct a new residence to replace their existing
residence on this very substandard lot. The existing residence and attached garage e�ibit a
number of nonconformities: excess hardcover, substandard side and lake setbacks and
garage encroachment of HCRRA right-of-way. The proposed residence will be similar in
footprint to the existing but is being resized and relocated to meet the required 10' side
setbacks, and be located entirely within the property boundaries. In order to accomplish
this,the applicants request that the house be placed 57' from the OHWL.
Crystal Bay Road is unique in that the street was never platted but exists by prescription
between the homes and the lake. The rear of the lots abut the HCRRA railroad right-of-way.
In many cases along the road, lots are not very deep and therefore a number of properties
have been granted variances to the lake setback over the years. The applicants' property and
the homes to its east gain vehicular access via a shared driveway that exists within the
HCRRA right-of-way under a 2007 easement agreement between HCRRA and the City.
Prior to HCRRA ownership, Burlington Northern (BN) allowed the existing garage on this
property to be constructed with an encroachment of the BN land. The City also granted a
variance for that location in 1973. Since HCRRA gained ownership, they have been fairly
strict in not allowing new encroachments, and have indicated in the attached email dated
April 9 (Exhibit .n that they aze amenable to the 1.7' proposed rear setback for the new
home because it eliminates the existing encroachment.
In addition to the house replacement, applicants propose to remove an existing underground
garage that opens to Crystal Bay Road about 10' back from the traveled road. They propose
to keep the driveway and a portion of the garage floor to create an open parking stall
approximately 20' deep, which requires the construction of a new back retaining wall that
will be approximately 8 feet in height. A guard rail or fence above this parking area is
likely to be required. This parking area constitutes 0-75' hardcover; however, a significant
amount of fill would be needed to eliminate this parking area, as the grade on either side is
quite steep and additional retaining walls would likely be needed to stabilize the 80% slope
that would result.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET
Lot Area/Width:
LR-1C Lot Area Lot Width
Re uired 21,780 s.f. 0.50 acres) 100'
Actual 5,237 s.f. 0.12 acres 52'/59'
Existin ro osed Setbacks:
LR-1C Re uired Ezistin Pro osed
Lake 75' House: 67' House: 57'
East Side 10' House: 5.2' House: 10.6'
West Side 10' House: 9.9' House: 10.0'
Rear 30' House: -7.9' House: 1.7'
Average Lakeshore The existing and proposed homes are behind the average lakeshore
setback line-no encroachment.
, FILE#14-3664
May 15,2014
Page 3 of 7
Structural Covera e:
Total Lot Area Total Structural Covera e
5,237 s.f. Allowed: 1,500 s.f.
Existing- includes house, garage, det. garage extension: 1442 s.f.
Pro osed: 1,435 s.f. - includes house, deck, shed
Hardcover Calculations:
Note: Area of traveled Crystal Bay Road is excluded from the hardcover calculations.
Stormwater Total Allowed
Overlay Area in Hardcover Ezisting Hardcover Proposed Hardcover
District Tier Zone
Tier 1 5,237 s.f. 1,309 s.f. 1,975 s.f.* Undefined 1,832 s.f. Undefined
(25 %) (37.7% w/in 75' 35.0%) w/in 75'
* Excludes underground garage
Note that while Crystal Bay Road is not a dedicated roadway, and there is not a`front lot
line' to measure from,the LR-1C front street setback standard is 30';the proposed house
will be located 25' from the traveled road which is not uncommon in this neighborhood.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Practical Difficulties Statement
Applicants have completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as
Exhibit E, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application.
Practical Difficulties Analysis
In considering 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.
In this application, the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner,
i.e. for residential purposes, in a manner similar to other homes on the block, on a parcel
similar in size to a number of others in the immediate neighborhood. The small lot was
created and developed for residential use long ago, a circumstance not created by the owner.
The proposed new residence will result in a home that is similar in scope to other homes in
the immediate neighborhood on small lots with substandard setbacks and will not alter the
character of the locality
FILE#14-3664
May 15,2014 �
Page 4 of 7
Lake Setback& Hardcover Variance Analysis
The majority of the subject property is unbuildable as all but the rear 26'-40' is located
within 75' of the OHWL. This creates a practical difficulty for redevelopment of the
property. However, the applicants do have the right to replace the existing residence in-kind
if they choose to do so. From a footprint perspective,the existing house and proposed house
are nearly identical at around 1400 s.f. The proposed house will be 2 full stories rather than
the existing 1-1/2 story structure. While the applicants' proposal will not increase
hardcover, it will increase the visual bulk and massing as compared to the existing home.
The propose low-pitch roof will help to keep the new home from visually towering over the
neighbor to the west.
Conditional Use Permit Analysis
City Code Section 78-966(a)(2) indicates that landowners must obtain a CUP from the City
prior to engaging in activities that include fill to elevate or alter the existing natural grade. In
this project the applicants propose grading that will direct runoff from the HCRRA right-of-
way around the house and to the front, with the intent to not direct drainage to neighboring
properties. The CUP is required because a portion of the grading work and the new
retaining wall at the lower parking area are within 75' of the lake.
By code, conditionally permitted uses must be reviewed using the criteria found in Sections
78-916 and 78-1286 of the Shoreland regulations. On the basis of the application and the
evidence submitted, the city must find that the proposed use at the proposed location is or
will be:
(1) Consistent with the community management plan;
(2) Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions irnposed on specific
uses as required by article V, division 3 (i.e. 78-966 thru 78-968) of the City Code;
(3) Adequately served by police, fire,roads, and stormwater management;
(4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system;
(5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost;
(6) Compatible with the surrounding area as the area is used both presently and as it is
planned to be used in the future;
(7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character
is called for in the community management plan;
(8) Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the
surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community
management plan;
(9) Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the
area or have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when
compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses;
(10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and
activities likely to disturb surrounding uses;
(11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare,vibration, odors, fumes,
dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means;
, FILE#14-3664
May 15,2014
Page 5 of 7
(12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets,parking needs that
cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or
unsafe access;
(13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area
and to minimize environmental impact;
(14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the
public right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts; and
(15) Not detrimental to the public health,public safety, or general welfare.
With regard to this application, items 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, and 13 are generally applicable.
Additionally the conditions listed within 78-1286 relating to land alterations, grading and
filling will be incorporated into formal approvals, if any, for this property.
Re: Item 2. The proposed retaining walls and grading improvements are residential in
nature and are compliant with the zoning code.
Re: Items 6-7-8. T'hese criteria essentially ask whether the proposed improvements are
appropriate and in character with the surrounding land and neighborhood. Staff believes the
proposed new residence partially within the 75-foot setback area will have little impact on
surrounding lands. Drainage patterns for runoff leaving the site will be altered with the
intent to significantly improve them.
Re: Item 9. This standard requires that the grading activity must not substantially impair
the use and enjoyment of the property in the area or have an adverse impact on the property
values in the area when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses.
The proposed use of the property for a residence, coupled with the changes in use of the
lower garage area, will result in minimal impacts to the use and enjoyment of adjacent
properties. However, as noted by the City Engineer in his comments (Exhibit I), retaining
wa11 designs around the lower garage area must be submitted and approved. Safety of this
parking area must also be addressed by adding positive barriers above the wa11s where
required.
Re: Item 12. This standard requires that the grading activity and its results will not cause
excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause a
demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or unsafe access.
While the proposed grading is not excessive and will not be time-consuming, a neighboring
property owner has indicated that access of construction equipment and vehicles from the
rear easement driveway area has the potential to disrupt the condition and functionality of
that driveway for other users. Applicants and their contractors will need to be vigilant in
ensuring construction activity does not impair other driveway and Crystal Bay Road users,
and that any damage is repaired.
Re: Item 13. This standard requires that the grading be designed to take into account the
natural, scenic, and historic features of the azea and to minimize environmental impact. The
proposed grading on this lot is minimal and as a result will have minimal if any
environmental impacts.
FILE#143664
May 15,2014
Page 6 of 7
City Engineer Comments
Comments from the City Engineer aze attached as Eghibit I. In addition to pointing out the
need for a $3,000 escrow for erosion control and engineering oversight, he spells out a
number of specific erosion control methods necessary due to the nature of this compact
work site. Applicants should be required to adhere to the listed conditions.
Additional Discussion
Applicants indicate they plan to relocate onto the property the small 5'x9' shed that is
partially on the HCRRA right-of-way. Given the slightly larger garage proposed, is this
shed necessary? Are there any other hardcover items that can be eliminated?
Initially there had been some discussion as to whether the existing decorative and functional
retaining walls adjacent to Crystal Bay Road should be removed. Staffls conclusion is that
these wa11s likely provide some measure of stability to the slope and their removal might
cause erosion problems.
Based on the small size of the lot, there does not appear to be sufficient room to provide
mitigation measures for the excess hardcover. It should be noted that the proposed attached
garage is intended to be 1 foot higher than the existing to eliminate the drainage issues noted
by the applicant.
Neighbor Comments
The property owner to the immediate east has submitted comments indicating concerns
which are addressed in Item 12 above. The Planning Commission should take into
consideration the public input when reviewing the application.
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 granting of the requested variances?
4. Given the existing nonconforming level of hardcover, are there any areas of
hardcover that can be reduced in size?
5. Given the proximity to the lake and the topography of the site, is there a need to
establish a requirement that the building height be limited by adhering to the
low-pitched roof design proposed?
6. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Staff Recommendation
Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed area, width, setback and hardcover
, FILE#14-3664
May 15,2014
Page 7 of 7
variances for construction of a new home on the site, on the basis that hardcover and
structural lot coverage will not increase, the easterly substandard setback will be made
conforming, and the encroachment of the HCRRA right-of-way will be eliminated. The
setback from the lake and from the street will be reduced in order for this to occur. The
proposed residence will not be out of character with other homes in the neighborhood.
Based on the above, staff recommends approval as follows:
1) Staff recommends approval of the lot area and width variances.
2) Staff recommends approval of the proposed hardcover variance subject to Planning
Commission acceptance. If reductions from the current proposed levels aze
recommended, then a revised site plan (and potentially a revised house plan) should be
requested.
3) Staff recommends approval of lake setback and rear setback variances as proposed,
subject to any revisions needed if Planning Commission concludes hardcover must be
reduced.
4) Staff recommends approval of a CUP and variance for grading/excavation/fill within the
0-75' zone, subject to a final grading and drainage plan that addresses any City Engineer
concerns regarding slope stability and retaining wall design; subject to adherence to the
City's erosion control regulations as well as the permitting requirements of the MCWD.
Timely re-vegetation and stabilization will be a requirement of the permitting process.
5) Applicants shall take all necessary precautions to ensure that the mature oak and ash
trees within the 0-75' setback zone are not affected by construction.
6) Applicants are advised of street and shared driveway parking and access limitations
during the construction process. Applicants and their contractors shall maintain
vigilance in keeping the road and shared driveway passable and in good condition.
7) Approval is subject to all recommendations of the City Consulting Engineer in his letter
dated May 15, 2014.
Planning Commission options for action:
1. Recommend approval as presented, or with specific conditions or revisions; or
2. Recommend denial, stating reasons; or
3. Table for more information or submittal of a revised plan (provide applicant with
specific direction).
�
� COUNCIL MEETING
Date Application Received: NA
Date Application Considered as Complete: NA FEB 0 9 2015
60-Day Review Period Eapires: NA
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION �m����
Date: February 3, 2015
Item No.: �
Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section:
Name: Michael P.GafGon Planning Dept.
Title: Senior Planner
Item Description: 14-3664 David Schmid&Angela Ciliberto, 3309 Crystal Bay Road
-Amend Variance & CUP Approvals for Revised Retaining Wall
Zoning District: LR-1C, One Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre/100'
Lot Area: 5,237 s.f. exclusive of traveled road(0.12 acre)
Lot Width: 52' at Shoreline, 59' at 75' Setback Line
Application Summary: Amend approved site plan to re-orient the open parking space
adjacent to Crystal Bay Road and replace the pre-existing block retaining walls along Crystal
Bay Road with a boulder wall.
Planning Commission Recommendation: At its October 20, 2014 meeting the PC voted 7-0
to recommended approval of the proposed revisions to the parking stall orientation and
associated retaining walls. At that meeting applicants indicated they were also considering
the use of a steel wall system rather than the proposed boulder walls. Planning Commission
indicated they would not oppose the use of a steel wall system rather than the boulder walls
depicted in the proposed survey, but directed that a steel wall design be submitted for staff
review before this is presented to the City Council for consideration. The applicants have
abandoned the steel wa11 idea and are requesting approval for the initially proposed boulder
walls.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the request
with conditions.
List of Ezhibits
A- Draft Resolution
B -PC Minutes 10/20/14
C -Notice of PC Action 10/21/14
D - Planning Commission Memo and Exhibits of 10/14/14
Background
T'he applicants were granted variance and CUP approvals to construct a new residence via
Resolution No. 6407 on June 9, 2014. While they have been issued permits and begun
construction on the home based on the approved site plan, they are proposing a site plan revision
regarding the front pazking stall along Crystal Bay Road. That stall was approved in the location
,
File#14-3664
February 3,2015
Page 2
of the pre-existing detached garage, and included revisions to the walls abutting the garage
space.
The applicants are now proposing to replace the pre-existing walls (since removed) along Crystal
Bay Road and replace with boulder walls, all of which will be less than 4 feet in height. Further,
rather than creating a parking stall perpendicular to the road, they propose to create a parallel
stall, approximately 24 feet in width and 7-10' deep, in the location of the existing driveway and
slightly west of it. The front walkway and steps will also be slightly reconfigured. These
revisions require an amendment of the approved site plan.
Please review the 10/14/14 PC memo and 10/20/14 PC minutes for additional detail. Public
Works Director Adam Edwards reviewed the proposed layout and found it acceptable.
Staff Recommendation
Crystal Bay Road is narrow with minimal if any areas wide enough for on-street vehicle parking
without causing difficulty for other vehicles. The proposed parking sta11 appears to be located so
as not to intrude into the traveled right-of-way, and will be located no closer to the traveled road
than the existing concrete walls. Crystal Bay Road exists via a prescriptive easement, not
dedicated on any plat or through any formal easement process. The public by virtue of many
decades of use and maintenance has the right to continue use of the traveled roadway. The
parking sta11 will be on private property (but within 10' of the paved roadway), and it will be up
to the property owner to manage any unintended public use of the stall.
Staff recommends approval of the reconfigured walls/driveway/sidewalk, and installation of
boulder walls per the proposed plan, subject to all other conditions of the 2014 variance & CUP
approval including the limitation to 36.6%hardcover, and that the area streetward of the walls be
paved.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Adopt or amend the attached Resolution Amending the Conditions of Resolution No. 6407 -
File#14-3664.
� Council
Exhibit A
A RESOLUTION
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 6407
-FILE NO. 14-3664
WHEREAS, David Schmid, a single person, and Angela Ciliberto, a single
person (hereinafter"the Applicants") are the owners of the property located at 3309 Crystal Bay
Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as follows:
Lot 1, Wallace' s Addition to the Village of Minnetonka Beach, together with a
portion of vacated street lying northeastexly of and adjacent to said lot described as
follows: That part of said vacated street lying southwesterly of a line drawn from a
point on the Southeasterly line of s�.i�d vacated street distant 10 feet northeasterly
from the most southerly corner of said vacat�d. street, to a point on the
Southwesterly line of said vacated street dist�nt 113.91 feet northwest�rly from said
most southerly corner, Henr�epin County, Mi�e�ota.
(hereinafter the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2014 the A�pplicants were granted variances and a
conditional use permit for c�zstruction of� new residence to repl�ce their existing residence on
the property, which �ovals also included � vari�e and conditional use permit pursuant to
Section 78-966 and ?8-1286 to allow grading and the construction of retaining walls within the
0-75' lakeshore setback zone wh�re no gradin� is normally allowed, subject to specified
conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have requested a revision to the site plan approved
via Resolution No. 6407 in order to allow replacement of the pre-existing block retaining walls
along Cryst�l Bay Road with bQulder walls, a11 of which will be less than 4 feet in height; and to
a11ow re-orierxt�tion of the approved parking stall to be parallel to Crystal Bay Road rather than
perpendicular to it, such stall to be approximately 24 feet in width and 7-10' deep, in the location
of the existing drive�y and slightly west of it. The front walkway and steps will also be slightly
reconfigured; and
Page 1 of 5
WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes and the Orono, Minnesota, City Code, the Orono Planning Commission held
a public hearing on October 20, 2014 at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning
this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as an amendment of Zoning File number 14-3664.
2. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at � public hearing held on
October 20, 2014 and voted '� for and 0 against on a n�otion to approve the
requested site plan revisions including wall replacement, parking stall re-
orientation and sidewalk reconfiguration,t�as�on the following findings:
a. The proposed revisions re�ult in a wall system that avoids the 8-foot high wa11
system that would have required additional safety measures such as fencing.
b. Re-orient�tion of the parking stall as propos�d will not impede City street
mainter�ance and will lik�ly create a safer situation for a vehicle exiting the
site given the hill on the n�i.ghboring property to the east.
c. Gradin�in the area of the park.ing sta11 will create a slope that is less steep and
will tie in better with the exi.�ting grades on the adjacent property. Site
dr�inage will still be no�tecl a1o�the west side of the stairway as previously
app�aved.
d. Aesthetictilly, the �ulder walls may create a more natural look than the pre-
existing fieldstone-f�ced walls. As part of the project, the existing concrete
steps will be replaced with a curved stairway leading up from the street to the
flatter area near the house,plus some stepping stones around the house.
e. The proposad stall has been configured and sized to be equivalent to the
existing amount of hardsurface associated with the existing driveway. The
sta11 wi11 be required to be paved. Hardcover with the proposed configuration
has been held to the 36.6% approved in the original plan.
3. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and
recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by
the Applicants and the public, and the effect of the site plan revisions to the
approved variances and CUP on the health, safety and welfare of the community.
Page 2 of 5
4. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this Property are peculiar to
it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting
approval of revisions to the site plan previously approved for variances would not
adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger
to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the
Applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty; is necessary to
preserve a substantial property right of the Apglicants; and would be in keeping
with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code�nd Comprehensive Plan of the City.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDE�tt AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of th� above findings, the Orc�o City Council hereby
grants a revision to the site plan approved via Re�lution No. 6407 in order to allow replacement
of the pre-existing block retaining wa11s along Cryst�l Bay Road with boulder walls, all of which
will be less than 4 feet in height; and to allow re-orie�t�tion of the approved parking stall to be
parallel to Crystal Bay Road rather �than �erpendicular to it, such sta11 to be approximately 24
feet in width and 7-10' deep, in the location oftl� existing driveway and slightly west of it; and
to allow reconfiguration of the front walkvvay and st�s; all subae�ct to the following conditions:
1. Council approval is based on the revisecl site plan survey submitted by the Applicants and
annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Ezhibit A, Any amendments to
the revised site plan whic� are not in co�formity with City codes will require further
Planning Crnnmission a�d Cifiy Cauncil review.
2. Applicants shail obtain a separate builtiing permit for construction of the boulder walls
prinx to commencem�nt of canstruction.
3. Under the revised site plan, Co�dition 4 of Resolution No. 6407 requiring a fence or
other pasitive safety bazriers sha11 be placed above the retaining walls that surround the
lower parking area, is no lomger required.
4. All other cond�tions of R�solution No. 6407 shall remain in full force and effect.
5. Authorities granterl by this resolution run with the property not with the Applicants, but
are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a land alteration permit for the
boulder wall system within one year of the date of Council approval, or the approvals
granted herein will expire on that date (February 9, 2016).
Page 3 of 5
8. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution
shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority
granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor.
9. The undersigned Applicants have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this
resolution and on behalf of the Applicants and the Applicants' heirs, successors and
assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the
Property.
Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 9�' day of February, 2015.
ATTEST:
Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili 'Ft�McMillan, Mayor
Property Owner(s)
Page4of5
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
This instrument was acknowledged before me this_day of ,2015, by
David Schmid, a single person.
Nat�'y Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
This instrument was acknowledged before me this_day of , 2015,by
Angela Ciliberto, a sin,gle�rson.
Notary Public
Page 5 of 5
� MINUTES OF THE Council
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Exhibit B
Monday,October 20,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
ROL ALL
The�rono ' g Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following mem s present:
Chair Denise Le ' en,Commissioners Bruce Lemke, Christopher McGrann,Chad Ol ,Loren
Schoenzeit, and Jo 'esse. Representing Staff were Community Development ' ector Andrew
Mack, Senior Planner ael Gaffron,City Planner Melanie Curtis, Consul ' City Engineer David
Martini,and Recorder Jacki oung. Council Member Pri.ntup was pres . Commissioner Jon
Schwingler arrived at 6:38 p.m.
Chair Leskinen called the meeting to or at 6:30 p.m.,fo ed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA
*1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING NINIISSIO ETING MINUTE OF SEPTEMBER 15,
2014
Mack noted under Item N the name of the architect was misspelled would be corrected by Staff.
Schoenzeit mo McGrann seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as a ded. VOTE: Ayes
6,Nays 0.
BUSINESS
2. #14-3664 DAVID SCHIVVIID AND ANGELA CILIBERTO,3309 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD,
VA�RIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT,6:35 P.M.—6:45 P.M.
David Schmid and Angela Ciliberto,Applicants,were present.
Gaf&on noted this application was before the Planning Commission eazlier this year and was approved by
the City Council in June of 2014. The applicants have chosen to request some revisions to the parking
area that exists along Crystal Bay Road. The parking area originally was going to be created from a
portion of the existing underground garage,which was to be removed, and construction of a new concrete
rear retaining wall within the garage footprint. That retaining wall would have been approximately 8.5
feet high and would have required fencing or similar barrier at the top for safety purposes.
The applicants aze now proposing a parking sta11 as a parallel stall to the road,which requires an
amendment to the approved site plan. The stall will be approximately 24 feet in width and seven to ten
feet deep,in the location of the existing driveway and slightly west of it. In addition,all existing walls
will be removed and replaced with boulder walls, all of which will be less than four feet in height.
Public Works Director Adam Edwards has reviewed the proposed plan and notes that the parallel stall
will not impede City street maintenance and will likely create a safer situation for a vehicle exiting the
site given the hill on the neighboring property to the east. Grading of the area of the parking stall will
create a slope that is less steep and will tie in better with th existing grades on the adjacent property. Site
drainage will still be routed along the west side of the stairway as previously approved.
Gaffron stated aesthetically the boulder walls may create a more natural look than the existing fieldstone-
faced walls. As part of the project,the existing concrete steps will be replaced with a curved stairway
Page 1 of 28
MINLTTES OF THE ,
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 20,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
leading up from the street to the flatter area near the house as well as some stepping stones azound the
house. ,
The proposed stall has been configured and sized to be equivalent to the existing amount of hard surface
associated with the existing driveway. The stall will be required to be paved. Hardcover with the
proposed configuration will not be increased.
Staff recommends approval of the revisions.
Lemke asked what the surface will be on the parking area.
Gaffron stated the parking area will be required to be paved.
Angela Ciliberto noted Staff s report states the walls would be boulder walls. Ciliberto asked if they
would be allowed to use any steel as part of the retaining wall or whether they would need to submit a
new request. Ciliberto indicated they are attempting to make it appear as natural looking as possible.
Gaf&on asked if she is speaking of steel pilings.
Ciliberto indicated it would be a solid sheet similar to a wall with some reinforcement.
Gaffron stated Staff would like to see some type of drawing or engineering design. Gaffron notedthe
wall would be four feet high, and if boulders are not going to be used,it likely will have a different
appearance than what is before the Planning Commission tonight.
Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission could request an engineered plan if the wall is under four feet.
Gaffron stated if the wall is less than four feet high,the City does not require it to be engineered,but since
the work is in the 0-75 foot zone and is facing the zone,there may be other issues that should be
addressed.
McGrann asked if the original application called for the wall to stay.
Gaf&on stated if the walls stay the way they are depicted in the picture,the new walls would ha�e had to
be engineered.
McGrann indicated he was referring to the stones around the walk and asked whether that area is going to
stay the same.
Gaffron pointed out that area that is to be changed.
McGrann asked whether another notification would need to be sent out given the changes.
Gaffron stated notification was sent out within the required notification area and that no word was heazd
from any of the neighbors.
Leski.nen asked if the horizontal walls around the sidewalk will be put back. Leskinen noted they have
been removed.
Page 2 of 28
, MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING
Monday,October 20,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaffron stated the pictures were taken last fall and that there was no intent at the time the bnilding permit
was issued for the wall to go away.
Lemke noted the plan does say proposed wall on that side.
Gaffron stated the proposed plan shows a new wall in two locations. Gaffron stated if those walls are
now gone,the applicants' intent is to replace them with something different, and what is before the
Planning Commission is what is being proposed.
Ciliberto stated all of the walls were removed during the beginning stages of demolition. Ciliberto
indicated the walls were actually connected to the stairway and was one piece of concrete.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:40 p.m.
There were no public comments.
Chair Lesldnen closed the public hearing at 6:40 p.m.
Leski.nen stated in her view the revisions are an improvement and that she was not comfortable with the
8-foot retaining wall given the safety issues. Leskinen stated she was surprised when she visited the site
yesterday that the other walls were gone,but that there is silt fencing up and it appears to be holding the
ground in place. Leskinen stated it is a reasonable request.
Thiesse stated he would like a condition of approval to be that a plan be presented regarding the steel.
Thiesse stated a steel sheet wall has a maritime look,which would be okay,but that it does not appear the
applicants have a good idea of what type of wa11 it will be specifically.
, Schoenzeit moved,Thiesse seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 14-3664,David
Schmid and Angela Ciliberto,3309 Crystal Bay Road,granting of a variance and a conditional use
permit,subject to Staff's recommendation and subject to submittal of a plan depicting how the steel
is to be used prior to appearing before the City Council. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
3. #14-3691 SOURCE LAND CAPTTAL,405 NORTH ARM DRNE,PRELIMIN
PLAT, P.M.—8Z5 P.M.
Pat Hiller, Source Lan ital,was present.
Grittman stated before the Planning 'ssion tonight is the prel' ' plat for the Lakeview project.
This application first appeared before the P ' g Commission in October of 2013 as a concept
subdivision review and the Planning Commission ' wed material generally. The preliminary plat
application was previously brought before the Plannin 'ssion at its September meeting. At the
time of that hearing, Staff recommended tabling application, 'ch was done,to allow the applicants
time to submit additional material.
Grittman stated some of the reque material has been submitted and StafF has an opportunity to
review the documents.
Page 3 of 28
' Council
Exhibit C
NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
CITY OF ORONO
2750 Kelley Parkway ZONING FILE: 14-3664
PO Box 66
Crystai Bay, MN 55323
952.249.4620 DATE OF NOTICE: October 21, 2014
TO: David Schmid &Angela Ciliberto COPIES
3309 Crystal Bay Road via angelaciliberto@hotmail.com
Wayzata, MN 55391 email: davidatthela@aol.com
TYPE OF REQUEST: Variances&CUP- Revised Site Plan ( Parking Stall& Retaining Walls)
DATE OF MEETING: October 20,2014
The Orono Planning Commission voted on a motion to recommend approval of the proposed revisions
to the parking stall orientation and associated retaining walls. Planning Commission indicated they
would not oppose the use of a steel wall system rather than the boulder walls depicted in the proposed
survey, but directed that a wall design be submitted for staff review before this is presented to the City
Council for consideration.
VOTE: 7 FOR 0 AGAINST
This application is tentatively scheduled for review and action by the City Council at its November 10
meeting pending submittal of additional information,as follows:
- Revised survey showing the proposed steel retaining walls.
- Retaining wall design plans.
This information must be submitted no later than Monday, November 3,2014 in order to be placed on
the following meeting agenda:
Monday, November 10,2014 This is a City Council meeting. The meeting begins at 7 PM.
If that schedule cannot be met,we would need your submittals by Monday, November 17 in order to be
scheduled for the November 24 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
Senior Planner Mike Gaffron at mpaffron@ci.orono.mn.us or 952.249.4622.
. �
Council >
� Exhibit D
Date Application Received: 09/10/14
Date Application Considered as Complete: 09/10/14
60-Day Review Period Ezpires: 11/9/14
To: Chair Leskinen and Planning Commission Members
Jessica Loftus, City Administrator
From: Mike Gaffron, Senior Plann
Date: October 14, 2014
Subject: #14-3664, David Schmid&Angela Ciliberto, 3309 Crystal Bay Road
- Site Plan Amendment- Variance & CUP
- Public Hearing
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zoning District: LR-1C, One Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre/100'
Lot Area: 5,237 s.f. exclusive of traveled road(0.12 acre)
Lot Width: 52' at Shoreline, 59' at 75' Setback Line
Application Summary: Amend approved site plan to re-orient open parking space
adjacent to Crystal Bay Road and replace retaining walls.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the
request with conditions.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Revised Survey &Proposed Site Plan
Exhibit B. Originally Approved Survey& Site Plan
Exhibit C. Resolution No. 6407
Exhibit D. Applicant Correspondence
Exhibit E. Site Photos
Exhibit F. Revised Hardcover Calculations (No change)
E�ibit G. Properiy Owners List
Exhibit H. Plat Map
Exhibit I. Code Section 18-136
Exhibit J. PC Memo of 5/15/14
Background
The applicants were granted variance and CUP approvals to construct a new residence via
Resolution No. 6407 on June 9, 2014. While they have been issued permits and begun
construction on the home based on the approved site plan, they are_�ro�osing a site plan
revision regarding the front parking stall along Crystal Bay Road. That stall was approved
in the location of the pre-existing detached garage, but is now being proposed as a parallel
stall to the road,requiring an amendment of the approved site plan.
The originally approved proposal included retention of the existing fieldstone-faced
concrete retaining walls abutting Crystal Bay Road, removal of the underground garage, and
construction of a new concrete rear retaining wall within the garage footprint. That wall
would have been approximately 8-1/2 feet high and would have required fencing or similar
barrier at the top for safety purposes.
FILE#14-3664
October 14,2014 �
Page 2 of 3
The applicants are now proposing to remove all existing walls and replace with boulder
walls, all of which will be less than 4 feet in height. Further, rather than creating a parking
stall perpendicular to the road, they propose to create a parallel stall, approximately 24 feet
in width and 7-10' deep, in the location of the existing driveway and slightly west of it.
Orono Code Sections 18-136(b) and (d) limit driveway approaches to 20' in width, but
allow an additional width of 10' for curb cuts. While the Code does not address parallel
stalls such as that proposed, Public Works Director Adam Edwards has reviewed the
proposed plan and notes that the parallel stall will not impede City street maintenance and
will likely create a safer situation for a vehicle exiting the site given the hill on the
neighboring property to the east.
Grading in the area of the parking sta11 will create a slope that is less steep and will tie in
better with the existing grades on the adjacent property. Site drainage will still be routed
along the west side of the stairway as previously approved.
Aesthetically, the boulder walls may create a more natural look than the existing fieldstone-
faced walls. As part of the project,the existing concrete steps will be replaced with a curved
stairway leading up from the street to the flatter area near the house, plus some stepping
stones around the house.
The proposed stall has been configured and sized to be equivalent to the existing amount of
hardsurface associated with the existing driveway. The stall will be required to be paved.
Hardcover with the proposed configuration has been held to the 36.6% approved in the
original plan.
Conditional Use Permit Analysis
The CUP approved in June for grading work within 75' of the lake was supported by
findings noted in the PC memo dated 5/15/2014 attached as Exhibit J. Staff suggests that
that those findings remain valid under the currently proposed reconfiguration.
Issues for Consideration
1. Does Planning Commission find that the creation of a parallel parking stall at this
location is a reasonable and better alternative to the originally approved re-use of the
driveway and garage footprint?
2. Does the Planning Commission find that the proposed configuration will not
alter the essential character of the neighborhood?
3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Staff Recommendation
Crystal Bay Road is narrow with minimal if any areas wide enough for on-street vehicle
parking without causing difficulty for other vehicles. The proposed parking sta11 appears to
be located so as not to intrude into the traveled right-of-way, and will be located no closer to
the traveled road than the existing concrete walls. Crystal Bay Road is a prescriptive
easement, not dedicated on any plat or through any formal easement process. The public by
, FILE#14-3664
October 14,2014
Page 3 of 3
virtue of many decades of use and maintenance has the right to continue use of the traveled
roadway. The parking stall will be on private property, and it will be up to the property
owner to manage any unintended public use of the stall.
Staff recommends approval of the reconfigured walls and driveway.
Planning Commission options for action:
1. Recommend approval as presented, or with specific conditions or revisions; or
2. Recommend denial, stating reasons; or
3. Table for more information or submittal of a revised plan (provide applicant with
specific direction).
1V111V1� � 1 V1V11H.
a /�
=
W CRYSTAL BAY �.�'� �
a � �j �°'—
� i� � ��,
V� /
��
'� �
� 929.4 + ' ����
� � CONTOl�2•., ��'
�
� --� LWE RPp �� (932.4) �
� R1P ���, I
Q- ��i��' � �
��� �� � ' I �_
SURVEY ������� rp�� � I ��J
� LIN����� 52 � 2� i
� �
+ �
�� c
�—�`�'r / r' .��� � 3 6 � Cj�1, ` � I �'!'i
�
� f =� .,�'`' ��'�w 5° �� � � ���.,
_ ���('932.4) i _\`� � � � �� �
_____ - ..__........ � A. r ,� , ,
_- MH � RS � r ,� ���
' �'� �s� p��.0��� .y�jl r M // / /
�RE�� Wo 8� REM 9,� � � / // I /D���
�� C�5�p.1Rs r�� ._ /d' / �� /
S� :& c �. ��1 � � � �
,, g� . oo��`!�+;� �-� �� / -9�
y>� � � �/� :'''�%`
PROPaSED 5,��
Q.Q � PARIWG�L� // �i' I /
Q • AREA r / � •;•�' �,�
� M �,.�F� /� BW�933.7 � �,�:'� I /
OJ� � ... � TW�937.6 i
� � o ew-9a3.4 �'�,(E).'•� // �'• �'p ,�I1`� -�� � 0�
J� o rw=9�s:� - . � w�►.� �'� � �
� �933 4� .�" ���. �.r �� 93 �.I'i I /
� ��_. ���_�� /:1 ...,. : :-� - �r,�. ;(942.4) � //
j,. ':;; /�:_9 .. .N' � //
/ —-9'S`$ � / ti � --- I NOTE: IF
—� 2s« onK� � �•. 9°� i �-- � f�PLACE[
/ O.. j• •; /�:='.
/_._�.� \ /� �..'•,���_. �,j O I . y
_ _ �� o �� �•'�
�' '`�p���� '-� �� � —
/ 941.1 94 ��'; ��l�'� �� »;?H �,���-----
� � � � � M PROPOSED " �� �I ,,.,...�--- �" �
�-- — � �STAIRS � � •;y;•
,_— _ _--cr- --� .:.: �� i
TBACK UWE_'�`-��� �O �,`' •
�� � . BUII.DING SE—— us :..:.3 / �
/ ` lAVER�E -�'— �—(,pVERED �B�'� ._ � "32 OAK ..� �
�, ,.:
� _f,,— — � _ � 940.3 DECK e� ...5. - � I
� '—'-` �
i 34.0 I
, +—�oaucour---s �
::.... i i,�. �
. ��10"x 10" ASH _ � �� I
� 942 .._.�� o
— ................. �
. ��! - � � �./� � � �� V.1
: � �5 �
12" ASH, .a' ... � � � 5(K)
� N PROPOSED Qo ��---: � �944.4) �
� 9 .t:.....� N �
� � Ag ; ; � ,d'
?j 75� � 2.5 p i..;... I
:
SETBAC
��:, �' H 0 ��: ��, � : �o i
� LINE ; � ---- I
_ � - ^ o �
o � 3309 °°� s''° •�:::;' 20 °- I
N `" # �/ _�. .tio., :�. �. I
.. 10:0 _ 13.5 6.4 � ��z (
� _.... ..... - COVERED ` I • • �
�" PROPOSED �T 1 Y �A 1 •'''•��� �
� SILT FENC � �'''•' I
�'� ^ �� — � � , �''' I
i �4�� � I "'
i z '—�. .,o _�. . �
� � I
N � I
/ J44 '',T015BE REMOVED __ N...................: I
� ._.... • � �V� � I
�
� I O� '' �(944.8)
. � �i � a
� , „ o� . � �
14 WALNUT_ ��
J / \ 124.0 I a� � SW' LY �INE OF
� I VACATED STREI
�''r. �'4 948.0 �i
(945.2); d, : � 0 ,
I �H� rn EXISTING SF�D PROPOSED �
� TO BE REMOVED DRIVEWAY . �
5'4 •••--•10.00�'''��26" LINDEN
(945.1) '�
� •.MOS7 S' LY CORNER
OF VACATED STREET ,
..._.. -S 54°45' �0" W 60.04------ �
� ��
(945.8� �
� �i�
24" ELM
BLACKTOP DRIVEWAY /
/
�
/
. �� _
_�
� M
� —� �
. —� �
m /// �.,-
� / ���
s � �gr2' �
� �
� ,��� I
a � 929.4 + ' ��
CONTOI�t•., � �'
) a. LINE � (
? RiP RPP ��' (932.4) �
� � '
�� ��� � '
� _. / / .
� ���i� C
, � �, � /,,��� ' I ' I J��
, � �' SURVEY �-� ,��� �z.rOa I 20 � �
' / / LIN�.���� I ( �
� �
+ i -� �' � �
����/ � �/i� 93 6 � � ' � � I �1�
� �, ,,-`�'�.� o �1 `' I ��
; _ ���(932.4) .d�i ``� �� � � �� ��
�—� � /
__/ .. . • MH O � I r i�
- � R � ,= �,�` ,
. $ p� � ,�, , � �,
L �
(933.3) � � Ln i� � �
� � /
�� � i i�� /
! � � �� / � � �
3� (Jg� ,
i��- �— --•>..�- � ��
� ' CONCRETE � i� �:'' I i�
O � 9 �� DRIVEWAY � / _.:`- �. �
�
� . < 33 � /��.- I
pJ� � o �P�o I �� • I /
o ..- -/ %
� � p ��,��`� ....PROPO�ED ... I .��
�J� � 9�59 w �Q�iC� . AREAING•...�G�.. � i /
� (933 4� �/——��J N � 940 ,, 'I''`� ;(942.4) /
� � � '� / ;� � /
1936�� CONC. WALLS W � ' • _ I /
g��
( ) � � � �: : -'::::�: :.-::: � , �
/ E Z ANTER g3�,3.. I NOTE: (F
26" OAK� ��---—-"-�"- � (941.4) �'� ����942� �� :....s /� 'REPLACEC
PROPOSED r�� 1
--— � � "� EXISTING �
�� / � g�p 8� WALL �'� UNDERGROUND' I ,� • • '! I
�� l •
� / g4 I ' GARAGE-TO �:;..•° =�� ( -
���, BE REMOVED I •;,. � /_��. ---�"""-
,� �/ (941.1) . .-I ✓- �-
!
�f � 942 O1 ..Y:"�r--/ �
��� SETBACK LINE ----"_� :::... � �
/ AVERAGE BUILDING ____--�� r- . :
/ -�__�„ ::• :..:.� � I
.i
�^ / --�`__ — � COVEREO �B��� , . -� '32" OAK •�.� �
-�� 940.3 DECK � (
�
� �ooKour 4': �
r'�; � I
:::.. �� i �
-- _� to"x1o" ASH 942 ����� a I
� �� , � � �
� .............� . ^
----�- � � 1.t.1
`— ; �........................ � �
,?�� ASH, � pROPOSED ' �
N � ��'••� �h, �944.4) �
9 ...; N v�
� 75� ��/ 2.5 44 ; • r � �
� SETBAC � H O U S E ~ ��� (
_ � LINE _ o �I :....... �
. _ ,� co` S� ' I
o � #3309 ^ �'�Y � •_•'''"� zo � I
N "�' T� .�. .,o.;•=-s. d.. I
' � 10:0 13.5 6.0 I I
I � PROPOSED covE�o � •... (n I
r`�Y C A) .,,...
O SILT FENC � �~•• I
�—
�' �— � � . ''' �
� �� � � I
i Z �,��. o ;� ...�.. �
/ N N ... ( � .
/ 944 '.EXISTING HOUSE cV , O�Z� (
/ :,TO 8E REMOVED.... ....- -�-•..--•-•
w,: I
��
I W Z �, �
� . � � I o� �(944.8)
I „ � �� � I
I 14 WALNUT_ ( ��
� °'� I SW'LY LINE OF
I 24'� ( VACATED STREI
�`}, �R g4 `+ n,.
(945.2); ( •. ,
' � `H� v� EXISTING SHED PROPOSED � O
'� TO BE REMOVED DRIV;EWAY � �
� _ 5•4 ••••••10.0a'''��26" LINDEN
I (945.1) ' \
`'••,MOST S' LY CORNER
OF VACATED STREET ,
. ,
� '• =` /
S 54°45' 00" W 60.00-------���"�
\ ....... ��
(945.8) �
� �i ii
24" ELM
BLACKTOP DRIVEWAY �
/
�
/
�
,
,—
,�
. �
_ �
- ----- �
------- s4 . ------___ _`__ — --9
---------------��.�
; -- —
-
-- -- -
\ , � - -- - - - - -1 -
- - - -
, � e/%ti!/N� 1 PC Exhibit B
� � �S 1 '
i \ 1 1 �°qo � '
1 1 1 wq y 1
.. � � 1 '` Oa-�.t�N�-�-!
i � 1 � 1 P��P2�V�
' \ � � \ S l r� Pt,,�
\ N ,
I i � 1
O � ...... \
, � ; � w 96.36 � �
I ► � � � ` ��11 +
V .. 40.00 • � '
�
_ \ �, � �'�
� I \� 'i � ` � r'pN
� ➢ \ � n^ � \ \ �-Z-f�
� O� \ � \ O
z
< \ 1 : ` c
� m � i� � �, %L � �
� I G� � � vD I ` \
t� �� 'o � C!� �c ��c
� :. �b N � � � c�' N\ �,�
� �
I c � � �o � �� \ m
� 1 0 �� � � _„� � -<
� �� '� _ �
{' � TE STEPS (,j� `� ` �
� p I t/� � CONCRE � ` �p
� 4 ' � � � � � \ \\ �
� �
� �
w 1
�� �oI � ~� Do� �, ��<<<'��► r� � � \
7�� � `r r�� i ' 0 9'Psy"t� �
m 'rZ'► mv � o � '�0 �
o � ` o � � \
� � �
� � ~ � � � o� `� N ���
••s33 N 1 :-,. : �0 � .� �
07 G�C f*11 •<- 2 ` \
I f''1DZX � ,'.`•1'�*I�O �� �
�Am� � i0 � ' D7�"0 D� � \ \
m��Z �� �� �m W \ �
I �m�c� � i,+ m: w
��o co \ ', .;i�' �'' \ �
� m O C � v
I v oZ N1 �;;��•.v . � �
w 113.91 �1 :.'•: .: --------
:•;,
- -N --�--t ��::_. --- \ — .. �'� +
'� ,� w 9 -
D 4-1.7� v \
" .. ='�'•• ..� \ � \ � \
\ . � . � � � �� 4�53 ... ._ . � `
:� s. ;:����:�: : ..., � � � 1 � �
`��. ; :�.,�: .. ..:•�.' � \ � � o \ \
� � \ \ � \ `
� �• \
� � '• � � � \ � \ �
\
���. �?�: �: '•,,.' � `� �� \
} � %•�• \ � � c�
-------�—�� ------�-�—��-� --------- — \ �
� ��� \ �� \ � cb
' ���� � \ � �
mo �� \ � � � .
�m � � � �\ �
I ..
> � � � � eiT
� m� �, t�,� \ � �� � �'y�ti,,. _\�
1Vl 1 l�l l� L� �1� U l� 1'�. .H. � .
Q ��.�
W CRYSTAL BAY ��o-� �
Q- �
a // � _
� ' '��� �
�
v , � �
�
�
�1 + I �//
� 929 4
CONTOl�2•.,, �%'� I
Qo � LINE RPp �'' (932.4) �
R�p ��
� ' �
� � �
� �
Q_ .� i�� ' , ( ��
� I
�� i� � J
SURVEY ������ 2.rOa I 20 � ��
� LIN�.���� � � (
/ � � �
�
�
�-��� r �' / 3 6 � �11 � I I ��
�—.� �� ,�1 5 I �l�'
_-- r-� �.� o
�-(932.4) -'�i�� �� I �� �
_ --' � ---.---. .. -N R �� � �,� ,,
� r � MH 1_�5 I r �� �� �
-' ��. L5. P�,�PR� �1 �-- � / /� �
. $ ' E W P� � REM�v� °��� � L[� i� �i � �g'�
� NCRE� �� B �v �r � �I' �
�� G�5�p,\RS �E ��� . -•.� � � i i , �
�. Cg� � eE�"0� � /
, t�.....--�-� ,-�,�- .f�.�-
3� PROPOSED / ��,. I /S��
Q P�aiar�(�� i . �
OQ. � __ AREA ' C / � .�'�• �/
/ " /"` - • � :'�:� I
�" � �•\F.' T1N=937.6 �i� ' '
�� co ��"�'..� / �`�''. � I �oc�
p � p ew-sa�.4 �'�.(E). / � w�t.�� i' � p5
� � TW=936.4 . - - . �ppOSED /
J-T d. �-wP�� �.. �� 9� ;��� I
� �9 .�^„c,�o,,,r/� .. --� ' � /
� 33•4) Q'��'�(Nj _Jg36 �. ._. ::-�� =�� ��; :�s42.4� 1 i
,�� :�.�� _ � /
� ��� ; � N4TE: IF
..g3�$ � / �ti I �.---� I 'REPLACE
26" OAK� i�� '•'. - 0' 9 � :" ��'
—' \ i' :�....�p�_: �0 ���. ... ,�.=1
- ` � ' o ��p��• ... '� I -
� � 94 �'�:. Oq��'�p�� ..::�_•�./�-�_--'�r'
/ (941.1) PROPOSED � ..-- , r
! —� . � �M�STAIRS l , _� �-��i�r �✓:�='� � �
�
. �
. , - � 33OCf ��� ,��r � PC Exhibit C
���/ l���
r
14-3c�
Doc No A10101982
Certified, filed and/or recorded on
Jul 28, 2014 12:00 PM
Office of the County Recorder
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Martin McMormick, County Recorder
Mark Chapin, County Auditor and Treasurer
Deputy 47 Pkg ID 1135737M
Doc Name: Variance
Document Recording Fee $46.00
Document Total $46.00
k`�
This cover sheet is now a permanent part of the recorded document. ��
� �°�o
C ITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
y`�l,q �,�'� N�. 6 4 � 7
kFSHo�
A RESOLUTION
GRANTING VARIANCES TO
MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTIONS 78-350, 78-1279(1), 78-1286, 78-1680 AND 78-1700(1);
AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PURSUANT TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-966
- FILE NO. 14-3664
WHEREAS, David Schmid, a single person, and Angela Ciliberto, a single
person (hereinafter"the Applicants") are the owners of the property located at 3309 Crystal Bay
Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as follows:
Lot l, Wallace' s Addition to the Village of Minnetonka Beach, together with a
portion of vacated street lying northeasterly of and adjacent to said lot described as
follows: That part of said vacated street lying southwesterly of a line drawn from a
point on the Southeasterly line of said vacated street distant 10 feet northeasterly
from the most southerly corner of said vacated street, to a point on the
Southwesterly line of said vacated street distant 113.91 feet northwesterly from said
most southerly corner, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
(hereinafter the"Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a
variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-350 to allow construction of a new
residence on a lot of 5,237 s.f. in area where a lot area of 21,780 s.f. is normally required, and of
width 52' at the shoreline and 59' at the 75' setback line where a lot width of 100' is normally
required, and with a setback of 1.7' from the rear lot line where a 30' setback is normally
required; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have applied for variances to Orono Municipal
Zoning Code Sections 78-1279(1) and 78-1279(2) to allow construction of a new residence 57'
from the OHW of Lake Minnetonka where a 75' setback is normally required, and 24' from the
traveled portion of Crystal Bay Road where a 30' setback is normally required; and
WHEREAS, the Applicants have applied for variances to Orono Municipal
Zoning Code Sections 78-1680 and 78-1700(1) to allow construction of a new residence and
associated hardcover in the amount of 36.57% within Hardcover Tier 1 where only 25%
hardcover is normally allowed; and
Page 1 of 8
� ���o� .
C ITY OF ORONO
FZESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
z �
b407
�' �� N o.
`qkFS H���
WHEREAS, the Applicants have applied for a variance and conditional use
permit pursuant to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-966 and 78-1286 to allow grading and
the construction of retaining walls as well as excavation and grading to accommodate
construction of a new home, all within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone; and
WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes and the Orono, Minnesota, City Code, the Orono Planning Commission held
a public hearing on May 19, 2014 at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this
application were given the opportunity to speak thereon.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File number 14-3664.
2. The Property is located in the LR-1 C One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning
District which requires a minimum lot area of 0.5 acre and a minimum lot width
of 100'.
3. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on
May 19, 2014 and voted 7 for and 0 against on a motion to approve the requested
variances and conditional use permit subject to certain conditions and based on
the following findings:
a. The Property contains 5,237 square feet in area outside of the traveled right-
of-way of Crystal Bay Road and has a defined width of 52 feet at the lake and
59 feet at the 75-foot setback.
b. The existing residence and attached garage exhibit a number of
nonconformities including excess hardcover, substandard side and lake
setbacks and attached garage encroachment of nearly 8 feet into the Hennepin
County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) right-of-way. The proposed
residence will be similar in footprint and shape to the existing but is being
reoriented to meet the required 10' side setbacks and to be located entirely
within the property boundaries.
c. In order to accomplish eliminate the HCRRA encroachment while retaining a
viable footprint, the house is proposed be placed 57' from the OHWL,
resulting in a rear lot line setback of 1.7 feet. The HCRR.A has indicated in an
Page2of8
. �0��
C ITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
y�� �.�'� NO. 64 � 7
kESHO�
email dated 4/9/2014 that they view the elimination of the encroachment as an
improvement and do not object to the resulting substandard rear setback.
d. The applicants' property and the homes to its east gain vehicular access via a
shared driveway that exists within the HCRRA right-of-way under a 2007
easement agreement between HCRRA and the CiTy. Applicants' property is at
the end of that shared driveway, and neighboring property owners have
indicated that construction traffic is a two-fold concern in that the Applicants
and their contractors must maintain access for the other users of the driveway,
and any damage to the driveway caused by the construction process should be
rectified by the Applicants. Plaruzing Commission recommends that the City
inspect the driveway prior to commencement of home demolition/construction
and establish a baseline condition for comparison after construction is
complete.
e. Crystal Bay Road is unique in that the street was never platted but exists by
prescription between the homes and the lake. The rear of the lots abut the
HCRRA railroad right-of-way. In many cases along the road, lots are not very
deep and therefore a number of properties have been granted variances to the
lake setbacic over the years. The proposed lake setback of 57 feet is not
inconsistent with past variances granted for other homes on Crystal Bay Road.
The proposed home location will not encroach on the established average
lakeshore setback.
f. In addition to the house replacement, Applicants propose to remove an
existing underground garage that opens to Crystal Bay Road approximately 10
feet back from the traveled road. Applicants propose to keep the driveway and
a portion of the garage floor to create an open parking stall approximately 20'
deep, which requires the construction of a new back retaining wall
approximately 8 feet in height. This parking area constitutes 0-75' hardcover;
however, a significant amount of fill would be needed to eliminate this
parking area, as the grade on either side is quite steep and additional retaining
walls would likely be needed to stabilize the 80% slope that would result. A
guard rail or fence above this parking area is likely to be required for safety.
g. Without variances the majority of the subject property is unbuildable as all but
the rear 26'-40' is located within 75' of the OHWL. This creates a practical
difficulty for redevelopment of the property. However, the applicants do have
the right to replace the existing residence in-kind if they choose to do so.
From a footprint perspective, the existing house and proposed house are
nearly identical at approximately 1450 s.f. The proposed house will be 2 full
Page 3 of 8
���o .
C ITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CIT"Y COUNCIL
y �
6407
�' G` N o.
�qk£s x o��'
stories rather than the existing 1-1/2 story structure. While the applicants'
proposal will not increase hardcover, it will increase the visual bulk and
massing as compared to the existing home. The propose low-pitch roof will
help to keep the new home from visually towering over the neighbor to the
west.
h. Due to the very small size of the lot, proposed hardcover of 36.67% is
necessary to accommodate the house, driveway retaining walls, sidewalks and
parking area, and this level of hardcover is a slight decrease from the existing
hardcover level of 37.7%. There is not sufficient room on the properiy to
provide mitigation measures for the excess hardcover.
i. City Code Section 78-966(a)(2) indicates that landowners must obtain a CUP
from the City prior to engaging in activities that include fill to elevate or alter
the existing natural grade. In this project the Applicants propose grading that
will direct runoff from the HCRRA right-of-way around the house and to the
front, with the intent to not direct drainage to neighboring properties. The
CUP is required because a portion of the grading work and the new retaining
wall at the lower parking area are within 75' of the lake. In relation to the
findings necessary for issuance of the CUP for grading and retaining walls,
Planning Commission finds that:
1) The proposed retaining walls and grading improvements are residential in
nature and are compliant with the zoning code.
2) The proposed improvements are appropriate and in character with the
surrounding land and neighborhood, and the proposed new residence
partially within the 75-foot setback zone will have little impact on
surrounding lands. Drainage patterns for runoff leaving the site will be
altered with the intent to significantly improve them.
3) The grading activity will not impair the use and enjoyment of the property
in the area or have an adverse impact on the property values in the area
when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses.
The proposed use of the property for a residence, coupled with the
changes in use of the lower garage area, will result in minimal impacts to
the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties.
4) As long as the Applicants and their contractors are vigilant in ensuring
construction activity does not impair other driveway and Crystal Bay Road
users, and that any damage is repaired, the grading activity and its results
will not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets or the
Page4of8
��'�o
C ITY OF ORONO
�ESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
y�'lq �L~ N�. � � 0 �
kESH04�
shared driveway, parking needs that cause a demonstrable inconvenience
to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, nor unsafe access.
5) The proposed grading is designed to take into account the natural and
scenic features of the area. The proposed grading on this lot is minimal
and as a result will have minimal if any environmental impacts but will
alleviate an existing drainage issue for the Applicants' property.
j. Applicants' initial plan to relocate onto the property the small 5'x9' shed that
is partially in the HCRRA right-of-way may be difficult to accomplish in a
conforming manner. Therefore Planning Commission recommends that based
on the small size of the proposed attached garage, it would be reasonable to
provide the Applicants the option of eliminating the shed entirely and
increasing the width of the garage by the square footage of the shed, as long as
the required side setbacks can be maintained.
k. Planning Commission finds that the property owner proposes to use the
property in a reasonable manner, i.e. for residential purposes, in a manner
similar to other homes on the block, on a parcel similar in size to a number of
others in the immediate neighborhood. The small lot was created and
developed for residential use long ago, a circumstance not created by the
owner. The proposed new residence will result in a home that is similar in
scope to other homes in the immediate neighborhood on small lots with
substandard setbacks and will not alter the character of the locality
1. The Applicants' request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the
ordinance.
m. The Applicants have demonstrated that enforcing the provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance deprives the Applicants of the reasonable use of their Property.
4. The Applicants have submitted a revised proposal that eliminates the shed and
adds approximately 49 square feet to the garage area by widening it by 2 feet
while maintaining the required side setbacks.
5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and
recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by
the Applicants and the public, and the effect of the proposed variances and CUP
on the health, safety and welfare of the community.
6. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this Property are peculiar to
. it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district;that granting
the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire
Page 5 of 8
�-��o .
C ITY OF �RONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
y`�l,q �L~ �I O. � `t o 7
kFsxo�
hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a
convenience to the Applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty;
is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the Applicants; and would
be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive
Plan of the City.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants
variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-350 to allow construction of a new
residence on a lot of 5,237 s.f. in area where a lot axea of 21,780 s.f. is normally required, and of
width 52' at the shoreline and 59' at the 75' setback line where a lot width of 100' is normally
required; and grants a variance to Section 78-350 to allow a setback of 1.7' from the rear lot line
where a 30' setback is normally required; and grants variances to Sections 78-1279(1) and 78-
1279(2) to allow construction of a new residence 57' from the OHW of Lake Minnetonka where
a 75' setback is normally required, and 24' from the traveled portion of Crystal Bay Road where
a 30' setback is normally required; and variances to Sections 78-1680 and 78-1700(1) to allow
construction of a new residence and associated hardcover in the amount of 36.57% within
Hardcover Tier 1 where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed; and grants a variance and
conditional use permit pursuant to Section 78-966 and 78-1286 to allow grading and the
construction of retaining walls as well as excavation and grading to accommodate construction
of a new home, all within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no grading is normally
allowed; subject to the following conditions:
1. Council approval is based on the survey submitted by the Applicants and annotated by
City staff, attached to this Resolution as Eghibit A, and the conceptual building plans and
elevations submitted by the Applicants and attached as Exhibit B. Any amendments to
the site plan or building plans which are not in conformity with City codes will require
further Planning Commission and City Council review.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicants shall submit a final grading and
drainage plan that addresses any City Engineer concerns regarding slope stability and
retaining wall design; subject to adherence to the City's erosion control regulations as
well as the permitting requirements of the MCWD. Timely re-vegetation and stabilization
of the site will be a requirement of the permitting process.
3. Applicants shall take all necessary precautions to ensure that the mature oak ash tree
within the 0-75' setbacic zone is not affected by construction. The mature oak tree next to
the underground garage area is anticipated to be disturbed by the proposed construction,
Page 6 of 8
���0
C ITY OF �RONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
y � 6 �4 � 7
�' G� N o.
�qkFSHo��
and if damaged or removed a replacement tree of a size and species approved by City
staff shall be planted.
4. Fencing or other positive safety barriers shall be permanently placed above the retaining
walls that surround the lower parking area.
5. Applicants and their contractors shall be vigilant in ensuring construction activity does
not impair other shared driveway and Crystal Bay Road users. Applicants and their
contractors must maintain access for the other users of the shared driveway.
6. The City shall inspect the shared driveway prior to commencement of home
demolition/construction to establish a baseline condition for comparison after
construction is complete. Any damage to the shared driveway caused by the construction
process shall be rectified by the Applicants.
7. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the Applicants, but
are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new
home. A framing inspection must be completed for the home within one year of the date
of Council approval, or the variances and CUP granted herein will expire on that date
(June 9, 2015).
8. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution
shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority
granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor.
9. The undersigned Applicants have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this
resolution and on behalf of the Applicants and the Applicants' heirs, successors and
assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the
Property.
Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 9`h day of June, 2014.
ATTEST:
�) ��
`;�C�..�_�-�� ��� G� 1
� � - �y��-)
Rachel Dodge, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, M r
Page7of8
� �o�o� .
C ITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
y � 6407
�' �� N O.
`qKESH���
�
� �
Prope y Owner s)
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
This instrument was acknowledged before me this 4 day of J u-�_, 2014,by
David Schmid, a single person.
BARBARA G.SILUS � � � 1 �a t�,��
� NQTARY PUBUC-MINNESOTA UJ�-U
�`l��'` M� _�mmission Expues Jan.31,2048
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
This instrument was acknowledged before me this�day of J u- _, 2014,by
Angela Ciliberto, a single person.
BARBARA G.SILUS ����
NU?ARY PUBIIC-MINNESOTA Notary Public
� My Commission Expires�Jan.31,2018
Page 8 of 8
. MINNETONKA RExhibitA
CRYSTAL BAY 6 4 O 7 ��,
� �
�
� ,��
--' i
929.4 �� �
CONTOUR•., ���'�
L� � (932.4) I
R�P RPP ���,
�������//' • �
� �
6a'�� , I
� L N�EY\'%��� �Z• I 20 �
� � I I
_—i��� � ��%��'i� ���� I
� �i 9326 �
_� _, ,, � 350�1 � ���.
__.—��az.a) '�'••••• "N � �.
____ -... � Rp�'� i ^ ,-,�g�
� SEWER ' $�� M � I
�� �� (933.3) I � �i� �i�
� �1,,9�
� Cg�Y - ��- ,,- �
� : ,
s� : � �i� '•�>.�I-�
��P M 1g334� DRIVEWAY / �///. �
- �i
� �� I
OJ � p ��P� I ���
�J`r= � 9S`�9 a `�`'��.�5 ;PARKING•��Ca� � �� �
� �933.4) � r�'- ��� i AREA ..�•. � :� I
r,.: '
� �� �———-J36' W i� �940 . ��'...� .(942.4) I /�
�g36• CONC. WALLS W I /
�E� � ,.�� � �. � ..
—� 941.4 9�'3 I �._.+ I / (1K
—— � 26" OAK\ ,��—— � PROPOSED ��942•�� i'�'; /(.'� RE
, � �y el wnu ( � e`xisr�c � •.. • �:��
�I � g4 'a � `� �EAR�ER TOI�D ?�-�) •:•/ �
'''— _1 //(941.1) � �� BE REMOVED I � ..;;,, ,:'' /
.r.�y._ _�——�
�� � `� AVERAGE 8UILDING SETBAC LINE I 942 �—,.°i�I "�' /� I
� �__ —^ .:;� / �
� . � � :
_�__�--
//_��—— _ �'�'� 940.3 �DECKR� `B��_ � 32" OAK .�/ I
� /�
/ . �aaou�-_a i
...».--�10"t� �I / �
_�— 942 /o
_ � I �
--- /' ' W
'� � N PROPOSED i ��� � i
t �,(944.4, �
� yg .�._..: � v+
� SEEBAC ��/ HOUSE 2.5 4 j : � d' �
..�.. I
a�i -- co 9��� t...._ 00
� o
�
. •
� `° #3309 � �,�"r.
� ,� µ'"'" 20 � I
..
�--•�--�,o�.-:.- -- � I
� ......?a:o........ i3.s s.o � t s
� PROPOSED �� (A� I ~s'' N I
o SILT FENC Z � I "�~'
/ ,_---�_ \ �` I � I
� Z � ` I "-� I
i
� o .a � �
lV � I ,
� 944 �o��pE�D N N I
' � I
IW� � �
�/ ���i I o� �(944.8
14" WALNUT_ �� � ; I
� \ 24.0 :. I a� �SW'LY
��'% ;y C VACAI
(945.2)/
� �H�a� EXISTMIG SHED PROPOSED "' � � "
�8� � TO BE REMOVED DRIVEWAY
.�.
� 5(945.1) ......lO.OP•'�726" LNDEN
� �'••;MOST S'LY CORNER
�' OF VACATED STREET .
� -- ------....S 54°45' 00" W "�
i � 60.00�•--�---�'�.
1 �sas.e)
I 24"ELM
� BLACKTOP DRIVEWAY ��
i
i /
34'-0" �
I 4'-6" 14'-U" 5'-6"
. -----------------
� CO RED DECK ABOVE
0
�
� � � ,
DINING �
' PAN1R
I
I
GREATROOM
��T 36'H
G___J 36'R
I
I
I
- KITCHEN �
o L
N
REF - ❑❑f----
UP
COVEREO ENTRY
O ENTRY
DN
POWDER
9'-0" `D
STAIRWAY WINDO S �N WALL LINE ABOVE
� 5-�^ GARAGE
COVERED ENTRY
13'-6" 24'-0"
0
I
CV
SCHMID "
3309 CRYSTAL BAY RD, RONO
FIRST FLOOR P N m �
1 3-24-14.REV 5-29-14 1�8�� = 1�-��� p � 0
1463 SOR.FEET HWSE R GARAGE �'�
r 53 SOR.FEET C�VEREU DECK/P4RCH AREAS � � C
= 1516 5(JR. FEET iOTAI FOOT PRINT `� �f � O
C� � 7
�
34'-0"
14'-6` 14-0" 5�-6"
� COVERED DECK
�
0 0
LEDGE M BATH 0
� -I
M BEDROOM
54"H LINEN
� i i
� , i i �
� � BENCH
1 II
I I
I I
I � SHELVES
I I
c�oser PLATE LINE BELOW
DN
STAIRWAY WINDOWS � Q
�D - \ �/i BAT �qUNDRY j
\
� I
PLATE LINE BELOW �0
13'-6" �� _
0
i
N
SCHMID �
3309 CRYSTAL BAY RD, OR NO OFFICE/BR 3 BR z
SECOND FLOOR P N t�`
1 3-24-14.REV 5-29-14 1�8�� = 1�-��� �� 'v
.r.�.. �
1____---_ 2a'-o" l � -C
-�
� � uT
� � � � .
-�,'�'" �
�
�
( � �
� �� �
w �
'°� D �
0 � _
� �
$ � �
�
,�; � �
� �
���
� �
Y '
Vv
� O
�
-�'' L
0
�
. I�
�" o .
� �
� �
� ` ,
u
n
�r
�
�
�:
. �
�
_ ��
. o
~a �
�s,� ,.►
� d
J
.\
'Q -�-�-'
_ �-
� • .
iJ �
• .
.m �
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The undersigned, being duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of
Orono, Minnesota, certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at the
meeting of the Orono City Council on June 9th, 2014, with the original thereof on file in
my office, and the same is a correct transcription thereof.
WITN�SS my hand officially as such City Clerk and the corporate seal of the
City�is��day of �. .<.,c.J--t�, 2014.
r
,, ,., r -C�
�--e,-�(� -�
'��' City Clerk t,i� �''
�,;.:, ,
�"�� ,,,.
,,;,'�
./, .. �,, ,.
�ti,� .� ., ��,
�. • . • �
� .,
„ _. �y_��:: �;�
a �;tk•,
'�it•. .
;�r
S�� .
. PC Exhibit D
Christine Mattson
From: Angela Ciliberto[angelaciliberto@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 6:39 AM
To: Christine Mattson
Subject: 3309 Crystal Bay Road/Survey& Hardcover Calc. for building permit
Attachments: Temp00695.PDF; Schmid HC 9-9-14.pdf
Good Morning Christine,
Attached is the amended survey w/hardcover calculations for David Schmid/Angela Ciliberto's 3309 Crystal
Bay Road building permit . I know that you need a printed version. We will be able to get that to you on
Thursday, but I wanted to forward a copy to you so that you know they are on there way.
Tom Betz informed us that the changes on the survey after we got our variance approved would not slow our
building permit. However I want you to know that a corrected survey w/hardcover calculations will be
delivered to you by Thursday.
It was never our intention to increase the hardcover, esp after going through the variance process.
Somewhere along the way there was a communication breakdown between our surveyor and our request to
modify the lake side parking area. We actually wanted to keep it the same or to reduce the hardcover by the
lake and to reduce the height of the retaining walls to have more of a lawn/tree area.
Please feel free to call (949-228-1623) or email me if you have any questions. I believe Betz have contacted
you as well.
Thank you Christine & have a great day!
Angela & David
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: 3309 Crystal Bay Rd Permit Application
From: Betzbuilders <Betzbuilders@yahoo.com>
Sent: 11:12am, Thursday, September 4, 2014
To: CMattson@ci.orono.mn.us
CC: David Schmid <davidatthela@aol.com>
Hi Christine, just checking in on permit application for 3309 Crystal Bay Rd. It's got to
be close, do you think ? I'll like to alert excavator and Cementman for scheduling.
Thanks for your help.
Tom Betz
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 22, 2014, at 8:55 AM, Betzbuilders <Betzbuilders@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Good morning Christine
> I know it's been only 10 days, but I just wanted to check in to see if we making any
progress and if there is anything you need?
> Thank you
> Tom Betz
>
> Sent from my iPhone
1
From: markg@gronbergassoc.com
To: angelaciliberto@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: 3309 Crystal Bay Road -Survey Hardcover 36.57% approved by the city, needs correction for
building permit
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 13:39:09-0500
Here you are.
From:Angela Ciliberto [mailto:angelaciliberto@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday,September 08, 2014 9:41 AM
To: markg@gronbergassoc.com
Subject:3309 Crystal Bay Road-Survey Hardcover 36.57%approved by the city, needs correction for building permit
Hi Mark,
Thank you for taking my call this AM.
The city approved our variance with a hardcover total of 36.57%, but no more. Normally they only allow 25%,
which you prob already know.
For our building permit, David had requested that the parking area by the lake be a pull up (subtle half moon
shape) parking area to reduce the hardcover total and to also reduce the height of the retaining walls that we
will need, instead of the pull in parking area.
All we want adjusted on the survey is the lake side parking area -we want the hardcover to either be reduced
or to remain the same (but no more) and to have less of a retaining wall than on what was used for our
variance.
If you could get this to us today that would be wonderful as we need this for our building permit and our
builder is waiting too. They have actually contacted the city 2 times as they want to start now. We thought
you were already working on this, or I would have called you sooner.
I am at work and do not have a copy of the "approved" variance, but here is copy of the meeting agenda
which was approved. It has the hardcover%that was approved on it (which is 36.57%).
Please call me if you have any questions, my cell is 949-228-1623-and or email us a copy of the updated
survey to review before getting it to the city.
Thank you!
Angela Ciliberto & David Schmid
From: MGaffron@ci.orono.mn.us
To: an�elaciliberto@hotmail.com; davidatthela@aol.com
z
���r.
k- r. .;_' � . a�l . .�t�'-'
tr� ��. �� . �� �� r .
y': ��'''�',�`w y\��. �
. . . :�,O•��`
,�.c;+y
�,":��
� �. �` ��,
=�,���; z, `' E ,� . '�. .
����� '��� , ,.`„�
; -� � + `!r - ,;�;,,��-,�q
� �eR� ��� �,. y�� �-
� � �' , �� �
L �y�. .F' ��rt"17A
i .r�'�B''.:� .. ._2_'�, _ '^S+' J �y � �..�.y1���
y n.�: � � � {�3:= `">- 'ro* �„��f�
,�.
T.%,�'%e���1�.;3 -�i�ry.' � . ^�� ' � S f.Y _ �i .J
� �`�' •F �t .�� �',`�»�y wj��� '�r j
h ' . . ,
' MY r '� r!' � � ,,,� 'wt�`p9'! fj"�"�'!�.
� (� "� ,... V �:,f+'rq"$ '4 K'��A�'�� ."f �T '
�A��- �4� �, � _� f� � �i�f �r �
�. . � - '� r� � t �6., N � ���r�3��X
�;` . _ f r Y� . � ��..�e }�' 'i���+.�%�.:
1♦ � :.�" � .. k`.- _ � A%7la �1. �,�L l��7._
�.1�� �� <i1�/� ���
'� �, � .. � � . � � �� ��.
�' '�`Y � � r�, y ".�� i r ��
s'�''' . � �".
"z:��:h� �=,�b +s�i..Y� i�, +'� Y 14� ��� �, 1
F:�yi 1�_ .. . . ' �IS �e�I "CA� ' g� . F� ���� I
�
� . .. . ♦ a �i\�7� � _ ift \��� '�H�.: �'�
���k' '�'t . � ��,Lc�,��'�.��`''r s'�::... �, ,� . . � '�i � �.,'' . � r sl� . !�1'
� _ 4 ,
. _ _
�� � , � ��� �. ,t -��� � ��, "`.����f�� ' t,,a�� ���
„
y i � - c,e`? �,..� � . � .t. � ;\��Si�:i .e��`
' � ;,. � . �� k t� ',, �}+ y t, Y � � d ���1�,�°�j�.��/ ' �:,
<:
� : '�y -� � ; : � d.,�s�a� ���v�` l�a
� n 4 � � ,�� - • �t ,i j `�'"� "'�t' " `* ����
�' , � � ' `_
'� s � y � � .
' �.� J,.31�r �.:����, � v� `�(�ar�+��� � �; . �..s.� .
' -� _ � '�* - , a-. . 1�� . . -YL Jw��� . . . ,
, " :r� � . � � ,. . � Y3.�� , '�Q.h 7�,���� � . M1'�js+.
* , .S'h, _;1: �� _ i � ,��y,+. . _ fL��
:M' _ �. . � ,',TY Q� .�it R � _��, i.l�-/�� :'/
. � .. S � �-.�N r ,' � y�` ��`.
� .. . , 1.�1•• - . . � � ��y_
�`` �
� � N ,. I � � .. - T..1t.
x , e
����. . . ; � i�\ S`, �
=i� ' �f � �
.rt_. . . . . H�'"4T� , o,�.:..N-- .
��.: � ��. F
� �
�: �
�;: �..,,,.1��t,� �!�'�'�':
h •
.. ;�..: . ' ,aa� �:
� .
� _ e.:+
'- ' !� i
�. , .ki``4.-
. PC Exhibit F
City of Orono
�.o�o Hardcover Calculation Wflrksheet
�,`� ! Property Address: �3a 9 CR`�'�.T.tz B�4� ����� t'�a✓fD .J'r.<1�?�.�i �
� ' ' �
`�^���'� Prepared by: „r , Date:
�R o n��FR G f sf a r a�,��a�-���� s�-�'., —6�=�- ���r f�
Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5
Step 2: PR�POSEQ HARD_COYER�
In the following table, identify all iterns of proposed hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to
Certificate of Survey (survey must accompany this form). Include all existing hardcover items that are
intended to remain, as well as all proposed hardcover items that will be added. Use as many iines as
necessary to accurately depict proposed hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify
any features by letter which are split at the 75' setback line and calculate hardeover square footage
se aratel for each po�tion.
Key to Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width Total
Surve (S uare Feet
Exain le Gara e 24'x 30' 720 S F
A a r. / �.r /�'o Z S.F.
B !°/1 I �? R E O c i"!K _ _.__��_ S.F.
C PRcr�o1� :�'t`�.r� S S.F.
' D 7.� /�F'.0 t= �or�E -�z�-.. S.F.
E _ avE�� --��^ S_F.
F -�,u-, ._ __,�.. .a. .. , .�.__..�,_.. c� �' tsr�/F�• -'4�' � S.F.
G SG.- 7M� �E' Er�t� cg`�' S.F.
H �''ra F if��,.a„ f� S F.
I �Q� F.�-�?R`7 Z O S.F.
J �' 3 2 S F.
K r9 t.l d'7'F i ✓G J"`i"trs.-'E'.T Z! S.F.
L d'r�rr rr�'f/ ��+K ti-G" � /S S.F.
M ,,p,���r�_J7.rlaRS ' 7 S F.
N A �r�"�'�;� �t.�.r S.F.
p �r ,�,- � S.F.
p S.F.
Q S.F.
R S.F.
S S.F.
T S.F
U S.F•
U _ S.F.
�n/ �.F �
X - ---- -- � ��
Y S.F�
Z S F.
1) Total Pro osed Hardcover / /�" S.F.
Excludable Hardcover See Cit Code Sec 78-1 fi84 :
S.F.
f S.F.
S �.
--5�_
S F.
2 Total Excludable Hardcover — d � 5-�
3} Net Pro osed Hardcover Subtract line 2 from l�ne (1)] ^ ' �/$ S F.
4 Total Lot Area G.�$5 - /I�1 f= fu�' 7',t �'[. Cr' R l7.t�.!`Y�+'d,=. 13�_S_��
Proposed Hardcover Percentage [(3)=(4)] �Sa,$'7%� �
_ �.m.�.�,--- ___�-�--_- . .
RECEIVED
January 8,2013
SEP 10 2014
- - ----�- -- -- ---- --- - - --- CITY OF ORONO
--�� • —�• ------ � ��"�.�•�..�....�.� 1 ��
Use Avety�Template 5160� j Feed Paper � expose Pop-Up EdgeTM j
PC Exhibit G
3}i 17-117?3 34 0052 38 I7-I I7-23 41 0001 38 17-I t7-23 41 0002
HENNEPIN COUNTY DONNA E KABANUK DONNA E KABANUK
REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY 5233 TWiN LAKE BLVD E 5233 TW1N LAKE BLVD E
701 4TH AVE S SUITE 400 BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 BROOKLYN CEMER MN 55429
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415
3k 17-117-23 41 0003 3R 17-117-23 41 0004 38 17-117-23 41 OOOR
JAYNE MARIE PAASCH PAUL MARKUSEN JOHN HOROSHAK
��5p KENWOOD WAY 2160 KENWOOD WAY ALEXA HOROSHAK
WAl'ZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 3159 NORTHVIEW RD
WAYZATA MN 55391
38 I7-117-23 41 0009 38 17-117-23 410012 3R 17-117-23 41 0013
BRADLEY&LORI BAKKE C WILLIAM WOLFE MARK C ZAGARIA
7101 LANHAM LA 3255 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD 1526 21 ST AVE N E
ED(NA MN 55439 WAYZATA MN SS391 ROCHESTER MN 55906
3k 17-117-23 41 0014 3R 17-117-23 41 0015 38 17-117-23 41 0016
LEROY J ERGER HEATHER M JOHNSTONE DAV1D A SCHMID
32G5 CRYSTAL BAY RD P O BOX 141 3309 CRYSTAL BAY RD
WAYZA'iA MN 55391 MINNETONKA BEACH MN 55361 WAYZATA MN 55391
3R 17-117-23 41 0017 38 17-117-23 41 0018 38 17-117-23 41 0019
DALE OLSEN&10NMARI OLSEN CHRISTINE S JENSEN CHAD&REBECCA MCSHANE
3315 CRYSTAL BAY RD 15810 NURSERY DR 3329 CRYSTAL BAY RD
VdAYZATA Mv 55391 MINNETONKA MN 55345 WAYZATA MN 55391
38 17-117-23 41 0021 3R 17-117-23 41 0027 3R 17-117-23 41 002R
JONATHAN�THERESA HOFER DUSTIN 1&TERESA M DANIELS JULIE COPELAND
3?39 CRYSTAL BAY RD 2190 KENWOOD WAY 2180 KENWOOD WAY
WAYZAiA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391
3R 17-117-23 41 0029 38 17-117-23 41 0030 3R 17-117-23 41 0031
DONNA E KABANUK DONNA E KABAT�RIK DONNA E KABANUK
5233 TWIN LAKE BLVD E 5233 TW1N LAKE BLVD E 5233 TWIN LAKE BLVD E
BROOKLYh CENTER MN SSd29 BROOKLYN CENTER MTi 55429 flROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429
3R 17-117-23 41 0033 38 17-117-23 41 0034 38 17-117-23 41 0035
P.4TRICIA A STUDSRUD PAUL J&LO1S E REHMAN CUFFORD G OWEN
JASON T S'fUDSRUD 3335 CRYSTAL BAY RD JILL L HUGHES
313(1 OLD COUNTY RD WAYZATA MN 55391 2175 KENWOOD WAY
WAYZATA M1� 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391
3t� 17-117-23 4!OOi7 3R 17-117-23 44 0104
DAVID A KUPKA CLAIR T ROOD
2?15 KENWOOD WAY 32R0 NAVARRE l.A �tECEI��ED
WAl'ZATA MT� 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391
APR '� 1 ?�14
CITY OF O^�" �
3 �
� 6 �
�tiquetEes fatiles�peler i � Repiiez�la hachure afin de� �uvw.avery.com �
Utifisez le abarit AVERY�5160� � Sens de reveler le rebord Pop-UpT"" ' 1-800-GO-AVERY '
9 i charaement i �
. Hennepin County Mailing Labet Map PC ExhibitH
Provided By: Taxpayer Services Department
,�>` �ii � i j1�' �,..��.,,.
� �- � i133 ���.a=_
.. .��'��y� t#�j ,� #1T} � j�� . ��_�.
+��';, ' ;.,:,, gt#0 ���'�
:_ _' '.;` _ ��-�;�";�`�:��` ` �__ >.�ft�. �-�'�21
,. •J � s.:.-4-,r' � 12@g
_-R;�,��• ',1�,,��;;:���z;;_�`._�_�F-°��x'-� ;;` . 1�}�,
, . - ` � . .:� �<:�'';:;. ,�,�-� „�`:,
- . � :,r�'.�~x.�� Y ._¢�±.�;;��(r �cT'^,_'tr`�3a>..`. :-��x� .r
, ' :�. i`,,:E�. ?}� '�'"._,�t _e� .hw.,. >
_ " . - ��'..'��::�-✓f�1y���::•'�.Rt.``"kxs._3� ,�t.'_'_ R'•g' 'rj,'., �i � -_
- � - _ -' � kr�uk-� fi.:-"'�'y�y-�'`S'"'� f�":f""�i-`.,.�+ts�':;/, - j�`• ,�
'' T�'_;,,;�"._:,�'�.,,.FK`"'.: ,d�o,t. '� *,,;,��j,u,,.•
*„�F �N�.�nkt-`�`T..r�'�' "'�,. �ie�
- - - ki,.�,;.�", ':!, .�Sy,};�'�,'� i.�'�`�`-�'-`:"T �'7:.5*'� �j'�t
- N" I�y,�J �.`a'�\3�` "�„ �.�•'�:=n
, :����+(-'�. .�.=�;s�b��:���..��`��� "��r` ,.�/ �62} ��1
, - . ' �^i'.+'r�'� �s' 'p,s�.'��7rtr,.;b.�.^ �t�'f- {��
.:$yi-•`'.-, ��.^ .�s , �a`'_'�"� i
_' . - . _ ..��,�Y , : •�.��r .. ��" �.
- . : - .-_ ,iri,� s • v�;`.i. " . �Fr
� : � 17-11�- �,�. �'�`�`� ��� f �� 1 -i'!�- -3�
_���,�y. ; r�,��,�.���::
�`�°,:^-
e�;�a ��:r a�,
n-�i�"�' �
" - .. � ,.'g,fvi�y,f.-' :rw�?i��°",v.�"�a. -
' -.k 1, i. � �'r^��.,�- ���
' ,:�;�_��` A��� ��i
�.�`"-�'
z
. " L ' . �,}`g ` �''�
' . . r�,� � ;� (�E 0�! �S�t l56�
• , �' ,� f � �
� ` (23� 4�1 ,_::*,�� �' il �
._,� ' � _- �_ . .�'�t.�:
�:�
_;a��`'R�_� ��,, ��:.��, -A��U1�TY Rt�AD
— y�4Tt �ib� C��} (2�It -�� a --�--
:,� �
•_ - , � .�qrz _ ,bn':�'� , . �k4.. 0. f�5`it;;-; }' - y "' - .
.� *„� . . ri � :�r C :�.z �
�s'r.;'?- ��g� . � � ,.S{j'�
��by ii4� (it3 i _�.. . ., �. •�-;��;�°'��=�]�_r�, �`.. � #�! � 11�i
•��� � -.� T.r.}F:S,X�(fe3 Y+�'£y� �.f,yi5��<'n'�s>��� �
' t' >y,�,�= �;'-, #:��;x" � 1 {1§�
r '�`"���t�.�.�'"-: : *�. � �r�
� -��`` .�°°` �,qQy ,ka:`_.K;�--�;k�����. '���•-:" :- ��
�-� : ,y� . �, ?:�.�,'�: "°`.='�:,,,:;:�5�;,� � �� ,,�` ��, ��•t�l�'23` �,
..� _ �<�'. � ,= � -1?`-117�����>s��:���.�. a ` � �=-
' ��,x � �,,�''�;.�-�` �°'*' /' ��,o> �,�,, �- .=_ _-- t::- - _ •� ��� �x�� �� {,Q�
_,,,.- - - �''"� i�rP ,%F `G , " _ �'` �
:..���- .� f�t `w, f�ii��,`+� �165 � _ .,: ; � t�i �p f��p
For more information contact: P�int Date: 4/3/2014 Map Legend:
Hennepin County GIS Division
300 South 6th Street Map Scale: 1" = 222�
Minneapolis,MN 55487 Buffer Size• 350 feet
gis.info@co.hennepin.mn.us ' � VY►ater � Major Roads
Park Minor Roads
Map Comments: � Parcel �+
L-�
17-117-23-41-0016 � Buffer Region .N-.�� '___ �
����' Selected Parcels 'ti
3309 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD -
ORONO, MN 55391
!/A�1�
r�aa�r
c:��ia NENNERJN�
�si � �
�t,�
RECEI�:��D
APR 21 2014
CITY OF ORONO
� 3b6�
• Orono,MN Code of Ordinances
PC Exhibit I
Sec. 18-136.- Residential driveways, approaches and turnaround.
(a) One driveway approach shall be allowed from up to two single residential parcels of land to the
same road, provided that appropriate easements exist between parties sharing the driveway and
driveway approach. Parcels having frontage on more than one public road shall be allowed a
driveway approach to one public road.
(b) Residential driveway approach shall not exceed 20 feet in width at the intersected right-of-way line.
(c) The total width of driveway approaches to up to two single parcels of land from a single road shall
not exceed 20 feet.
(d)A curb cut shall not exceed the width of the driveway approach at the property line by more than
ten feet.
(e) No portion of a driveway approach, except the curb return, shall be constructed within 100 feet of a
corner.
(fl For residences constructed after July 25, 1986,the driveway approach and that part of the driveway
and turnarounds which drain to the road shall be paved with bituminous concrete blacktop or
equivalent paving. Where it has been determined by the city's public service director that driveway
and/or driveway approach existing on July 25, 1986, is causing a maintenance problem on the road,
including but not limited to the washing of dirt and gravel into the road, the public services director
shall order that the property owner pave such portion of the driveway and/or driveway approach as
is necessary to remove the maintenance problem. Portland cement concrete will only be allowed
from the driveway up to the public right-of-way.This requirement shall not be construed to reduce
paving otherwise required by performance standards in chapter 78 () or required as a condition to
the granting of a conditional use permit, lot division, subdivision or as designated in the approved
site plan.
(g) Driveway turnarounds shall be required on all driveways or driveway approaches entering onto a
state highway, county road or collector roadway as determined in the comprehensive plan, and on
all entrances to public roads within the city where deemed necessary by the public services director,
based on traffic counts, sight distances, street grades and other relevant factors. If a driveway
turnaround is required by the public services director, such requirement shall be stated on any
permit issued by him pursuant to this article.
(Code 1984,§§6.05(9), 6.06(9))
about:blank 10/16/2014
, PC Exhibit J
Date Application Received: 04/21/14 -
Date Application Considered as Complete: OS/OS/14
60-Day Review Period Ezpires: 07/04/14
To: Chair Leskinen and Planning Commission Members
Jessica Loftus, City Administrator
From: Mike Gaffron, Asst. City Administrator
Date: May 15, 2014
Subject: #14-3664, David Schmid&Angela Ciliberto, 3309 Crystal Bay Road
-Variances & CUP
-Public Hearing
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zoning District: LR-1C, One Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre/100'
Lot Area: 5,237 s.f. exclusive of traveled road (0.12 acre)
Lot Width: 52' at Shoreline, 59' at 75' Setback Line
Application Summary: The applicants request variances in order to construct a new
residence on the property 1.7' from the rear lot line where a 30' setback is required; and
57' from the OHWL where a 75' setback is required. A hardcover variance is also
requested to permit 35.0% hardcover where 25% is normally allowed. A conditional
use permit is also requested in order to conduct grading which exceeds 10 cubic yards
within 75' of the OHWL and retaining walls in conjunction with removal of the existing
home and an existing garage, and construction of the new home. Lot area and width
variances are required because the proposed use of the existing lot of record will not
meet the 25% hardcover limitation and will not meet required LR-1C and Shoreland
setback standards.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the
request with conditions.
List of Ezhibits
Exhibit A. Application
Exhibit B. Existing Conditions Survey
Exhibit C. Proposed Site Plan& Survey
Exhibit D. Proposed Floor Plans & Elevation Views
Exhibit E. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
Exhibit F. Submitted Hardcover Calculations
Exhibit G. Submitted Photo - Drainage Issue at Rear
Exhibit H. Site Photos
Exhibit I. City Engineer Comments
Exhibit J. Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority(HCRRA) Comments
E�ibit K. Aerial Photos—Bing
Exhibit L. Neighbor Comments
E�chibit M. Adjacent Neighbor Acknowledgement forms
Exhibit N. Property Owners List
Exhibit O. Plat Map
FILE#14-3664
May 15,2014 �
Page 2 of 7
Background
Applicants have requested approvals to construct a new residence to replace their existing
residence on this very substandard lot. The existing residence and attached garage exhibit a
number of nonconformities: excess hardcover, substandard side and lake setbacks and
garage encroachment of HCRRA right-of-way. The proposed residence will be similar in
footprint to the existing but is being resized and relocated to meet the required 10' side
setbacks, and be located entirely within the property boundaries. In order to accomplish
this, the applicants request that the house be placed 57' from the OHWL.
Crystal Bay Road is unique in that the street was never platted but exists by prescription
between the homes and the lake. The rear of the lots abut the HCRRA railroad right-of-way.
In many cases along the road, lots are not very deep and therefore a number of properties
have been granted variances to the lake setback over the years. The applicants' property and
the homes to its east gain vehicular access via a shared driveway that exists within the
HCRRA right-of-way under a 2007 easement agreement between HCRRA and the City.
Prior to HCRRA ownership, Burlington Northern (BN) allowed the existing garage on this
property to be constructed with an encroachment of the BN land. The City also granted a
variance for that location in 1973. Since HCRRA gained ownership, they have been fairly
strict in not allowing new encroachments, and have indicated in the attached email dated
April 9 (Exhibit � that they are amenable to the 1.7' proposed rear setback for the new
home because it eliminates the existing encroachment.
In addition to the house replacement, applicants propose to remove an existing underground
garage that opens to Crystal Bay Road about 10' back from the traveled road. They propose
to keep the driveway and a portion of the garage floor to create an open parking stall
approximately 20' deep, which requires the construction of a new back retaining wall that
will be approximately 8 feet in height. A guard rail or fence above this parking area is
likely to be required. This parking area constitutes 0-75' hardcover; however, a significant
amount of fill would be needed to eliminate this parking area, as the grade on either side is
quite steep and additional retaining walls would likely be needed to stabilize the 80% slope
that would result.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET
Lot Area/Width:
LR-1C Lot Area Lot Width
Re uired 21,780 s.f. 0.50 acres) 100'
Actual 5,237 s.f. (0.12 acres) 52'l59'
Ezistin ro osed Setbacks:
LR-1C Re uired Existin Pro osed
Lake 75' House: 67' House: 57'
East Side 10' House: 5.2' House: 10.6'
West Side 10' House: 9.9' House: 10.0'
Rear 30' House: -7.9' House: 1.7'
Average Lakeshore The existing and proposed homes are behind the average lakeshore
setback line-no encroachment.
, FILE#74-3664
May 15,2014
Page 3 of 7
Structural Covera e:
Total Lot Area Total Structural Covera e
5,237 s.f. Allowed: 1,500 s.f.
Existing- includes house, garage, det. garage extension: 1442 s.f.
Pro osed: 1,435 s.f. - includes house, deck, shed
Hardcover Calculations:
Note: Area of traveled Crystal Bay Road is excluded from the hardcover calculations.
Stormwater Total Allowed
Overlay Area in Hardcover Ezisting Hardcover Proposed Hardcover
District Tier Zone
Tier 1 5,237 s.f. 1,309 s.f. 1,975 s.f.* Undefined 1,832 s.f. Undefined
(25 %) (37.7% w/in 75' 35.0% w/in 75'
* Excludes underground garage
Note that while Crystal Bay Road is not a dedicated roadway, and there is not a`front lot
line' to measure from, the LR-1C front street setback standard is 30'; the proposed house
will be located 25' from the traveled road which is not uncommon in this neighborhood.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Practical Difficulties Statement
Applicants have completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as
Eghibit E, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application.
Practical Difficulties Analysis
In considering 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 tra�c 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.
In this application, the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner,
i.e. for residential purposes, in a manner similar to other homes on the block, on a parcel
similar in size to a number of others in the immediate neighborhood. The small lot was
created and developed for residential use long ago, a circumstance not created by the owner.
The proposed new residence will result in a home that is similar in scope to other homes in
the immediate neighborhood on small lots with substandard setbacks and will not alter the
character of the locality
FILE#14-3664
May 15,2014 `
Page 4 of 7
Lake Setback& Hardcover Variance Analysis
The majority of the subject property is unbuildable as all but the rear 26'-40' is located
within 75' of the OHWL. This creates a practical difficulty for redevelopment of the
property. However, the applicants do have the right to replace the existing residence in-kind
if they choose to do so. From a footprint perspective,the existing house and proposed house
are nearly identical at around 1400 s.f. The proposed house will be 2 full stories rather than
the existing 1-1/2 story structure. While the applicants' proposal will not increase
hardcover, it will increase the visual bulk and massing as compared to the existing home.
The propose low-pitch roof will help to keep the new home from visually towering over the
neighbor to the west.
Conditional Use Permit Analysis
City Code Section 78-966(a)(2) indicates that landowners must obtain a CUP from the City
prior to engaging in activities that include fill to elevate or alter the existing natural grade. In
this project the applicants propose grading that will direct runoff from the HCRRA right-of-
way around the house and to the front, with the intent to not direct drainage to neighboring
properties. The CUP is required because a portion of the grading work and the new
retaining wall at the lower pazking area are within 75' of the lake.
By code, conditionally permitted uses must be reviewed using the criteria found in Sections
78-916 and 78-1286 of the Shoreland regulations. On the basis of the application and the
evidence submitted, the city must find that the proposed use at the proposed location is or
will be:
(1) Consistent with the community management plan;
(2) Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific
uses as required by article V, division 3 (i.e. 78-966 thru 78-968) of the City Code;
(3) Adequately served by police, fire,roads, and stormwater management;
(4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system;
(5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost;
(6) Compatible with the surrounding area as the area is used both presently and as it is
planned to be used in the future;
(7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character
is called for in the community management plan;
(8) Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the
surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community
management plan;
(9) Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the
area or have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when
compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses;
(10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and
activities likely to disturb surrounding uses;
(11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes,
dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means;
FILE#14-3664
' May 15,2014
Page 5 of 7
(12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that
cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or
unsafe access;
(13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area
and to minimize environmental impact;
(14) All exterior lighting sha11 be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the
public right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts; and
(15) Not detrimental to the public health,public safety, or general welfare.
With regard to this application, items 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, and 13 are generally applicable.
Additionally the conditions listed within 78-1286 relating to land alterations, grading and
filling will be incorporated into formal approvals, if any, for this property.
Re: Item 2. The proposed retaining walls and grading improvements are residential in
nature and are compliant with the zoning code.
Re: Items 6-7-8. These criteria essentially ask whether the proposed improvements are
appropriate and in character with the surrounding land and neighborhood. Staff believes the
proposed new residence partially within the 75-foot setback area will have little impact on
surrounding lands. Drainage patterns for runoff leaving the site will be altered with the
intent to significantly improve them.
Re: Item 9. This standard requires that the grading activity must not substantially impair
the use and enj oyment of the property in the area or have an adverse impact on the property
values in the area when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses.
The proposed use of the property for a residence, coupled with the changes in use of the
lower garage area, will result in minimal impacts to the use and enjoyment of adjacent
properties. However, as noted by the City Engineer in his comments (Exhibit I), retaining
wall designs around the lower garage area must be submitted and approved. Safety of this
parking area must also be addressed by adding positive barriers above the walls where
required.
Re: Item 12. This standard requires that the grading activity and its results will not cause
excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause a
demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or unsafe access.
While the proposed grading is not excessive and will not be time-consuming, a neighboring
property owner has indicated that access of construction equipment and vehicles from the
rear easement driveway area has the potential to disrupt the condition and functionality of
that driveway for other users. Applicants and their contractors will need to be vigilant in
ensuring construction activity does not impair other driveway and Crystal Bay Road users,
and that any damage is repaired.
Re: Item 13. This standard requires that the grading be designed to take into account the
natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact. The
proposed grading on this lot is minimal and as a result will have minimal if any
environmental impacts.
FILE#14-3664
May 15,2014 �
Page 6 of 7
City Engineer Comments
Comments from the City Engineer are attached as Ezhibit I. In addition to pointing out the
need for a $3,000 escrow for erosion control and engineering oversight, he spells out a
number of specific erosion control methods necessary due to the nature of this compact
work site. Applicants should be required to adhere to the listed conditions.
Additional Discussion
Applicants indicate they plan to relocate onto the property the small 5'x9' shed that is
partially on the HCRRA right-of-way. Given the slightly larger garage proposed, is this
shed necessary? Are there any other hardcover items that can be eliminated?
Initially there had been some discussion as to whether the existing decorative and functional
retaining walls adjacent to Crystal Bay Road should be removed. Staffls conclusion is that
these walls likely provide some measure of stability to the slope and their removal might
cause erosion problems.
Based on the small size of the lot, there does not appear to be sufficient room to provide
mitigation measures for the excess hardcover. It should be noted that the proposed attached
garage is intended to be 1 foot higher than the existing to eliminate the drainage issues noted
by the applicant.
Neighbor Comments
The property owner to the immediate east has submitted comments indicating concerns
which are addressed in Item 12 above. The Planning Commission should take into
consideration the public input when reviewing the application.
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 granting of the requested variances?
4. Given the existing nonconforming level of hardcover, are there any areas of
hardcover that can be reduced in size?
5. Given the proximity to the lake and the topography of the site, is there a need to
establish a requirement that the building height be limited by adhering to the
low-pitched roof design proposed?
6. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Staff Recommendation
Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed area, width, setback and hardcover
FILE#74-3664
� May 15,2014
Page 7 of 7
variances for construction of a new home on the site, on the basis that hardcover and
structural lot coverage will not increase, the easterly substandard setback will be made
conforming, and the encroachment of the HCRRA right-of-way will be eliminated. The
setback from the lake and from the street will be reduced in order for this to occur. The
proposed residence will not be out of character with other homes in the neighborhood.
Based on the above, staff recommends approval as follows:
1) Staff recommends approval of the lot area and width variances.
2) Staff recommends approval of the proposed hardcover variance subject to Planning
Commission acceptance. If reductions from the current proposed levels are
recommended, then a revised site plan (and potentially a revised house plan) should be
requested.
3) Staff recommends approval of lake setback and rear setback variances as proposed,
subject to any revisions needed if Planning Commission concludes hardcover must be
reduced.
4) Staff recommends approval of a CUP and variance for grading/excavation/fill within the
0-75' zone, subject to a final grading and drainage plan that addresses any City Engineer
concerns regarding slope stability and retaining wall design; subject to adherence to the
City's erosion control regulations as well as the permitting requirements of the MCWD.
Timely re-vegetation and stabilization will be a requirement of the permitting process.
5) Applicants shall take a11 necessary precautions to ensure that the mature oak and ash
trees within the 0-75' setback zone are not affected by construction.
6) Applicants are advised of street and shared driveway paxking and access limitations
during the construction process. Applicants and their contractors shall maintain
vigilance in keeping the road and shared driveway passable and in good condition.
7) Approval is subject to all recommendations of the City Consulting Engineer in his letter
dated May 15, 2014.
Planning Commission options for action:
1. Recommend approval as presented, or with specific conditions or revisions; or
2. Recommend denial, stating reasons; or
3. Table for more information or submittal of a revised plan (provide applicant with
specific direction).
� .
COUNCIL MEETING
Date Appliwtion Received: 12/12/14
Date Application Considered as Complete: 12/12/14 F�G Q � �u�5
120-Day Review Period Expires: 04/11/15
GINQF ORONO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date: 5 February 2015
Item No. ,S�
Department Approval: Administrator Ap roval• Agenda Section:
Name: Melanie Curtis
Title: Planning&Zoning Coordinator
Item Description:
#15-3704—Oertel Architects, ltd, o/b/o Hennepin County Property Services—3880 Shoreline Dr
CUP,Variance, &Commercial Site Plan Review—Resolution
Zoning District: LR-1C,One Family Lakeshore Residential,%acre/100'
Lot Area: 6.69 acres/291,643 square feet
Lot Width: 660 feet beyond the access driveway/50 feet(access driveway)at Shoreline Drive
List of Exhibits
ExhibitA. Draft Resolution
Exhibit B. Proposed Plan
Exhibit C. 60-day Extension
Exhibit D. Planning Commission Packet 01/14/15
Exhibit E. Draft Planning Commission Minutes 01/20/15
Application Summary:
Oertel Architects on behalf of the property owner, Hennepin County Property Services, requests CUP and site
plan approval to permit a 120'x 26' addition to the existing building. The purpose for the addition is primarily
to add office, storage and locker room space within the existing maintenance garage building. The addition
will result in 3,224 square feet of additional structural coverage. At 479'o hardcover where 359'o is the
maximum allowed, the property currently exceeds hardcover limitations; the addition will be constructed
entirely over existing hardcover. A hardcover variance is also requested to change the nature of hardcover
from non-structural to structural hardcover.
Planning Commission Recommendation
On January 20,the planning commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval of the application. The
planning commission also recommended that the applicant provide evidence that the existing storm water
pond is sufficient for the project and has been maintained properly.
Planning Staff Recommendation
Planning Staff recommends approval of a CUP for the proposed addition, hardcover variance and approval of
the site plan,subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall adhere to the approved plan;
2. The building permit application will be subject to engineer, building official and fire marshal review;
3. The project approval is subject to MCWD approval;and
4. The applicant shall provide maintenance records for the storm water pond.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
The Council should consider adopting or amending the attached approval resolution.
� �
Council
Exhibit A
A RESOLUTION
APPROVING
A SITE PLAN, AND A HARDCOVER VARIANCE,
AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
A BUILDING ADDITION
PURSUANT TO ORONO ZONING CODE CHA�'TER 78 DIVISION 4,
AND SECTIONS 78-348 & 78-1700
FILE NO. 15-3704
WHEREAS, Oretel Archite�ts, Ltd., (hereinaf�er the "Applicant") has
made an application on behalf of Henr�epin County, the owner (hereinafter the
"Owner") of property located at 3880 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono
(hereinafter the "City") and legally described as Exhibit A (hereinaft�r "the Property");
and
WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State o#Minnes�a; and
WHEREAS, pur�ant to State Statutes 41� et. seq. and 462 et. seq., the
City Council of the Citjr of Oror�► has adopt�l zoning regi.r(ation for the protection of the
public health, safety and generat welfare; ar�d
WHEREAS, tl� Property aantains existing public service structures and is
located in the LR-1 C one family lakeshore residential district. Public service structures
are an allowed use with�► the LR-1C district by conditional use permit; and
WHEREAS, th�e Owner has operated the maintenance facility on the
Property since 1�2; and
WHERE�0.S, on December 12, 2014, the Applicant made an application
requesting a conditionat use permit and commercial site plan approval to permit the
construction of a 3,224 square foot addition to the existing maintenance building
structure pursuant to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-142 and 78-348(7); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has also made an application for approval of a
variance from Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1700 in order to allow construction of
Page 1 of 5
. �
the 3,224 square foot addition over an existing improved hard surface resulting in 47%
hardcover where 47% hardcover currently exists and 35% hardcover is permitted; and
WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes 462.3595 et. seq. and the City of Orono Zoning Codes, on January
20, 2015, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing for the application at
which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning ttt� application were given the
opportunity to speak thereon.
NOW, THEREFORE BE 1T RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
Minnesota:
FINpINGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #15-3704.
2. The Property is located in tl'� LFt-1 C One-Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning
District.
3. Public service struc�ut,es are an a{�owed c�r�d�t�nal use within the LR-1 C District.
4. A maintenance #acility h�s existed ar� been in operation on the Property since
1962.
5. The Pt�ann� Comrraission revie�d this �pplication at a public hearing held on
January 20, 2015 and voted 6 for �nd 0 against on a motion to approve the
co�►ditional use permit, variance and site plan for the building addition as
de�cribed herein b�ed on th+�following findings:
a) The proposed building addition will comply with all zoning setback
rec�uirements pertinent to public service structures.
b) The prop4sed building addition is relatively non-obtrusive and is compliant
with the 2on�� code.
c) The proposed building addition results in almost no change to the site
layout or site usage. The pergola does not change the general location of
the entrance to the building and does not result in significant changes to
pedestrian or vehicular traffic patterns within the site. The existing site
plan is in compliance with past approvals.
Page 2 of 5
r �.
d) Parking availability on the site is adequate.
e) The proposed building addition is appropriate and in character with the
surrounding land and neighborhood. The building addition design is
compatible with the existing building and will have little if any impact on
the surrounding neighborhood.
fl The building addition will have no stormwat�r impacts.
g) The building addition will not impair the use and enjoyment of the property
in the area or have an adverse impact on the property values in the area
when compared to the impairmer�t or impact o�f generally permitted uses.
h) The building addition is desig�d to take into acxount the natural, scenic,
and historic features of the a�ea and to minimize environmental impact.
The proposed building addition will result in no gradir� and will be above
existing hardcover, and as a resul# will h� minimal if �rty environmental
impacts.
i) The proposed use is cc�rrsistent with the CQmmunity Management Plan;
j) The proposed use is rtat detrimental to the public health, public safety, or
general welfare.
6. The City Ccwncil has considered th� application including the findings and
recommendation of the P�nning Cotnmission, reports by City staff, comments by
the Applicant and the pub�ic, and the effect of the proposed conditional use
permit on tl�ee health, s�F�ty and vrrelfare of the community.
7. Tt�e City Counc�l f@nds that the conditions existing on this Property are peculiar to
it ar�d do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting
the cor�iitional use permit would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air
nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; and would be in
keeping v�th the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of
the City.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby
grants a conditional use permit and commercial site plan approval pursuant Municipal
Zoning Code Sections 78-142 and 78-348(7); and grants approval of a variance from
Page 3 of 5
., Y
Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1700 in order to allow construction of a 3,224 square
foot building addition resulting in 47% hardcover; subject to the following conditions:
1. Council approval is based on the survey/site plan and general building addition
design plans submitted by the Applicant and annotated by City staff, attached to
this Resolution as Exhibits B and C (hereinafter the "Plans"). Any amendments
to the Plans which are not in conformity with City codes will require further
Planning Commission and City Council review.
2. Applicant shall be required to submit an as-built �urvey for the building addition
after it is constructed.
3. Applicant shall provide maintenance r�cords for the storm vvater pond prior to the
issuance of the building permit to cc�tstruct the building addltic�n.
4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not wi#h the Applicant
or Owner, but are permiss�ve only and must b� exercised by obtaining a building
permit for the building additicm within one ye�ar of the date of Council approval, or
the conditional use permit, Wariance and site plan approvals will expire on that
date (February 9, 2016).
5. Violation of c�- r�n-c�vmpliance with any o� the terms and conditions of this
resolution shall constitu�e a viola�an o� the zoning code, shall automatically
terminate arry authorit�r granted herein, and shall be punishable as a
misdemeanor.
6. The undersigned Owner has read, understands and hereby agrees to the terms
�f this resolution and on behalf of the Owner and the Owner's heirs, successors
and assigns, hereby agre� to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title
of the Property.
Adopt�d by the Orono City Council on the 9t" day of February, 2015.
ATTEST:
Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor
Page4of5
r ,
Property Owner(s)
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
This instrument was acknowledged before tr�e this day of , 2015
on behalf of the Owner, Hennepin County, by its
Notary Public
Page 5 of 5
T ,
Resolution
Exhibit A
IECAL DE9�21P'IlONS; ° -
'llac�i-Tai�irPr�op�r�YprdrfMlcail�af'11t1i'B967d -
The E'as� 5(►. feet of' the� Weat, 200 feet of the �outtr. 233�of, that part: of Gove�nmenfi Lot 8; Sectiarn 17,;
Townahfpti i17. Aan9s� 23; lyinp East of the� Ea�t- l�ne of, , Streater's� Sp,rinp Park Additio�n',� Hennep�rn
Gaunty, �tinnesota,. the tloundaries� of' whicfi� tract are macked by, �udicfal Landmarks placed; at the
i�ortfiwest an� Nortfisast cornera� tfie��eof, and by Judicial; Landmarks� placed, on thB west l�ne� of said
t►�ac� 33.01 feet Narth� of the Southwe�t corner thereof and� on tha. East l�ne� of� sai,d� tract 33.Oi�� feet
North� of ttie Sou�heast� cvrner trereof, puravant to Torrens Chae No. 15i47. Accord3np to,� tha'
6overnmertt Survey thereof', � � � '
A1�� afi_Tract i; ts� $�b ect to permanent a8seme�ts�-far� str�eet purposes� ae� pec To�rens} Documenta i377503` `
antl� i65�002' �EountY' H�phwaY' Plat)'
Ar�a ofi 'fi^acf i - fi�.6�2 SqUare �eet (0.267 A�cres)-.
h�ct 2=Taront Property p�r C�1Mbali of 1�1i'999d7E1�
That part of Government� Lot 8, Sect3an 17� Township4 1i7;. Rnnge� 23� anq;,thaf part of tot� i„ Block 9,a
Towns3te of Langdon Park, all descri�ed as be9lnning at the� intersection� of a line drawn paral•1e1�_
witfi an� 233 feet North of �he Sduth line of sa]d' Government Lot 8 and' a lina drm�n parallel witfi„
and !00 feet East of the East line of Streater's Spri�p Park Ad'd�tion", Her�nepiri County, Min�esota;;
thence North- ni�ang tt�e last described��aral�lel� line 8nd i�s extension to•the SoutF�r1y riyht af way-
1:4ne bf t�he� 6re�at. Northern Ra�ilway Cpmpany• thence Eas#�rl�y alang sai•d� 5outherly ripfit of wsy lfr�e�
to its� itr�ersecti�o�r w�tf�•e �ine• draNrr• Nart�i• at risht ahglee� ta ttle So�th� l�ine af sa�d� Sect�orr 47 � � '
frnn� s� po�in� thereon• distant t3i5�.,97 �eet West from the�5n�th� qt�arter-corner of sa•#d SeCtlon i7; __
thenca�_5out�h al�nng; se#d• �ast des�cribed l��ne� tti a ;pvint 233 f'est North of' the�. Sovfih l�rte� o# said+
Section i7; th�n�e� blast parallel� with the South �ine� of sa�d, Sectfon i7 to_the� paint of Deg�inn�np;.
the bo�ndaries af wh�ch tract are mariced- by Judiciad� LpndmeMcs� placed- ,nt t1�e four� carnera th�reof�
and� the Sriutfi line of' rthich tract is,further �parice�� by.• Judf�cia�: Landma�ks, pi�aced thereon 50�.02• feet
ancl� 100�.a4� feet East of tfie 5out�►west corner of sa]d tr+act„ �purs�ant to� Torrens Case No�. tfii47'.; �
AcaardinQ� to-the 6overnment Surwey thereo�f a�d� ac-cordjnp t� tfie recorded`pint thereof'.
Subyect to a�.Qrivate� drlve�+ay or s�r.ee� 9asement oVer the.westerly SOD feet of Tract 2. � •
A�ea. af TracC 2� �� 243; 104 Sqtiar� Feeti {5`.98t, Acres)� ' ' '
'i�ac�3'-/lb�6cf Prop�1Y'PK Dootni��F No:984678�� , ,
Tfiat. perb of-Government Lot�B, �Se�tion� 17, 7ownship� 117,'Renge: 23 West,� lying�W'ithin� a� distence of �
iOD feet Easterly� of the �asterly linE of' "Streater`s Spring• Perk Addltion"�, Henneplrn Caunty, _
Minnesota;. and Zying North� of' the southerly 233� feet of said' 6overnment Lat 8, end South of the�
6reat Nerthern 1�ailway r�ght nf way. ._ �
SubJ'szt to an easement for street purposes over Tract 3 ']ying North of a line �arallel, with and \
50 feet Southerly of" the SoutherTy right of weY line of the Great Northern Rai�lway right of way, as .
per pocdment6 3329237 and 3845782. �
Area of Tract 3� - 36,9i0 Sqt�arE Feet {U.847 Acres) • • •
� '.,� �OUIpAlllfiTO�Om1�lMICf1111YlYOF7X�
'°"-"'��+'��'��-"�-� ,�..�.. ORONO MAINTENANCE FACIUTY
' ����e"'����+�:� � �
y�;�'°�..�::.�,sra�".s*'sr"��:r:i.�., ,troa;rr ..�..�-..��.. .�
' .��'-�;�'��^`..,'iG"h Rr.:.�m�'� i �.
��::��!C��'w., :�,�,n��`� �� �
`..�-• ..�x�F ��.�.�.�'.,N�"�.�.�..�
.i•• •r� �,.;b;.M�a.�;...,...:K•::
.�' a.� �,�...N,�,���r�,�.
�..�� �„�s -s'', '�'m�;"au�^�
—`• e't ».aa .. .� • `,/ _ �.�`x�-`���:°9:�.,°Y.I L�9.�ti
M�i0 �yp I .s�� ,.mn,� �x """/ '� '�' 7r T—s[i^!.1 i.v
P,l!'RL 't �y
�'� � ..0 .. � I �"'7.:#1�`�R..:d"�..'
� ; .
� .� �w_ �,.�
., - ,.,_._..,...�...�.w
l�+.'�:. ��,. ,e.... _ �n a, a �.e.,�,��.a.r.�,�'�,�'�.�'� i"��.x.��:r:e'.
� ��;,...'c^�.:�.�.�° s...�;lN'�:.t;r.,M.,
�' y 0 11MCf � � � ....m" ,��,�a��� �s y �w 7'.".e�`d.."+..rlw�.".uJC""��..u..�e.w.�r..�....m..�.�.�mea>
�s ��q � �.......-.... ...e � 6 O r:-w.�aw�.r+�rraw
°� a� 1 .� � ...,,.r.� m � ;i;-��^.`s,��,"`y-,ri„, =„.'°��::t�:�^^`t^'ii.�
.�4� -a�.- 3 �a�i;'�'°r",�„-v,^.,-st' �"°,,�.s�,�':'�"'etc��l,'�s..,ar^z'�:rz
� � /�; � . � ����,��
�`� �'" ..�._� �.�u.�r���"°,:�... ..��.,:,,,:�^�M
' � �`� �:�,�.a,��".�
��� �, � .�:�.. �_ �, � , _ .,�.:�..�e.....�....,.� �,,,m,.�...�.
.o, M�.,
�-. .�. � -,�, , �~�-. .�,.,_�.,,..�.
� �° �..�-ti�,�,�:�-���:���.,
� � � ° '�:m t'�C�
� � .�+r� • $,��a,�^....;,.,��.t.����:,�.�..�.
�4 mnau:wn�. ......... J C - �_.nwm.nmrt�' — .�. . nam....�
o�oro�o ...�. ;?
CS".^.�+ -S• ..�.'LS �'
� j � � o
, . �-
, . . :ns.y3�n!' .w - .�`'.�F��i 5'�"�.�p,�,�G��'`��°45!�
=vE"t� a'�'.�$s -r�woia..w.ei: � �{ I � 7��i.'°'" �����'°IK�'R.��,�"�h'..��`6
i
.�`\;...��� � �ecea
s� '� �, a � � '�s�' �— ,I; —_ -
' � � � � ! � �l;� � —�..�� m .�_� -�
��'yc s � � .,.�c ��{I�� _ rea.
C I ��G' r� I� 'e l7/.= .�..e..a.
.
.�.
� ; 1 ,�. �y �---�_._ _w_,...
_ ; —. — �-
-----'— - -- � " � ..,,
.. ---------------------------�---------- -,
........_..--�- -� - - - - m._
. . � ---„,-------- \ �
-�- .
�0T.3C�,.+.. � o ---•_ —' GL'."7 M.`T1C7`C.�e 1 q I;� u�.=� — s � G���A.<,�...
�' raa�io'0za-� �INE OHIVE (HCSAH 15. PLRT 6B) ����nJ '�� �^""""
�.—.— .—.�_ H._..,�..b
---------------- ------------------------------------------ ,,.....v�..._.
-- ...,�..
m �'
x �
�
� rt
���•
�
�
I �O� � 3N1q3Hl'13LONS
L
(99 Ltlld 5l HVSJH) 3�IiJ0 3NI13?JOHS .�.yy �«a"
N'Otd
3115 43SOdOMd '" i
o,.--�
�
��� � �
� "'� �n
Mild 311S�3SOd0ild^ �o o E�
n ?
- d x "
2
n
' � . ....... q
F f � vaaoruma � ss�v�awvw
3
a•��"�� 25 5�30SBf.6 ��
ialMlW0o38�Yuo'IDOloB�
O
3�N3l9NLLSQ3 3�N3iJW18Ul3 ' d00183L#OpJYM1MlIH313tl�11D)
F
� VLLR3LiGO]9MnW3l3WID'J�
� � 31DG 3HONd3131 ANNYdL�1VYB111IDl1 W 1qlM
tl310
N . OM16IX3 �Mygp+dy � �ftlN 1TnYSvpq1►�'u19� �
♦r�o " �W1.fiU9 R\ n _
. `1N3W31Vtl911��B 3JN3lONLLSIX3 � I �Qb���d'�
-P � arnµa3aoud ------ --- --- - -- �
0
StlYNtl-- NOLLtl1S y �:�TM�����'�^� �
'JldTli
� 0\ � �LL� MNtl1tl31tlM �L ry � 9
I I ��.s� r �� ��,,.,�.�,�,��° �
° �g �a�.�,.�.m
�.
� '�nuaa°°aa �� � � �o-uws �t � ` vmmia� m
�- � 'I _ .• or+u� �Y
� n�vma��aeauom.nm..m� 0
� .�a�waazvin m^ � 3oB 0
3 �uarvanva 1 .-.�.�"�.LL�-.., r� u g � S � m
'� uwruwrwa � ;..;�,, a auwomw�mnww,u�aoe�x....w..ao.m.m
,g �rusoa� aa�wsvo � F o �� � •
l6CSS'N W'��+0 "' �
rnaisirj unnva i3nva�
an��dauga�o45089E � L 3�wao�sim�ruieon o �Niisaa owisoa S3LONNVId3115
ot ____-____—
SVLLOV i+e�nva __--_ __
oN ao,yw�uWun+uuo] F t �1 � �s�oa� �r sp�uwe�vunu�inu�wm�up��uw�
'caxxwo reua�ur.�w xiw uwiwoow i
99L1f00 uneau�''��uwt�'nrJw�as��v3 �
�unruwlxtl�uqurAuam�wmmaz�s �
'�Nl�Io+d7H g aaaa3nwd I onx�xnor�wuawstrnx�iu���2 � g
�"usoc� os aa
uqwod.3 R+IIP�� � sr�i�u wrMmar��cw��wo�.�ww�i
a ouawl�W�+O � , iauneanixuauo�saxwnavr�xwazvxww�1
'����Wd�oFl -•�•• 3�N3i`JW18DC3 � �itltx _- -__"_—_-
� �
�' 3NfI`3d�pad �t (______"__ S`314NTIF�1�
w`--�— em+LL`'�� 136aaroewoy�ewsMtl3lwu'�eNwma�lA1
lv�N+T,I�yvyoN'�° 3enrTMwxWmem�nnvnruewpemvwum
�wv�ne... W m
un� �N dtlY�pu93ad02f,d^��NId3NN3H i�N�nmaxoumrBw���3xli
wos�+^nT u -
_•ry (OSy'lltltl�N xnL'lItl1.9u�uMlq�i11I8aBTMe3�1e11BN1�3a1�
SJ.�'3.�.iH��itl ___- __ —_-__"-""
'I�.L�I�O �,i�ao��"°tl
s�n�n3u rma aus
`---
- ------------
V
� � -/ 9�E 6uL.v��.� rw -rr�vrCRl T LIIVC \
�ouNo N�?•32'�� g5 EXISTING FENCE
ARK _- _'- ' '� �
_- q48
O } �" _ , ' � JE.O ,
Q EXISTING
4 � ~ POWER POLE �
� Z
«rct,��„
9<
e
z «���--:�,
..................................... ....::::.
_ 3
':;'.'•'. . ........�..... ........ 944 J�
10
EXISTING
9
`� BITUMINOUS " "`"„'""
PAVEMENT � D0''
t
� EXISTING EXISTING �
GRAVEL FACILITY EXISTING �
�' � �AS METER
a Upper Roof �(�$T�n
9 Elewtlon � p84.3 8�.�•UM��
I/'� �_ 2 Floor Elewtlon . e4s,3 'c°'- ' PAVEME
�� � EXISTING • s
....�.-.�'........... .... . WATER METER 3� .
� o
�pry ( � 9
4 EXISTING
FUEL r,
..:: ., .;;
.::: � .. . ..�
Z SHUT-OFF ..;"'� a
..,. .
8 ,..'`�;. i '�. :'•.
, . •...
;�, ...
....
„ . . . .......,.
��p ::.' N �A •�.. ........�......
''�. ' 4
� ,. �
� . �, EXISTING EXISTING
' � WA7ER TANK
' � � � FILLINC3 GAS A
� . ' STATION --'P��PS ya1
�PER7YLINE" ' � 9j0�
STING.F�NCE. ` EXISTING
' � BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT �'
D� � '��FJCt.
•EX�STING ' • �
• POND , � � EXISTING '
• TELEPHONE POLE 9's�
• � . . • ' 9��
-EXISTING FENCE 938 938
91
. ' . 9� q . ,
9'38 58 E '1 Q,.52
' ' rouNo ' " ':N85,'•3 '5 "'
� ..660'�e'., � 8•E'� 9.92
, • , ;, ,•..,'..••'.;'�,:, . �. • ;: '.
• ' MAIN SITE ACCESS �•EXISTING POND �..•':.':'; .::'
sas •
� . ' ' � Ea�t Iln�of M�WMt 932 S
•• $.7�1MZ��TqWTMGd , 9
936
95b
�
--J�,g3? M
N / '�`ru
3 �
3890 '�� ' M
�� � R
, ��� �/
4 9�s ��TC�
�� m 2 ..•.
�OPOSED SITE PI
� �
9-y0
1
1
�g}5
��NA0. FOUND 6/E%N
M 2 �p
�N�� �JO_OZ ' �T P-N N
. _ BI7l1Y1N(tl I! C�I 1/'Y 1"1 r 1 1 A I r r�r��� ir- /� ....� . . .
9.1P �
10 It'�1' P Yf-- f0 SS WP
O /� O �
-
��• n•.r a.in � iea ` aiUS ra OERTEL
b
s eO b � I ARCHITECTS
� _ �
� � g �O orm�n
.`mr z-V£ es m�. OO ��' � °Q ` .....,��e.�
b p � 0. �. � � ,,.��
� . 0y
� F `O I _ �� .�B -"'-- NemePin CouMy
` we rr e u z-05' Y sr rx za re a+�� ` �� � Orora Malnhnance
d ' �� Fodlky&panslrn
z
� � OY — i ` x O H.C.Pro�M No.
� \ n " ' s Q ��� 2 va � � Te. / 0031766
^ �.�Ci a� �N � � -
' F \ " e �� ia � ConslrucNon Confract No.
: e � O= 0 . p � ' � pO ' � w'O' � �' I` 4017A5
7� i -
i�� - � �° 3880 Shorelina Drhe
Orono,MN.55391
r-^:��iiiiitii iii �i- —
aa sr i ' �� i i i i 1 i i �i i UP m � ;� � °�"c I
�`___=�i...�.�� �p... � I -- re"m" ^
rr � i i
� iM
, I
n^+�� �;1 PARTIAL ENLARGED FLOOR PLAN
� ,a.,�, "' wauTva�s waoan�wno�s •�....•�•.!
1 �„r� "" �:'""�„` ;x.:'� ,� --- ---- - I — -— - — - - m..a....,., ,.e
� �-� O��.•�u,��m�Q� o�.� � �
.-..�,.y ��m"'n' ��� � � O�marmu�ak� a.rm�.c w, I �^a+` � � � n�e
� -.� � O� �ao 'a'Nan n. �,;�'� �wnMm� �waaes9xw � wcereoeam.
�M).T4GaM� Op� �� �nKla�¢[voon�i9�oa�wi[
s�rnwi:Y WIlM ' � A�1ife �x�x'1 T u14
� O� I �..� .�ww �
� .��� � � ..Q �m� ��...�,.9.��.,w�,o,�
�'.:n:l ���,.,� +�'�.""'�"�a�..�
�� �� ,
n.m.. �w.�:�unm� �°"'� rew..� �ea� mumuunr�aa«u.� i �•�u,•, m�.ewnvnYmaa
ea:armm� �� maa+m�wmEmMamaurmmw ��R�� .w..iawoa •o.e.uisrmma � �01^w�m.o�cvumw
� �� �����.a�K« � i � �
�. � "� ^.�
��am,m.un. n�umn,.�... �,o. "`cH:Nn�
"�°�� OENEMLNOTE5 � �u...wmw �uc ors u oc uvEo�RccM°.
r�.n ' _ I �oava w�xa.ou�e�c�..n �niat"sE�o.nc
a�anorurtwimwti.s�cnuw.w[aiw¢u ��rt ,.�c s MmHesm
riauso�m�o o�eo.v.m e�tfrtuumm�inraatcn�nuoarotxas °�"' P.�s � / •
cUmna�naismwae,sn�imsrror,vao ���•,s
mie mo an usnvus EaRs wiaurt&vsns
� xuaa[rca��oeeuiusRaues.�n.eefo ��e..,.rHe.o»
�aia nW
�aaarova
�sa+orw�s
� ��� wn«osnoar�aoa�mim ��A� �ew�•� B�IIARGED FLOOR PIAN
MDewno.s,n�m �w�....��..a�mm� ROOf PLAN
�l ROOF PLAN ���,o��"-.�",m:o�.m"""�'a.' R
� A1 .2
vis•r.m �wro�
m �
� N
� o
Q �
c� o'
��
_
_ �
V
L' l3
p�a.,�.a•
Y.�.,.
Ntl7d
'JNLLH'JIl1VJI�M pL�3H w:.�r:.ew. � �
� Ntl'Id�JW1H'Jll Td'Jlil1�313 �
'�� �nopw.s
1�
niu:ea e�s.°�".�nnxa '� n `4�� ��� - ' 4��' { �3 � � �#�
��...M,,.�..�3� '� 40, 4L� - �-'� , � �
O� -�� �� O�'6"�Y ,r�) ' � O ,
upnata sr awaa�m in�xe vnw r w an�eriorm�nMs �y��y� q;a s--,y�a �'_I .£, ;"- „,4 � �
�GIw6 DW Y➢N YMOIS H 9105x35 1}XdU]0 tl l�Pf1V1 tlOf�OL 9 Tl 30N@W aO �ZSS' �1 �
R -
NWNA Ol NW]�1GJ 3WOW TYq3 W'M�OA3XLL AYJ-[1[➢�RNUI!TVNW�Oi � - _ _ �r IY�� `` . \ `' O
f+
� lr��u xi siwnsinow nwun�no�i n/z a i ci/i sbw a�� ��� p - 1 ��Qn . - � �
rora aaooi sxw '�� • ' al.% \, �'b O'
•m•�n n rna uamw oi miaolw 3e mxs waa mv.w v au 3u n�o m�r
w
9 I]IImO ll�Mtl3llY f SYf3RLf03tl TMIIW W W 910LLVJLM tlX SNVqO P �
-r� IYNLLTIWkM Ol I�fltl 1}p3Y 31N9OIN�N 1�1Ntl 9 91P�'B 31L f0 NOUb 9U O i i i O tt .� O sl . 0 i- ��. �' �
acno3i s snu3xxm an _ _ _ - - __ _ ' �
� �wi w�nwi�m w.�us mim�w rs-�ut/�i-smi�c-K�a3!m�nun v n�nonaU �O �� � ' �� . �
� vx3imnx��wuns ae�xuw aw i rUc m�o o�+mu noou au x�wnn �j � �Q
fO l�IX0.t tl01'Mi03 tl0'tlLLWlt A:XfYM�S]N35 00[-N b3ddOLS LYM v 3WNN O , --
ffvA�/9138 ' �O. � �
J�M�NllYAI UYW6MJ 39 TM6 YYf1 ALL N 91WJ1M0)ON 1M)IMIQ3 N.W�30 TN�' � � / /
YJM'SMl9NW15 IYLYD'.WWdI QMylY9Y1 M'Ip.Y!Ql3f� '_/
JSf�lPO•f � �;' ��l jJ\• •
�-�ti��4.� �r�p����, „�,�,�,��.�,o �' ,,,
°17�'v`�"�a'� � ucqea�odsue�l • ' ,
,����,
J!U'OtUl�t�'J!!9 11U N 911M11q31➢qiA XiQIJ]U YLL IlXqNLL WW 01 31X NIW31qN ALL JO SpIKmO Qi I
wnu s xos�nva 5310N 43.1�N � � ' ,
; � i� `
l6fSS'NW'ouoip sar�e mvo a(z1�u mn iux�ox n�w ai mn ' �.' � .
aN�4 aw�aio45 08Bf sww on mw auw aw n�iw s,�aen�tMa�um�oxs snx imm x \ �. /+� r� _. � '., �� A O
usa�asnwn �- - ����'__ '�� � `C-�"i ( �t�� O#�
SVL l0V sm�mx��n*wouw�uw xam a nn smu�n�ww u<ei a aoou zu }
'�N l�011�O�YOI3M1l�10� i1pMf WLLqPI 9pdXM1 L x019'q t SS'O Q➢D14�W B W 9 91XQW9 3WNi 31U O ��� \ ♦ . � �
' ��������� __" —_ i _ _
�++ �.T�� �
99L l f00 murm nn miaeu�r w wm awno�s rvp�ro��a�xn�on�w�ns� � � � - - __ „ ' � � G �i.� .n � � s
p�
MJ pN�id.YVi mu�q3e A�wuvrtns�note�w+�I�WKKV nmsm ewe3w untt�m xi�xro I�r—� :� , �i___ '__'__'__'____" II "'1 i_i � �
uo suod x�ws x�oi nr,nuu sn3un x»ami i-cn ie m�nwnm s�erars n� � '� �i � �F I � � �a� 'a� � ib���--_f. �
I x3/.�IIP�d �? � i �'(�— i ����}-c � � � fl
uuowlu�oyy ouoip nn 1�+�wuan uruu�res w roxwo un IIrnwa x mw.�e m mQavx � q' � , _ ��' �_^. � n ��
)�����,���,�,�,�, �„ G,I �P -_�•� � �
Awno�u�dwueH i� �Q�i. '_- _-_�� � . �b _ .r.T.�,�"r�iF❑ ii������ ���
aN we umxm vs zz�l x�u uwo m�nw m sua w.nw � � � . �. l�— ,. �;�ea-r� • � V
x-�owu �� �I �.❑ i Ff4'�]'d. iNE�7 id� I 1��1 r --
_ o�nnm a wa�a ww uanarn3 xNm���ir n sxourwi unn um+ 3 ;i� 'S`�� $p , IiI ��}—•� ���� ���_O� � L�k `.�� @OO �
w.�o«w vwwuu xmun irowvxxn m uu��aaa a�wr�on rn.uoi•rme ��^ "' i 'rLJ- 'a��-��OO d7,��r3}p � i�� d�0 4
.,.�>,.�m �o munt�mnu�x�n wm miw u�www�rn��o�wunoi um xw� a i ` ,
.__-. _- �_ •
woa..�.i..0 � I� __ ' _'_"__ _:��_-' '—__ _ - ,�_'_,-__-' -
�...q..W,� �wro>>ww nnxwis�mw�o�uawiwi mxum un TMisrp�ox m �"'_'���""'_ �"�"' O — — � -O�-
$r'Ya.t R-1'12j�p' annma r xiwu icwm r m mrn�3e Aw suu�lxpi � a O
Td.L�I30
� ,�uraa a�m��u m,�non r nw
on ur�aw Lume mn sx in w wws iox 3n snu�l�w.ar uvw� v
5310N hM3N39
A6i61�lEfAIRABMilF�9Q1 �
BLlUIDOOOR
IMILY/GflRill�q
TIIFWLryBLS1OIJ
H.tl7JYBiT
(�IAINi'FffiIM6flEV�
SAID9ASI�/F17�06�
�IIIEfMsI
(pIM8UAI�NB/lSf
OOIGPNBS�
T.Qli001i
i ' AtAPB
�p�� p1'PII01'06ID1�01101
V'i�esnMq .
,�EAST ELEVATION ��
�
xtz=ra�
r�a��rKru��cir�a
rawiu�sraa�
a�mavesr
(��rmn�eecq
BMDeLl81�1�aV�
Mi016d11ER�91
(MNBUlI1�PIBJl9f
COMC f1Y19.W
1MlLMfX11911�1A
T�9_f004
E � 11'dPiql'OB�VBM,lE810111BE1100110M
611�L�1G
�:1 SOUTH ELEVATION(PARTtAU
�
srt�r-r�
RECEIVED
DEC 12 2014
CITY OF ORONO
# 3704
��
��,K
���
�.��
,A��
�Itea
c�wu�smexoxrr '
xauima�
aroa�s�iww� -
�e6K8A7E H61
(�MNSUA�PIEd�BfCOMC. '^�,
�
TA RDqI
fl lOP4
�. �lPIO'O�dWlldl �
�f F703It6BIl10N8—�
�_4VEST ELEVATION
�
ysr-nv
rna�Ra��w�Ms�ceep�
���
���smU w�uv�acuan�a o+ennNaras�a
TnY--
aiasvew
W�wEffiIMB9Fv) ��E7KHM�1BIfi�961
P16�B�IEfN
1NLR�0I1191118 ���� 16Y1MQIB11�18
TAWNLpfilLp
SNO9A41�/F700� �17�d
IBBPBOitff1�B1
(OI/BlA1�i1Hil8f PIHilN1�4
mcr� aioienairr
Nsu�a�ss
TAflAOR
��ppp TD ROpI
a 10Pd
ITdPIq10�Y9�pE81dYff/D0111p1 7F1RAq�M0111p1
V� �
� 6N0 HA4t�/O�ot��OBI�EH11E N6H
i�i�,�1}'��A�N I�NN91IA1�PPEfI�4fC011C.%Illfi�
G
3ldZ.1'd
RECEIVED
DEC 12 2014
C1TY oF oRONo
# 3704
--C� _
--� -
.
Council
Exhibit B�
. I='
SfTE PLAN REVIEW NOTES OERTEL
- - ---- — - -- - --- -� D P�.�NpR�1Y x ARCHITECTS
ani PR POSEUBUILDING DDffIONISLOCAiEDINANSAREACTHAT � TY REG��MPpRN�RS�� rc $TPauI,M�onuoU5�105
3.AL RPROPOSED UTILITY WORKNOCCURS NJ AREAS OF EXISTING � NENNEP�N ��(P�P�1 Y _ 1651)696516A Fu
BRUMINOUSPAVING,GRAVEL,ANU/ORSOD�WHICHIMLLALLBE , ppKpTA T�,��� w..o�n.i.rcn�rc�rsco�,
NEPLACED WRN SIMILAR MATERIALS AFTEfl WORK I$COMPLETE) i (�C15nN�'PARK �� ° yy
/J��fi ��� � I
GENERAL NOTES 95T p9,E 602 Oa _� a+o PROPERTY LINE j vPO1�"""E
- _-----_ -- --_-----------_-----— Fa�o Ni-I'32 -�.-"`% EXISTINGFENCE � \ HennepinCounty
� na m��m:r
1.COORDWATEWIT}iqVILDHAWINGSFOREXTENTOFDEMOLITION '�� 4 aa �o aOe a Orono Maintenance
MLITYWORKNEWSITECONCREfEANDPANNGS,RE�GRADEAS o=�'� �_J� � Y � '\ Facility Expansion
SHOWN ON CN�DRAWINGS. I ap / 62 9� "` Sg 9' - z EXISTING
2.COOHMNATE WRH CIVIL,STHUCNRAL,MECHANICAL,AND I -
� ELECTRICALDMWINGS ; �FM�`W'�`�T � + e Z POWER POLE � H.C.Project No.
3 COORDINATEAILfANSTRUCTIONTHATTAKESPUCEWITFWANY �
- 0031766
� EASEMENTS(GAS,ELECTPoCAL WES,ETC.)WITH APPROPRIATE 2 8
PARTIES PRIOR TO UEMOt1ilON AND CANSTRUCTION. °'° - fi
4.COOflDINATEWRHARCHITECNRALDflAWINGS. i � � r� z9 � � Construction Contrad No.
5.COORUINATE WRFi CITY&COUMV AU7FpRITIES f-0R EXISTING
CONSTRUCTIONWORKTHATEXTENDSIMOAQIACENfROADWAYS I p1�""" 9j° BRUMINOUS ens � �' 4017A5
PAVEMENT i g �
j `s � a � O
3
I EXISTING EXISTING B EXISTINGSALTISTORAGE � 3880$horeline Drive
SITE PLAN NOTES ; ' s �
GRAVEL =ACWTY EXISTING
-----"-----"-- -- — -- –- - i o.. Y) GASMETER � oa Orono,MN.55391
�Q cor�srooa I p S oef Foo� EXISTING z
2 BIIUNNWSA4%LLLTPAVNGBENGINEEREDflLL�PATCHQWTCHTO WSiNG) I C F Y 1 3 m Eiiw���=ssa, BITUMINOUS o I�
� � � -s..� ' PAVEMENT � � � e
� F�� � C o C� � G ��•EXISTING 3 � I
� � � �0 - WATERMETER'' R $ $ �
pQ c�n i "�
05 GAiEOPEPATUII�'CIXGNEfERER/PFIIESiOu I � o � � EXISTING a a 2 �
m �Ie O
� CRR�XFAUEN�ON�NCFEfE01ENIPEDFS�RL) p °� a.o � SHUT-OFF s i__� PROPERTY LINE p
� UNUSG%NGISWd1B$ , V b z 6 • 10 . , �... �,, J
.�° � x�A \ EXISTING FENCE .�
� BJItOk�GADUIIMNIbA5EBm5f10WNl � C °� `A .h �--� } �I� �.
� saiowriaa4v�isooiwu.x+rcxEns7erc � � ,t - • 0 s
� C J EXISTING �°
p wr�oovsra�s+r�s O � WATER TANK, EXISTING A n, �«nw mu�.Ao,mµ..a
Q
GAS ¢�o3iws
- 1I OONCREIEPAVNGISIOEWAII(IGUREHIfj/f+bBE�IGNEHIE4FG1 III� Z FILLING y z I
'Bi �VATd 6MATCH TOOOSiNGPbJACEXTLOtLY110f15)-NUIEME4 SHOWN IS -�PUMPS �
STATION �crnaM wuMn c�muc�w��a�m�.�w�nA4
� - APVPOxRM1ESCOPEOFWOXKTOM0.UOEPLLNECESS4MCOMPoNBlfS'0-� -0' .k O
'" PERACE NL fEMpVEO MATEFIKASHEOURED FOP NEW U1N1fVWOFK��FY
� FEfDCONpIIONSPRpflTOBI�. I � 9 ���
rcoe
� � - - - - — I PROPERTYLINE +�' , d��� 13-33
� EXISTING FENCE EXISTING 3 �, � � DEGEMBER 9,J0U
PLAN LEGEND: I � BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
-- ---.-- ------- - - � � ' � EXI9TING
� BRlM11N0USA$PHALT PAVMG d j � %. +a . POND a.e i m�o er eftyt
ENGMEEREDFlLL�MFILL-PATCHAND . EXISTING Y � �
MATCHTOEXISTINGADJACENTPAVING � D�OTER POND z EXISTING ,� _
� TELEPHONE POLE I � ��o�
i � � � 3
� CONCRETEPANNG,fANCREfEGUTTER. e �t EXISTINGFENCE O rs
CONCRETESIDEWAIK,CONCREfEST00P � EXISTINGFENCE
� � �+ � F-
� SOL,DIRT,GRAVEL,SODINFlLL�MATCH � e5'38'S8"E t5052
AWACEMIXASTWG) � .sar�b , N89'38'58'E 992
� E
I � �� MAW SITE ACCESS . EXISTING POND $ � � �
� I. zv�..�o.m,.w�,., m, a
� °'°
z
�
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS
�/1 °u N y, - OOCUMENT WAS PREPARED
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT
0 3 � � ASU�P�ERVIR G STERED ARCH T CT�
� �90 p IN THE SfATE OF MINNESOTA
�� �
�
W g � � oJ, PROPOSED SITE PLAN •
e m 9 � '' �
� ae DEGETtDER 9 701t
�
� alomv�nor� �5890
� - H[c*r�+�.
� a o ,o PROPOSED SITE
�[Mu� wo s/a an
� Z o,, PLAN
— - . soo2 �,;,,;„��, SHOREUNE DRIVE (HCSAH 15, PLAT 68) ""'""
u��+ous N89'4 =
� � _ A0. 1
�� SHORELINE DRIVE
-_f —� � „E 6�Z,p�s_�— � �, Bg50 � F'KUPERTY LINE -��
FOUND N7?•�` .'� �' " �g5 �, �
EXISTING FENCE
�' � � � 1���Y � �.-- .
MARK . - ' � ,,�
- _ g48 9
-- �°� se.o ,ao
o � ^rv �r �9 y � �
�� .�'��° � 2 EXI�TING
�,;��" � 8 �
�
'� � 2 POWER POLE �
9 2 :::::::t:::': olc+cfric Pinuku r----
____-__ ;::::::^:.�� r 'U
948 __
.. �'"''':. _ ...
I � 1 ga� 'o e .. _ -• _. ._.. .. . _
9� EXISTING 2 =���a-r,C hon6cu{�
6 BITUMINOUS
PAVEMENT � 80'3 "'
t
EXISTING a
EXISTING M
—"' GRAVEL m E
FACILITY EXISTING
M
' � �AS METER
� rn � Upper Roof EXISTINC
12 � �� 3 Elavatlon = 964.3 BITUMIN(
�� � 5 Floo� Elevotlo� = 944.3 ' Gas- e � PAVEME�
—� 2 EXISTING 3
L_J Wi4TER METER� �
3.9
%�� � 4 EXiSTING � „ 9 "
� FUEL a �. ' � N � r.�
� 2 SHUT-OFF �
i 6 . � : ���
�k v '� A Q• .. � �O
I F � •,4m, .�4,�;• V 4
!�' . , ` � 4 � 5
' . . �, �, ; EXISTING EXISTING
, ' ..' • � � . � WATER TANK
� .� .� � � � . FILLiNG GAS A
• � � . � ' . � ' STATION —� PUMPS g�2
:� ' �� � ' • e
�PEF�TY tIN��' �_
g3$
>TIN�.F�NCE�. EXISTlN� �
� . � �. . � .�� : BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT ��'
�, • � . . i � :
' , �, . '•� � , '. •� � • ' ' � '�X1�'
� 'EX•I$TING� ' � � � e�0 � .� ,� �°.F?�Q]VI
� POND � ,� � � , � ; .•� � � 2 EXISTING .. • � .. 1
' . , � � ; � : •, �� . � ,�� TELEPHONE POLE 939'�
. , . , . �
- EXISTING FENCE � � � " 9 i " � ggg
� ' 93 936 �
, , ; . ., • . �,� A rn
�'38'S8"E '150.�2 , ' � ' � ' � '• ': � :,' �:,� , � .
. . • . ' , , � . .
, � . . • FOUND ' ' �' ','..' „• • . • • ',M1I8�9'38'S8'•'•E�� 9.92
� , . . � , ��' .680'�3"�•, � .. ,' .
, ' , . . • , • , K • .
. . • • � , .. 1 ' , ' • .. � .�'. . ;. ., . , ,• .,, ..
� . �� �� �. ' . . MAIN SITE ACCESS � �',���� �EXISTING POND � �';��
, . ' , • . 938 � Ea�t Iins of ths Wnt �� � . ' . � �
� 2C0 feet of the South � ' • 932 ' �n,
9 � 233 feet as monumented � • ' • • : 9
' .+' ' `.' ' 936
� 938
��
�/�__�32�` � ----
N S�Q
.10� 3 �
�S9O M
co F °'
� ` /
�,� , T < //
t2 � � = �
OJ � Z 9�6 ��'�►'Cw
� r
---�--zoo P
9 � ROPOSED SITE PL
�i �
g�y0
13 �g
�936 1 g
F� SP�I�KRE/NAIL ^ FOUND 8/8 PIN
"� 2
M ��
SET —K NAIL IN 'rjO.O2 "'' SET P—K N
MINOUS N 89'4 _' �.�;�,, 81TUMINOUS �N n R F'I I N F' f1 D���c /� �r.� � � �
1 �
�.,o. � �3
r-o' ir-a• r 3�a�_ s� s.r �,-0,
QQ Q m w:
^eo'� /�\
` xsaY• ` ` �nr a�•�o� ` r-r � � F ,=,
� , 1e'�' ""Y' T-� OERTEL
e , p„ , � � ARCHITECTS
� ���5 �
� b � I - I795SamtCLwAvmue
31 - ��E � _ 1 T.ROOM - B �I F ST Pavl.k da 55105
`" t� WOMEN'SLOCKEA� a L �651)t96.5186TA
MUL7f?UPP�SE 3 ^ O Oi I6s1)696-518a hu
fl00M 7'�� G-7 7�• �as va�1 ni i � w 5 A�� www oenelaecn��c�s com
Q 1i1 _ 2� L"J� 6
O A1] 3 f $ C I C '' I`
� A 8 g � 4 'o�
� Z I � e O / � - ' p r _ o ' e, �- � �
' � " ' ------------------ He�nepin County
F b �" � Orono Maintenance
r�'�' xe� '' �.a• z��Y• s•r ��• z-s r�c 3�.a•p � eA1 ` G � � � � � Facility Expansion
B � HPllWpV —� 2'
�e P _ „3 � ----- m a za e�P � H.C.Pro'ect No.
S 11Y 'i l I11A B P �� A ,� -_" � Y 4]2 I�- I
� z � ; 3' s = ma• " 0031766
� �� g•3, � I 3'3' i�1 p�9.
A EI A � i
` �E� � �' �� �c� 5 ' I Construction Contract No.
ti
Q 4. F E itt E O ^ Z y�Ofl. b .� A � �a M o NENS�OCKEFI 1/A]J �3� d ^ $H�� � I F 4017A5
�C �
/'O= aaove ° ° : �� � � ° o
� - - � �� 3880 Shoreline Drive
�a Orono,MN.55391
�--n-��
t I� �� ��, �I I I I I R I I � I I I ' --
aw• a-n• i�� ��i i i i i q i i � i i �P � �� � 'w
�---- �������===���� , - r,
IId
6�$' otD
i ��'4� 14'-8' 7�d•
1ffi-00'�B�6EBID� � PARTIAL ENLARGED FLOOR PLAN
��'-0'UREA Of EEpICTALiHWATD 1
1/4•a��-0•
OVEIFIOW
SCUPPEP
xdrEnn couxlr MWFer xwem�
� ove�vsasrEa NFNHVACEOUPIENT- 19N13�K1) WALLTYPES � monnvb
� ir�suuna�oY��r s�+zi.e�wna�e r�suunai -- --- -- ' FLOORPLANNOTES
�SEE'9/I611 o�raa ru�aresu�,a - -- � -- -- --- ---- - --- - � -- ��,�.������.�.�
� 407�45
p . . TRPEi��OFN9UUMN O 3L8'MfLSNDSM111UVEF�'GIPBDEACHSWE�PIIOVOE�'�A:! � I 1Q COAPqE55�AYiNER arcrxwarz
� Ro, ��qy�nan N+�rfwxooFaici u'rt►xwurn,u
� _ IN$�..A?pX._. Aho'� 115lRATqlI II�ri� .Ot"��: SNTL5IUISWItU'IEN�GYPBJEACNSIDE. I I E❑ �IFSSUflEWASHflEF1 � 13-33
9� '��� _ � OO INSUU110N ) PAOYDE�t11m8AtT I I Q PI'ESSIWEW.�RFIER
O35B'MR.STUES MII)L1YQi3Q GYP.�AT E%PoSEpS�E.qyp�ApE �"���
� 5011ND&1TT0.511UTpN I I 12 :rGUUWALLNFlILNG�➢AiCNaMMaTpIEYJSf.NGI.�� DEGEMCER9,7014
� � ' _ [iICATE3MFAQFMT p EMISiMGORNF%LFEKCIMU.6BNfMM3Yd' I I 11 HOLLOWMFf/LI�AlUd.5EED00R5CH�ULFOCOflANDflNME ort�xHei
W9JU110N�WISLOPED O MEfql5N0.5,VP➢ORBFRHIEq,85'B'GYP W.0 �I ' ,y�pW�g�ry�.p�Tp1AMENTGIE%{STWGAOlP,:ENfWpLI E17W.
51HUCMiE1�W1lHNEW (�I9iE.P11pYl0E8ARMSUL1110N � I SA6ACElOPNOWEA51qOMF1V5Xq1$H�NMi
acum er
NLLVRMIEPEDEPoNFOOHNG FlALYPOIffflFDEPDMR70FN0 p�r OF105RN30RWRLLCONCNETEfM50NRYUWISwI I I 16 ��NQETEWMENNlCEPROWIfHGRLVA��SiEELCIRiB JLA.
2aT FOOF PPVERS AS IiEOUPFD � I?1E'f01 FllflfliNG.VAPOfl BAXRfffl.B LYGW xe+sroxs
ATRLL WCnIKMSFON YATH TO GIILV/NVED 5IEaPNUPET IpypEpyy7N�$ATTNO �0 hI51DE�PFOVDEFN6IDINStM710N
ANUARWNOHVnCUM�S 1OG710N5-SEEVA55FOR1VPICALPAPAPEf O INSIIIATEUPPECASTWPLLPANELvJ3518'1EfFL I 17 VREA�GN�MET/iIPULL�IPD00p(FOXSP0.4YPFPi�CipN1
NEW HVACEOLFMENf•SEE 12/A51 ���Ta-�PoFY HWFMW PAf1APEf SIWS,VIPOp 84RPoEp,8 SIB'GYP BU 011131UE
FONSIIIMCU@OEfALIPATCNB IBfdI15RU0FTOFPBHMATNNi 18 }TMLKS�EflPLAIE
SIIEGSftl1YFEfUHUFACfUFE� �PqOWEMTTINS1.lAl10N ❑ Y�1�T41NflY000NOPE1LVG5NF)751Nfi
MPTCHIXISiNGA0.NCEMROMNGI MNPOEPIHHEIbiMiCE�LG1CREfEP00FPA�3l �S I WILI�REASIRLL0E9MNlOM'OiNOi1VJBOPBl�W
MEAOFEXISi!&INACFFApVk. E% TONEMW iAV951�RMUMY�BxlSQEASPEMIREDFdi �OFPUNN�IES PLLNiBIp1WN15AflEFi1LLJIEGHf?OIRYIEIi5UE0FMETAlOECNVNLESS I ❑23 PC.MUWILfiAIR0UlA11CN6HABDVEiOPOFMA1VfEN4NCEPA�)
TO&"AFFIACFDWIIHSiflI1CfUNRL STAW�A0097LAIDAIY)SUPPOq� 1.NRlMWOFJ'PQYISOCYhYUMiEIN3UU1pN MfAiEDOT1ffMM5E �
rau.euuu�,nooFmc. �wx+ncca�+r-s¢iziw�Fonsrw,wcura eonnoRvnc.y
24 twoRoww
A�iBN1k4fP�Tp18WTpl �_ OEfAL(PATp1iMATd1ElO57NGM.NC@!lNOOFNG) '�'ADENN7EIIPf55TMTBnCNIXGBMN�9ALLRESfF001d.LOCI�R
EX�'�+)���'�^'` I �� 2U6EPAOFMr1NUFPCiUFFR6XE0dLNENOm RWN 654pWEqLOCAlpryg P$ IINRXFATEII
- DEGfSFOflALLfl00FPE�EiM1pN51pTNflYPND WhIfEwMo
EXISfMGP00i31 .�E5�AUC'IHa�FOPRA14N1E:Sf11E1U1E I �
NffA0iE10.47NGHVACPEMO'✓PL &ROOFVAVEfi5ARE5HON91WPREFERENLEONIY _ - '_ --_ _ - _ " ' ' ' _ _ I 27 WOLLMOUNIEUMON�qI
TOBEPERAC�NIIHSTXUGNPIL YEPflSEIiVICEI&ESPEaF�ECNNIICRLE0WC4 I INONIfOfiGXONDEDNYDNSfFLL�fYOWNEAI
�w�'����' 1D1U3fPAYEPUVOUfACCORp�ryGLY I HEREBY CERTIFY iHAT THIS
�BR4/S7�PATd16wTQ1 28 ��3V�� DOCUMENT WAS PREPARED
��"�"�`w��` 4APEAOiP00f1NGATIXSRVGflWFOEMOSHOWV �
prypppFpwyRppppppl,l,��,pqp�pNpyplp� GENERALNOTES I 29 oRPkfMGFqINTµY BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT
SUPERVISION AND THAT 1 AM
TOEw57N�ro7oFN�,vsx�sspp� - -- ----- - - -_-_ _ _ i � �p���N��pp�����p�.� A DULY REGISTERED ARCHITEC7
�����5������ grpqpMp7EyqM������5� COORDWATEWffHCML,STRUCTURAL,MECHANICAL, iN TNE STATE OF MINNESOTA
WPSMIMCUBOEfAL�iATd18 • IDCA7phgq�pWAN1IlY0Fb¢CN,WGLROOF ELEC7RICAL,ANDOiHERqRCHffECTURALDRAWMGS I 31 MICMWAVEO4EN$
WTCHIX6714GADUf.E11fF00flNG� ���5 I
u�coarancroRsroMn�e�Avnna�arroavao , ! O flff�'EMTOP
4I111NOPNBBY'PEPFOPoE�dNFXI$TNGFOOF I I Q RECiPILALFRIIEL
•3 wsraer[�om�neracem�ncwmncroa. CUfTRJGINf00RdSRUPTINGE705TNGCONDIATS.%PING, �� `
rou,wrxx�nsrr�pppFWAnnnnnMv PLUMBWCa,ETCAT'HpDEN'AREAS(BELOWSIAB.BEFRJD I I O E1pp5yd(WIfAPSUppdUN!
, WALL$.ETC.)
I I Q WATEANFp'Ep d� DEGQ'BER 9.30U
' I O ��/�E� �,� �a,o
NIFAOFFMSINGXVACflENOVRI. NEWXVACEWIPNBIT.SEEIIIAAI E%IStINGRWFTOREMVN I Q iqEf/UPN.ILPANIIIpNS
� IOBER�WLEDY�IMSipUG7U1Ul fOq511fA11CUf@UEfi1L�VATCH6 I
� �«aRurs�.�,anrow►� NPTCNqIS11NGMA1(�MPOORNW � � ENLARGED FLOOR PLAN
iVO b1LU5T�PRTfM l WT[w I
om�r+W-sffas�i�ss � � ruL�rwern�iora�ns�swAencHiocxen�ro'n� ROOF PLAN
� � PRONOF�ICCESSPNlELSNWALLIpB0VE0.CT.CEAINB�-VEIpFY
�1 ROOFP�N i wc�nonvnonToesruuna+.zroruauaum•nEaAes�nµ�
j ° �°��� � A 1 .2
,,,s•=,�-�• � �
�c��v�rava�sve�w wMah r�ctF��
GENERAL NOTES �
A CONDUfT AND WIRE CONNECTIONS ARE NOT SHOWN IN ALL INSTANCES PROAOE CONDUIT AND -
WIRE AS REOUIRED FOR THE INDICFTED CIRCUITRY
'� � �i`'��O 8 NEUTRAL FOR E CHEEICIRCUIiS MAY BE INSTALLED IN A CONDUiT PRONGE A DEDICATED � EL•�•I•EC
O � _ CRCUR
� �
—�---—=k-- �I — � ��� ��� � ' - "� ����� �� C DO NOT INSiALL ANY ELEC7RICAL FOUIPMENT TO IN7ERFERE WITH SERVICING HVAC EQUIPIAEN �%95s.wuH.w.W� S
�� ' -_ . _ . —�-r --�Q --i - �,— _ _ _-__ ;_^ _---__ _ _ - _'���— � ____,_ - -� .._ II ' sr tsw a�wessio5
I '+ �+�I � 'O�BS � a i� � � �� '� VERIFY EXACT LOGTION OF CEILINC MOUNTED DEVICES WIT H AR C H R E C T U R N.R E F L E C T E D C E I L I N G (65q69a5186 TN
�I ��- ��- ���L � � �'-��'4'�� ��' �jj ' � H�'�'�'- 'L PLAN,FOR WALL IAOUMED DE�ACES REfER 10 ARCHI7FCTURAL INTEPoOR ELhVAT10NS �w51���e�
�� IJQa �` ��I - � II'I . n��
O� �° �O �� p�� mI � �. � „ II,� ,y� ��I� E VERIFY EXACT LOCAiIONS OF ALL MECHFNICAL EOUIPMENT WITH DMSION 15 PRIOR TO
� ._; ���.�= sP �'a' il fCCC!ld�+ Q��.�y;$q�o� l� �❑$ III �`4 ; � 1ill� ROUGH-IN
,� �y �_�� ��__ _, :I,�1_ 'O__,'' __ I L I _--, -___ f -- ;�i �i:y ._ ____, _I� 5 �� SL F WHERE WIRE$IZES ARE INDICATED OiHER�HNI�12'S,S2E CONWfI PER NEC �T�
so�� ❑a;,��r ❑s�❑s,!�' s�- �,"�,o� ' � �/ _ - � �1 �� Hennepin County
i�_� �� � g` �'' [�] '�-[�i++; — ❑a �p _ ��''� ' n��uo�trrram corrrncr swrrcH[s rrur ww[n�E sa�E swircH oEsicrdanoN e A' ARE Orono MairHenance
�t Q ' � s s- I �/ ! — �'� � INTENDED TO BE WIRm IN PARALIEL pND CANfROI THE SAIAE REIAYS C4PITOL LETTERS
' � � � I � � , Facilit Ex ansion
�--� � � �•.._. �i° 'Iy f S_. I
�s� ���, � �?� I �� .I �� ,'��--I ; — sO� ,M / �' �� a' � INDICATE SWITCHING IS CONfROLI.Ep BV LCP-1 LOWER CASE LETfERS INDICATE LOCAL SWRCH Y p
y �- J - � i �i —��� �ii�; -- ii-,--- Qii--' ,+ �
ii7�„p�o- O -- - � i �` s p L_I /'� H LEGS
p i ,�I ! L�.4 _ I_ r� li I�� �`/ 1 CONCEAL CONDUR WHEREVER POSSIBLE COORDINATE W17H BLOCK INSTALIATION AS REQUIRED H.C.Projed No.
� ' -- - - ----- —�� WHERE SURFACE!AOUMED CqJDUR 6 REQUIRED,ROUTE IN A WORNMAN�IKE MANNER 003V66
` _ .� ,
@ �, n i � i, � ��i - '- - "-- - - - - -
_`�- �
�� , ���?' ( ; I�� , Orc � � � PARALLEL TO BUILDINC CCMPONEMS
OF�--�-....1....�'�J, � �,
� _"_, _ cc
. , � � �^ ��������������������������� J THE ENTIRE BUILDING IS TO BE CONSIDERED CLASS 1,DNISWrv 2 FVSARIXNS LOCATION FROM Construdion Contract No.
OO THE FLOOR TO 18"AFF WIRING METH005 ARE i0 COMPLY N7TH NATIOWIL ELECTRICAL CODES 401 7A5
�O �� ;� , 5-� ARTICLE 501 k 511
O�� � �"`-- K CONDUIT RUNS BELOW GRA�E SHALL HAVE ELBOWS THAT ARE WC COATED RIGID AND RUNS
�O ' � a ` OVER 100'SHALL NOT H4VE MORE THE 2 90 DEGREE BENDS 3880 Shoreline Drive
O � Orono,MN.55391
� �,- O
� �` ,~ � KEYED NOTES
j� , , � � PAULSON & CLARK
' , , O CIRCUITS OF THIS HOIAERIIN PRE TO RUN THROUGH THE TIMECLOCK BEFOF�TERMINA7ING IN THE ENGffiEERING, INC.
� . INDICATED POWER PANEL 2952 E.County Roed 7
a - - - _ Transportation �e�,�w«,�w ssuo
� � c,
� 3 U3L U5f Q LOCATION OF EXTERiOR PHDTOCELL PROVIDE WIRING TO TIAIECLOCK.4S RFOUiRED O[t�ce:(651j 407-605B
Fmc: (851)407-8478
� ' � � � O FEED FRON AN UNSWITCHED UGH7ING CIRCUIT SERNNG THIS ARFA
%
3 �' I ' Oi RLL 0.ECTRICAL EQUIPMENi AND CONNECTIONS IN THIS AREA SHAl1 BE COVS�DERED WATERTIGHf'
� ' � , � OO i � � BELOW 16'AFf
r Os PRONDE A WATf STOPPER DT-300 SERIES OCCUPANCY SENSOR,OR EQUAL,FOR CONTROL OF
. �,� i, /
� � I UGHfING IN 7HIS ROOM. REFER TO DEfAIL 3/E31 FOR WIRING ANO SWITCHING REQUIRE11EM5
0031�66
� iil _ �__ _ ,_1 _ _ O } , _ , e � � O PRONDE A LfTHONIA/FAC-ISSC-375-120/277-SN INVERTER SYSTEM AL�� Fl7(TURE TYPE'CC' ����r�� �R
��I I � ,. �� ' � FlXfl1RE5 AT EXfERIOR OOORS SHALL BE ROUTED THROUGH INVERTER PRJViDE UL 924 REIAY M°'�"C0�`�""""C01""�''
� , �I � - �- - - -�-i i=t-1} �-_ --___ __ \ � � ( AND CONNECTqNS AS REOUIRED 4m�a5
s� 5 0 5 Q 5 � 13-33
� �' II � I I O �RAIWI GSnAND SPECIFlGTIONSGFOR DI OW�1 E UR yE�DUCF AL ERNA E DEDUCCT�6N� ~�
' QQ � , ACCEPTEO, ONE OF THE ttPE CC FlXiURES SHOWN SH4LL BE RELOCATE�TO IXTERiOR WALL OF � ���e�9,piy
��_ � E�� - ��� , �" _+� ,� ��rQ1, AIEN'S LOCKER ROOM �
� i 4rdA E1�'I LI�S,' o5v
�s��� , I �s OO REfER TO DEfNLS 1 E3 1 k 2 E31 FOR COMROL REOUIREMENT$IN THIS SPACE
� � �� Q : , ' Q� Q — / /
� � � • s PROVIDE PARAGON TYPE EV4 1-DAY T��MECLOCK,OR EWAL PROVIDE CONNECTION TO E%TERIOR o~ ��
i i 0
, _ Q' �i';�=��_ _� _ _ � UGHTING FOR CONTROL
3[I �
,�� O PROVIDE ilA1E SWITCH fOR WERRIDE OF OCCUPANCY SENSORS IN STORAGE AREA TIME SWTICH
� � � , '� i ; x-r* �` ;�Q n4I�'I SH4LL BE ADJUSTABLE UP TO 4 HOURS PROVIDE All CONNECTIONS AS REQUIRED
, � - _�� � �.J
_ . � _ . . � _ , -> - � s '
- ; . , �. " ,, - �� ,p -
�
� ��� �o
o �, o �=" , �.
� - � - F
�,.
_ � , , � . �-,-=-_ ��� �0,-, �.
- ' - 1 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT 7H15
3 r OOCUMENT WAS PREPnRED
9� q� 9-� - 9� � �� ,�,�' �' ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT
��� SUPERVISION AND THAT i AM
� ( � � � A DULY REGISTERED ENGINEER
IN TNE STATE OF MINNESOTA
�
NraiNUwX541q
�vw.Ane�iu� �.,� QLJ$P..R._.
ararcie n wi2sne• ,,,.e«,
b]5 Y12ANG � DECU,IBER 9.2014
76'-IW ilOAWG
� ELECTRICAL LIGHTING PLAN � �+'-� �s�+� �e,..,o.23796
� 7A1'3B7 i6nM/G
y� 1/8'=1'-0'
3
� •w,ns,�,naw,mn�,en. ELECTR�CAL LIGHTING
x«anaNeinn�toneuaw. PLAN
v�e.m eawv�»o�a.w�d
��.ak�nirwrmTaa�a „o.
M�NEf
E1 .1
a��ru�ciFtisa� ��
eu�n 000a
WALL PAdC UCtiTING
T.O.WALL(V91.STOR.)
8.120'�'1�Y
�w�oasn�eFv.�
s+umeusr�ro�os�
���
pn�uu��
ooMc.P�►�as�
-k..�• -- --- T.o.a,00R
� - a�ar�
���_ zr<r�a�os�eomaN
(K761lN7E Sti0NYH)
S7FH BOL!ARO6
� EAST ELEVATION
U
3rsr=r-0-
PA�HETILL RA9lNKi!FIISCIA
T.O.WJ1LL(VBI.SfOR.f .
B..1ZD'�'YB�FY
uu�a+��rr,�aE,�a
s�rneusr��o�os�
���
�onrs�u►�x�cAsr
CONC.PMBS)
WALLPAIXt1CHf07G
TA.FLOOR
� -- - - - - _ �_.._...._ ...�:. - B.tard'
�� 4T-0'PAOPOSED VBYpES10AlICf ADOIiION �
��� ��� �
� SOUTH ELEVATION(PARTIAL)
� -
�2-=,•.o-
RECEIVED
DEC 12 2014
CITY OF ORONO
� � 70�
� ,
�t
��rK
RASF#NG/FASpA
WALL PAqC LIGkRNG
�L0.WALL 1��)
�B..tt�'-0
P(�Yi.ALUIL STOflEFRONf W
NStA.ATID GIASS
e
SM�81�151�/FJ�O6H1
M�GATE F#�SFI �
{ON 9aSlAA7�PF�CASTCOI�IC. s f
PM�S)
T U.f100H `
a.100'-0" � j - - --
28V'PAOPOS�AOdIIOM ,�_E70.STNG BUI.WiG�
� WEST ELEVATION
�
�-=r-o-
PRffO�FED IEfILL FLAS11fIC/FA9CIA
Pp�7�IEfAL
WALLPAp(LICf1fNG �R.ONI9CUPP8�
TA.WALL(V61.STOR.)
8..1�'3'VH�Y
�ALIC�IIW EXI51MIfi H EU.) Pf�4ETAL RJ�IG/FA9CN
PRffliSF�IETAL
WNIPACKUf�1ifRIG �� WIILLPACKLIGt1�NG
T.O.WNL�
SAlO BIASi�lE%POS� 8.114'-0'
A�'iAIE F�H
(ON P6lN.AT�PRECASI Pt�PL ALIA�I
CONC.PANBS) ar . SfOR&RONTef
tlJ�J17�C�ASS
i
r
w
L0.FlAOR
EL 100'-0' -- _ T.Q RDOH
�tOD'�'
41'-0'PNOP�Y@�f7.E S7bR11GE AOIXiIOp 79-19'PiqP'�AODIiION
Uu1Qau►�
SAlD B.ASi�IF�OBED A�RE6ATE Hi�i
� NORTH ELEVATIOId �a+e�u►,��srcoHc.r,wss�
U 3+�'=r-o-
RECEIVED
D�C 1 � 2014
cmr oF oRorvo
.
# 3704
Councii
Exhibit C
���0
C ITY OF ORONO
,�1 ,� Street Address: Mailing Address: Telephone(952)249-4600
� Gti 2750 Kelley Parkway I P.O.Box 66 I Fax (952)249-4616
�
l.q t�, Orono,MN 55356 Crystal Bay,MN 55323 www.ci.orono.mn.us
kEsxo�`
5 February 2015
Eric Werner
Oertel Architects, ltd
1795 St.Clair Ave
St. Paul,MN 55105
SUBJECT: Zoning Application#15-3704
On December 12, 2014 your application for a CUP and site plan approval for your property at 3880 Shoreline
Drive was considered to be complete. Your application was before the Planning Commission on their January
agenda and is scheduled to be on the Council's February 9th agenda for their review.
The current deadline for City action on your application based on the application completion date is February
10, 2015. The City is extending the time period for City action on application #15-3704 under Minn. Stat. §
15.99, subd. 3(�. Please note the time period for action on this application is hereby extended until April
11,2015.
Your application is scheduled to be before the Orono City Council for their initial review this Monday,
February 9th. As there is a possibility that the Council may not offer a final decision upon first review I am
extending the review timing an additional 60 days. Please contact me at 952.249.4627 or
mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us if you have questions on this matter.
Sincerely,
CITY OF ORONO .
Vt �
Melanie Curtis
Planner
Council
Exhibit D
Date Application Received: 12/12/14
Date Application Considered as Complete: 12/12/14
60-Day Review Period Expires: 02/10/15
To: Chair Leskinen and Planning Commission Members
Jessica Loftus,City Administrator
From: Melanie Curtis, Planner ul ,�l/
Date: 14 January 2015
1�IlV��
Subject: #15-3704 Hennepin County Property Services, 3880 Shoreline Dr
• CUP&Commercial Site Plan Review
• Variance
• Public Hearing
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zoning District: LR-1C,One Family Lakeshore Residential,%:acre/100'
Lot Area: 6.69 acres/291,643 square feet
Lot Width: 660 feet beyond the access driveway/50 feet(access driveway)at Shoreline Drive
Application Summary: The applicant requests conditional use permit approval to allow a 3,200
square foot addition on the north side of the existing building; a commercial site plan review
process is also required. The property is at 47%hardcover where 359�o is permitted;the addition
will result in nonstructural hardcover to be converted to structural hardcover which requires a
hardcover variance.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the request with
conditions.
list of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application
Exhibit B. Existing Conditions Survey
Exhibit C. Proposed Site Plan
Exhibit D. Construction Plans
Exhibit E. Elevation Drawings
Exhibit F. Submitted Hardcover Calculations
Exhibit G. City Code Sections: CUP, Site Plan, Hardcover
Exhibit H. MCWD Application Materials
Exhibit I. Resolution No.4485
Exhibit J. Resolution No.4832
Exhibit K. Site Photos
Exhibit l. Aerial Photos
Exhibit M. Property Owners List
Exhibit N. Plat Map
Background
Hennepin County has operated a highway maintenance facility from the property since 1962; the
facility is used primarily for winter road maintenance.The facility was constructed when the property
was zoned for commercial purposes and the property was re-zoned in the early 1970s to LR-1C
(single family residential) district. The maintenance facility was allowed to continue as a legal, non-
conforming use. The use of the property today is considered a public service structure which is
, �
FILE #15-3704
14 Jan 2015
Page 2 of 5
allowed via conditional use permit(CUP) pursuant to Zoning Code Section 78-348(7); an expansion or
change to the existing use or structures on the property requires a CUP. Additionally, a formal
commercial site plan review is required. The CUP and site plan review will be covered by this singular
application.
The applicant requests CUP and site plan approval to permit a 120'x 26' addition to the existing
building; primarily to add office, storage and locker room space within the existing maintenance
garage building. The addition will result in 3,224 square feet of additional structural coverage and
while the property currently exceeds hardcover limitations, the addition will be constructed entirely
over existing hardcover.
LOT ANALYSIS:
Lot Area/Width:
LR-1C Lot Area Lot Width
Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acre) 100'
Actual 291,643 s.f. (6.69 acres) 660' beyond the access driveway
Setbacks:
Setback requirements shown are outlined in City Code Section 78-348(7) regarding conditional use
permits for public service structures.
LR-iC Required Existing Proposed
Front
(measured from the 220' (to the south side of
property line beginning 50' ±310' (to the addition)
existing building)
at the end of the access
driveway)
±305' (addition)
East Side 50' ±315' ±125' (existing salt shed)
West Side 50' t220' ±220'
Rear(North) 50' 90' (existing building) 64.5' (addition)
50' (existing salt shed)
Structural Covera�e:
Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage
291,643 s.f. (6.69 acres) Allowed: (No limit, as site is over 2.0 acres in area)
Hardcover Calculations:
Stormwater Total Area Allowed
Overlay in Tier Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover
District Tier
Tier 3 291,643 s.f. 102,075 s.f. 137,037 s.f. 137,037 s.f. (no change)
(35�) (47%) (47�)
FILE #15-3704
14 Jan 2015
Page 3 of 5
Hardcover Variance
At 479�o hardcover,the property currently exceeds the Tier 3 hardcover limit of 35�0. The proposed
addition will be constructed over existing hardcover and will not result in an increase. The change
from nonstructural hardcover to structural hardcover technically requires approval of a hardcover
variance.
Conditional Use Permit Analysis
City Code Section 78-348(7) allows for public service structures in the LR-1C district as a conditional
use, provided that all buildings and structures are located at least 50 feet from any adjacent property
zoned for residential use. Additions to an existing conditional use are treated as amendments to the
earlier approval.
By code, conditionally permitted uses must be reviewed using the criteria found in Sections 78-916
and 78-1286 of the Shoreland regulations. On the basis of the application and the evidence
submitted,the city must find that the proposed use at the proposed location is or will be:
(1) Consistent with the community management plan;
(2) Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as
required by article V, division 3 (i.e.78-966 thru 78-968)of the City Code;
(3) Adequately served by police,fire, roads,and stormwater management;
(4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system;
(5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost;
(6) Compatible with the surrounding area as the area is used both presently and as it is
planned to be used in the future;
(7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character is
called for in the community management plan;
(8) Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the surrounding area,
unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan;
(9) Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the area or
have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when compared to the
impairment or impact of generally permitted uses;
(10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and
activities likely to disturb surrounding uses;
(11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes, dust,
electrical interference,general unsightliness,or other means;
(12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause
a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties,traffic congestion, or unsafe access;
(13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to
minimize environmental impact;
(14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public
right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts; and
(15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety,or general welfare.
i 1
FILE #15-3704
14 Jan 2015
Page 4 of 5
With regard to this application, items 2, 6, 7, 8,9,and 13 are generally applicable.
Re: Item 2. The proposed addition is not visually obtrusive, will not adversely impact adjacent
properties and is compliant with the zoning code.
Re: Items 6, 7, and 8. These criteria essentially ask whether the proposed improvements are
appropriate and in character with the surrounding land and neighborhood. Staff believes the
proposed addition to the existing building will not intensify the existing equipment and vehicle
activity on the property and will have little if any impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The
exterior materials used in the addition will be finished with precast concrete panels with a sand
blasted/exposed aggregate finish that will be colored to look consistent with the existing building.
The addition is to be constructed over existing hardcover and will have no stormwater impacts. The
previous improvements approved for this site in 2000 resulted in the installation of the existing
stormwater pond in the southeast corner of the property.
Re: Item 9. This standard requires that the proposed use must not substantially impair the use and
enjoyment of the property in the area or have an adverse impact on the property values in the area
when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses. The proposed addition to
the building will have limited new impacts in terms of use of the site, and there should be little
change in the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties.
Re: Item 13. This standard requires that the addition be designed to take into account the natural,
scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact. The proposed
addition will result in no grading and will be constructed over existing hardcover, and as a result will
have minimal if any environmental impacts.
Site Plan Review
The proposed addition will result in almost no change to the site layout or site usage. The addition
will not result in significant changes to access to the building or vehicular traffic patterns within the
site.The existing site plan is in compliance with past approvals. The additional overhead door for the
portion of the addition slated for vehicle storage is facing into the site to the south and should not
impact properties to the north.
In December, the applicants applied for an erosion control permit from the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District (MCWD). Issuance of all MCWD permits will be a requirement of the City building
permit.
Staff Discussion
The site plan review approval will formalize the change from nonstructural to structural hardcover.
The proposed addition to provide additional office, storage and locker room space will not result in a
notable intensification of the site as the vehicle and equipment use on the site will not increase. The
proposal should have virtually no negative impacts to adjacent properties nor will there be negative
impacts in terms of stormwater or site usage. Staff would recommend that future requests to
increase the hardcover on the site not be approved.
The Building Official, Fire Marshal, and City Engineer will review the construction plans at the time of
the building permit.
Issues for Consideration
�
FILE #15-3704
14 Jan 2015
Page 5 of 5
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. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Staff Recommendation
Planning Staff recommends approval of a CUP for the proposed addition and approval of the site
plan,subject to the following conditions:
1. Adherence to the approved plan;
2. The building permit application will be subject to engineer, building official and fire marshal
review; and
3. Subject to MCWD approval.
1 �
PC Exhibit A
City of Orono
Land Use & Conditional Use Permit
Application
sr,�r aad►��: �+��.� /S 3 70
�O/�rO 2750 Kelley Parkway
��� Orono,MN 55356 ��: /�/
Main: 952-249�600 ��
fax: 952-249�616 �:
� Mailing Addiess: ���'� .
� � P.Q.Box 66
� G� Crystal Bay,MN 55323-0066 ��!
l�kESH��� �:
� _ ��i��'aVq�#qll�'k��� �� �������'.`�l1�'� y�.. . �,er-�'�1�
. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas.
Job Site Address: 3880 Shoreline Drive,Orono,MN. 55391
CONTRACTOR/APPLICANT INFORMATION:
Name: Oertel Architects
Phone: 651-696-5186 Fax: 651-696-5188
Address: 1795 St.Clair Avenue City: St.Paul ZIP: 55105
Contact Person: Eric Werner ContacYs phone number 651-696-5186,ext.306
Email ewerner@oertelarchitects.com Applicant is: Homeowner (Circle One)
Owner's Representative(Architect)
PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION:
Name: Hennepin County(Contact:Gre�Moore)
Phone(day): 612-596-7830
Mailing Address: Hennepin County Property Services,300 S.6th St.A2208,Minneapolis ZIP: 55487
Email and/or Fax �regory.moore@hennepin.us
Overall Project Description: Renovation&Addition to the existin�Hennepin County Maintenance Facility
Check Box LAND USE APPLICATIONS A lication Fee Escrow
A al of Administrative Decision $50 NA
X Commercial Site Plan Review $700' $�o,000(minimum)
Com rehensive Plan Amendment $700* $700
Easemerrt/Rf ht-of Wa ROW Vacation,without Subdivision $700* $700
PID 5 acre minimum er code $200/acre minimum$1,000" $�0,000(minimum)
PUD Rezonin 12 Corridor Onl —Residential $700+$40 r dwellin unit* $10,000(minimum)
PUD Rezonin 12 Corridor Onl —Commercial/Industrial $200/acre minimum$875* $10,000(minimum)
RPUD or PRD,without Subdivision $50/dwellin minimum$600 $10,000(minimum)
Zonin Amendments includin Rezonin • $700* $700
Check Box CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(CUP A lication Fee Escrow
After-the-Fact CUP Double Fee
Amend Existing CUP $700' N/A
X Commercial/Industrial Use $700" $700
Duplex Credit(per building) $700* $700
Gradin and Fillin 1 cu. d.or more $700*+permit Fee $700
Gradin and fllling—within 75'of OHVUL(includes seawalls&retaining walls) $700"+Permit Fee $700
Grading and filling-anretland and floodplain $700"+Permit Fee $700
Guest House/Guest A rtment $700" $700
Institutional—Type: $700" $700
Renewal of CUP, IF no chan e to ori inal lan $350 NA
Residential Accesso Use—T e: $700" $700
pEC 12 2014 ������ : : �s
C�'TY pF ORONO � � � O�
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS:
All of the following information must be submitted by the application deadline date in order for your application to
be processed.
� O Escrow A reement si ned
❑ � Pre-A lication Form
� ❑ Certified Pro ert Owners List 350' , labels and ma
� � Pro osed Plans
� � Se tic S stem Site Evaluation Re ort
❑ ❑
APPLICANT AND/OR OWNER:
• Agree to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department,
• Agree to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses
incurred in review of this application, and
• Certify that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant and
owner recognize that they are solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware
that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reject it until it is complete or to
recommend the request for denial of the request regaMless of its potential merit.
. Acknowledge the Escrow Agreement is completed and signed.
• The Owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto
the property by City Staff, consultants, agents, Commission and Council Members for purposes of
investigation and verification of this request.
• Owner and/or Applicant acknowledge they must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the
Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant and/or owner is unable to attend a scheduled meeting,
please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicanUowner and
advise the City Planner assigned to your project.
Owner's Signature: ��'`'"' Date: ��' �°� 't'4'
Owner's Signature: Date:
Applicant's Signature: """ Date: z 1
App�icant's Signature: Date:
RECEivE�
DEC 12 2014
� � � O� CITY OF ORONO
� S.,R£ATEFS' I � g •-__P.7Fd'C .....:l7C^ ' IB'� � '
}�,��j �' �' f/m^op!^. Lb�^:y ,f,@e.�esob �`',
/� y} � 3LC�.Y< < N �{�I 1� \ co: i
IW ' S� ��'^ 5 � i S : . . . ' �
[ _ _' , \ / �� � °7prjj�.'��
TF ia'u•w•dam.av � 1 ��`_9c�@•]' h
Ii 1 I — __ � ]PY03 �{ t �� �' {�
t � �. ; ���f �
I , � a�� ��;������
� � � Q n ��8 ��s,��� ,
I ; �, �_,,
V ,� � � � � � � �„��,5� �
� � —�-- g ;-
� � �. . - - - ���e _„� �
i `9� ;�p �
�� � �80! B' •M .N � S 11 ��.�
� $33 f ����g
sx � � � ' �\ f t
1� �' 6�
; � o, ..._ � � : �
� w�•�e•o.•e xax.es � �
St. 1 � { !• � ' �•p ,��52
� 1$
a� � ,� � f � ��� g'�
� !,I �e g S
i i+� �y . �,�!E� q $ � ��
� ' i _ � � S ;•t • 5! � , •1:��'
� If '' �. E" a *4 A
� � �I 7 � ��, d 's ��
� fi i �''.;,g�;' � � S�E (S o ` �:
� � �-:.�,� � N `��i� � I'' � ' y�
I a� I ;�$ :� � ' _ � t
I m� I • ` f p
; r d f � r :1
i � i �`�, ; � �`� ' .
i � � i -- ' � ��, � ' ' ' 1 �
�� j� � � � s .._� ,
i m� � i ---- �� '
� 1.
� � � �
i . ai � �
; ,
C1,^,�,.NAwa '
"_�� _-
, ` '_'_"""'__"'"__"' i'
� � � `�.'C.'IGL'C,.'W rq��e�•
I '�I� I � �� �ox^,s::o • of Lan�o OCK Pnr. �1�11 jITt
� ' ; 3 1 1;
�
- � =��;`�t t� �a�s��y�t t a` �� 3� � �
I j ��€ ;��,"�� �*�-' a�,;,- a��,��.
IIII{II�{I#I�III (I�'I � °��1 �9 ;''���� ��'a�ff°p� � �k `�'�- O
' Y� � !1 1 �t � .-6. i - ..r$F-. ° dY� �� �
��i°������' g! !�� `� J ��:.�� #, -�-��� � 1�� o
� r�i � ,� �� ..� . � �t �����•`�§� �� �����i u z
� 9 � i� � c : i 3 §�5;.. ���,.^! 'q ( gs'f"' p �
� ! 6��r�� 1 a � 6 4i $ a�'�ej��''��� 3 �i� � M
i � �� - ? .��-�`-_ �� ������ � a s�t:� �
"�# ; � .>.....` e � � � �H%€ ��`�_� ,g �,'s��� �. ��� ��
�] � ��' i i i � a ' ` 9� ��f ����.���s-'�a t ; �4`�t+r�� '��.-�u
�,fa� � � ,. �s..� �
� � � � i� �� � � �`� s��'1;��f�,? � �s Fs�� ���
.Typr � 0 I � � � � �3 �s ��i����,g'�R� � g��� i����� �
�*! � � � � ' � t� �� ' a��°gJ.'s3;3� a� a�'a„��°;i ii��1�� � A� �
��� � �� q � ���� � =ii3s ��3'd iG �
�`- sa i:;,, k• !- � �
� ��
9
mn
%
S
�
� �1
'"A�- �r�'�,axs's.i�'"�'.. /p' _ 'Z.1°'
,'`, ths
P P�I a« /� . .e '09 E 5�� � '
a
/' . o�i+o,-= N7�p 32 A .
-�-*" �i�a�.
P '
, ��' 9� Wi STOiMf
� �. •�3 ,\ P - - - T�a-s42:Za 3e.o
,,+ as,z9�4 � � _ ��J i„� _!''' t. ""' _"...,,-'
6�� ,�9,g0 � ....---- j� . , oncrets o,
FOtA�O A/M ._----"" T�t , AeLafninp wall $; S8
� �p `�"` • '✓I'!Y p'� 3tore 3ewers �`- �
�P .•r��~I �► lUnkno►m Out1*t . �
" f- �r aleetrlc hooknp �
. � ' - . Q� , - " m P i
�
_� ___ �,, 'l &8 �� ���� � �� ` U��
Q 0 --- ----- --- �' \ �—��P SO �, B
��-� ,
JUDI�C[Al.�� � - - _ � Roof L4�ts 8:
LAIONIIAK `i �� - 1 L�
_ _ � \ . �, 9A4 80.3 ��
�� �; `� — �i`'� -
' '� '1 �'Lin6 (+ero13s3i riEh��eG lOC e$ ,. , �(� •
' lini'of' `SiREATER'8� " ' . , �ert:of tAe �a�t l3rt� of ' T�1'8. ` ' , �
NO PkRK AODITTaI'. * L ,fMrv�ispin T�.o�m�tq MSn�naotm . ~ � �/�,
� fl�e. StOTy � �
�Pin GcunfY Mi�nNo£a , - - - p_- � i ' , o' �, f , /
j _ � .•;�,Bricfic Edildinp, �,' �- � 9` 6uardpoats� �V
r. �:� t i I�i � �--�ay: Bi'twinou's a, 388Q: Sfinr�line DI^ive. � � t � G�j(�
.� -- _ _ ' �� 1r � \ "8n�rdpoits�
�1.;; CrP• { - - - , t �J j �ntroncs � 94d�. i'� #io�f � � 9' 8uirdpasfe, ��
� --, �, � TAArT' � �i E avatton, 964'.3
i
IIV1L1 � e
�'1. `v m� ; Floor Eievation•� 944,.3 • ��
.t;CJ� �,,\ f�rl 'Ry L.,,��� ' ' ' '� 9• 6uarapoete�
��� L.i? \W �� € �; o`' ', eo.21 �, �,g; ��
' �� O '�j � ° �'��� Pro3ect eench�erk .e.'
y� ,'�7' • � ' �! ` cd� . y .:6A�N�pi' v Eisvetian � 8�16.07
_� �: 4 .�
C` � :'i' � w.j�'� 7' N'dp0� v � �
4�1 / ~� 0, Fnal T �;� Entrancs �944�.3
Z` _ � � tbvars� '�.,.: 7' 8mrdposts _
�' / j .' � '
� i ,�e. � '� ', T 8uareposts ,�, � . . � � 4' 9anitary S��v�r 8srvieo �
�' ,''.fi:6`font hiyh �� •,�'�..
, l rtal d�ck �, - r- •., k
�{, , � ` , �, • ►etth��t�pr ' tl�tsr N�nhoi� � •
, �`, 'w7tA 4• wbr pi�s • \ `� .
f� �� , • ' •' , � C�� < �'� 91tua
�MN-BANTTARY 8 Staors�Sewer (Unknown G�ttlat�
;; �• Erttl�18"CI�- • ' 1 End 18'qP � T/R�9�12.49 �
�, : inwrt � 999.�0 ,, � Invart - �8Y.83 = '
� � . • . • : ; a,�,_ TRACT �� � ;
� . . �. . � �. . � �- . . . !,
� .� . . - . .. � // : � � .-- _.
PC Exhibit C
--- --- I��
SIIEPUNqEVlWNpTE3 p�TMORITY OER1'EL
'"°°ae"°'"�""e�°'s'mem°ur,aa"m�w'^ox c10 RApa°PD - ARCHIT'ECTS
2111EPROPOlEiNIA0N9.10�IIpNR10G1FeNMINIFAT4IT I NAl 501
, i.u�mWoeE�xrntacd�ncx�Aea'usix�c NENNEPIN���PROPERi'�MAP N � •
�uawawvxa mu�s..uovneaoA'�xu�ue¢ ot�pnw
�CEOM11M9MMWIFIWSMIFANCIY.9NRIE�Q �1grryOPPPKT��l1 —_— ...ww.Wma
♦
GENEMLNO7E5 —_ _______—._ �zoe��� mor[�urfq�v
– xn sz o9" ••��
i wanox�nwman au�watwnonertao[wi�w ooerrvc�wcE Hermepin County
OEM01
' uremraiu[rawartcax�re�wovanes.xtw��s .. .. .. Orono MaiMemnce
�ON�d� ',sx e�. FadY Ex mion
, 2caaarwnxvxcAa.sw�cnavt�.vo �s � 'h' P°
�@ �ep,������� , H.C.Pro�M No.
BWdMU1ENLCq6TPoICIlO1TMTTM�,4fl/LEWIIINNfI � POWERFdE �
' Pu�smn^iooaunu�wameixcmi ' 0031766
ummru�hMnxxn+¢cnewna�res T (f-
SLOpUIMhMMq1Y6001MYM111Oi1�PoR LElOSi1NG
caamunnxxaKnurv�ensnm�w�cortquwv�re � erturmous � ConsimctionCanraallo.
>RVEMEN( �' AOI7AS
O
SREPUNNQIES - _—-�— -�1 EJ08TNG FXISIING EAB1BlGBLLTBTOiUOE ; a
m �R� --"—" --_ I o^ annve� ; p��n. �r� 7 3880 Shorelfrro Drive
" � � �s r.�rEa ��n� $ Orono,MN.55391
m mros r��eom�mn.r�u.rwiroea++ea u t "�Cw..., I
/�� ammnrrous y
I m reae e �• � •� V _l n"EIOBTMG°"-, � >4VEMENf� z li P
m me g � � n L_-' WFTERME7ERa� 1 F
m e�rtmw� ma�e�ir�r I � m e � ��0 iI I O
m tw moert�wrisW j UFL � I I �
f� �
m uwrsisws U ' BMROFF ��{N
m lNu�aYts�pl O f PROPERI'ILME. O
a a E%KTWOFEHCE -�
�mrrs��ararowuriwwm o� f �yn� � p I�
y Q WAIERTAN( �P�
T m +M+�2Ol[w�io�,m�iWw�YM��sAwf x �� �GUMPS A mrrm�r.
� � � ���„� STATON ���
�wKt�� � O
- ____'.__. _' __ _._____- PROPERMLME ..�e
" __________""_"___ -__ "_ �em
PUNIFGElm: � €�snn¢cEr�ce �Si�INH6Ou8PAVEMENT� .
______ ___.__.___ � - �
�xrunws�wwrverr+ce 'y��'.-,�
eu[eimvul�.r�Twum o ExsTsic ^
wiarot�xo�w�xrv�nrHu -vam wsnno
IEIEPNONEPOLE " M
LqQflEP�VN(A WXCREIE6IR�ER
�WMCAEIES�EW,UXCONCPEfEH1a0P ppg�p��E ' < { ;
� E]OBT�1f3 FENCE
13
�����NLLPMiCH 9]958 E� 5 , � ~
IE "..Mef'�0 Se•F
MRMSREACCE33 WSTINOPOND
� ��w
Z
srenio.�wrren
�^ � o � _ � .r�e snre oc�nr.r.�so.
�9 m � PROPOSED SITE PLAN � e-6_�i��' '
� n�
h
�
a
'""° '"' � PROPOSED SITE
� �
— PIAN
si� �"'^` SHOREUNE DRIVE (HCSAH 15,PLAi 68) �.
�E°� � A0. 1
_/ 9�E gp'G•��_y� ti +� `-nc�UrtKTY LINE \
rouHo N�7�3Z. . , � �95
7 EXISTING FENCE
�mc
_ ' ' � ` � 9aB
0.h 1 _ ,r� . J0.0
96(�,,
� � � EXISTING o
� 2
POWER POLE �
s4a 8 Nn:hk na,4uv-;t.
..... ..................................... .......... ..........
q44 I
10
�EXISTING
9
"6 BITUMINOUS—y, " "`"°"`
PAVEMENT _\ °0''
y
� EXISTING EXISTING �
GRAVEL FACILITY EXISTING �
' � GAS METER
U�pper Roof EXISTIP
[��\ 9 Elswtion � 984.3 8�,�,UM��
� iD \, — 2 Floor Elewtlon . 944.3 cas-
C L_J EXISTING � �: 9 PAVEM
,r- ,
. ...................... .... .. WATER METER 3� •
� o
/Ary ` � 9
4 EXISTING '
FUEL �;•.
...�
.�:�� p .. �
2 SHUT-OFF,,:;;'.' � ' r k
..:•' . ••, . . •...
:�,. , .
b ':.X '
•...
....
...
....
� � ....
a .,7�• .
'�` •''•:h•, 4
� ., �
' �, EXISTING EXISTING
' , WATER TANK �S A
� • FILLING -�pUMPS g"�
., STATION
. , : . e
�PERTYtINE" '
3TING FEN � � EXISTIN 9'��
. CE. ' G
� �• BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT o"°
. . , � �, :•.�XI;
'ExiSTING� � �w •'�:F?OT.
� POMID • . EXISTING
� • . ' ' • ,, TELEPHONE POLE . 9'��
• W�
—EXISTING FENCE , � 9 v 936 93B
. ' A 93
�'38'S8 E '1 p.52
• rarno !'ear�':� ",NS.J.'3��58"•�•'• 9.92
• � � -'.:. :..:';'.'.::�..r ,• ..�:. ':; ,..
. ' MAIN SITE ACCESS � :�'•'EXISTING POND : �:'�,;;��:;:��
939
ee.c�a a.w.M
'�p 01 Sh�SeufA 932 9�p
ZJS MI W T4WTY11W '
936
918
�
_.—�_�93a� N
N / 9q
3 �
3890 '�p �
�
w �
�� � ��� ��
i2 �
J 9'' '.�L.�
s
-�Z� PROPOSED SITE Pl
i
9j9
� '
�936 � a
�_�/PWL FOUND 6/!PIN
M 2 0�
-KO�NAII IN . ..�JO^�2 &�luuiutKww ..� �....�. .. ._
z• i e ���.�.
.�,'� k,..�u� E
�'"-:.a�^^,;'.�."�.;�.� Ntnd dooa
rma�ooa .��,�..m...��,,...,.,,m�
Nma aooidaa�ariro �� �,��n: z
�..--� ,�,�� ..��„�. ,�� � ,.��.�n," I
�/���%�%� (/ �`vmX q� W9A'BI15MOt3BISY3W h138MM s�nmiwai yn
+eaullr wb�w�a uxeuram s.m.oiwm � c
wau,yv� bMIdd51MIOl00BN19C13aMle'MIBqtlOUIMaNW10 a
���� UMYO11d13LLYAtl3iti011MOlWOLMtlINDJTN
M
Bp1MYW T`1N119YtYN1B110mNAJItlISIB �~�
M1 s � aaro3�wm�� 'T��MMF]I'TMN'JIMI9YA�MLLM311NU/101 wswn
�3Wi7 v U3tl3�5io35�lM 1 au�uvYe�uwamuro'u'�w� _ _______ _ __- �wroW nwaara
0 a d�aMd s��nu�i°�3��OG �Y'0 $31ONTIM3IH'J aim u v��fiu03
� woumiww«r�m�� W.urmr�u�w � w
,.,� ____'___ ___ __ nna"r°.��n:w�.+'�"�wm< """'"""""�'
wa�euxwaumangn
a.wvw� mana�n .0 �����WTMoo�un�•m�
� ,M� I--�,m,�,..a.o...a.��'.m� .��....�.,, ��m�.��,�� �.�a I n.,a ewm
�� I � �aw. �� ,wma- amw�.�ovw'�°,wm
o-avne�.�.n.vvm�.uoraYx�..mn.� mo.�an�mnuumnma �anwn.w v1 �wm.auam�u
we"°o.m."a�TM an�+rua,,,.�w � �m.r...a�o.� ��� �"�• u�oo�u�.anumwM
ww. wwun.v�.wwf� n.��aum�s�' «nu��.,�a
mu.nw1uwmmaomnvwaii�ivw� re� � aurw
� �..� i ...,,,.�.��`�:,O ��,,.�,�
,�f��,�,m.. ' ' �„ • ,.m.�.m.4,.m
�.m.�.w',;,':"d�� ..,.,,.,'~..�.�',O �°°� �
sy.�.� �,.�a,....�,..�.��. .,� I �.�,�, ...,�. � ��
�..�o ,..Wx�..�v.�,�O ' � .
____ _ v�..a�eoyp ara..ua.mwnv.m.%�m.nw.owm.�' ��.awa '�'� m�' �4 =o� �'�^ �
--- a�w�.m O � ..na�e.na:s.�vv:�QQ
rcw 5310NNYWM001� I________ ____S3dALl1tlM a•r•� wc• � v.mn. �e"i.oe°�°.m.a�o �
� au.r�n�<ar�sn
�.NYId NOOId a3`J2MN3 NLLNVd „y,
� ++� w�
� � ra
i "a � � --�i i . . . �a....rd—=_:-�
�'m° i � ' dn i� -�� ��i��Y\ rs oc
�6ESS,NW���Q — ---)' I I I I I I I I I I�'_ _�
ae��p auip�o4S 088E � Y �
sv�iov 'i � � � 's o �1' , 0 0' �� + 4
°N uo4w)uolVn4�uo� a�O� �T �� y� _''q � ,0�
� � \ 4 i6�
I ��\
99L1f00 '�i � �+ rn� y a '�" �W
'�N Wh+d 7H O' � � * ._-�` A� \ , d
3 z � �
uolsuodx3 NIIPo� �� a`a �� � .�e sa sz ..c le ,epy r< ii AEy 4
a�uow�u�oyy ouwp a v
� � ' - ,
��,u'd�H • � � Q �
________'________ � .
OV� ^� �� � / b � r - , + 1 �O O O q+
v `� .(1n��m�m � '�s � �'Z aorwrri
V �o0��ua 0 ' � Q
�I � -
�` \ '
�.�T'�.T.v�!��� I � 9�0�
1�4.10 dt .�W � NI .1 Dl�i .YAI �� Q
U �
. o �;. o
a» ra aa -yi z pi
� A��N
, 0 3!q!4x3�d
AENERnL NOiES �
caun.wo we cax�cmn uc xor saMx ix ui a,sru�c¢vpono[caiwrt uu
Mc u�rtawxn roa nc nauim n�cumrr OERTEL
�� � � Pt�, B �xtum�x roa�urs wr a�raim w�coxour PRNLE A OEd'A1f0
-� . 4 FJ
i= --___• -',. . 4'-- � _-- - -y-_ -g,�`- - ------ ---- _ ---"'� c oo xor rm.0 wrc¢Eciacr casuar m x��sEm�uxc�n�c Ea.sYun
� -r �-_--`
ifr •� - p� �� ! I� o ffsr wn iaumx a mrc in�xrto mscs nm�.wcx�cnau�emccrm cmir�
O A �A C�� �"' �O"`,y+t',-.� � �� n.u��m R.0�nu+rto m+as�r[x ro.wartervwi wrtaax nevenas.
' Q� fr �� �� j_ si< �t � , 17{r ;n{� p i� c �cxsr wc�wunora or ru��+wrx r.wwrcm wm oneor1 is amox io •••••�•••••m
�* I �'F;' h ❑ � Ll �_f � �c�"o��
_r,:Y: �- 4�*-�' Cl llra 1 � � �d�°
� ++� ��,o_• -. �i...=_:_. J ,..,�
' 0 -d* � - � - - �C.�?-'--' - _'i��' �i i# ° wc�s wrc s:cs�a�uurco on�x mw l+z s.s�mxoun rca x[c H«m.in C
y �,� p.O�e��R ❑i�]'Ps�y��,-1�:_-0 = p li � � ru wuunm canrcr ano[s n«r wwt�sw[�ofsrxmai 1.�'�)wrc Orono MalMenana
T' {i � r �' �_.� LJ 1 �
9 �� � _;.----' � ,,,:-- -.��
��y�, O�4F � (�[�ir,,�� �y --0�� � � af �a� i j Mmuo m ec.wm M wav,n ro mrma nc sw[ttun c�ma��nma Padlfl E.
�autE Swmec 6 mxIIMl11ID ar ur-1 ldFx aff IFr�EM1S�urt 1➢fil Anra Y Pansion
l(6
Y i �3�1 1-_='- � -'-J----� ___ � � :iI � �mxdn wuertx iramc COpmN�IE GtM 9LOl1c x5ULA1pN.6 REqAR➢ N.C.Pro�acY No.
�•r
@ � ' '� ' I �' , ' / ' r3 _ ____ - __. _._ _:��-j, _; ' rwLn ro�sa acweo adn[x�xaw�w ua uuNm 0031766
O __.+:�u�__,.r� .�.. �._.; : .: � "��'�I ; +
' —"-_
�� �• • \ , \ ---�'-"""'____' n Coinract N
�w�wc aadnc s ro a mxm[xm uis i p.cux:�w.uoous ieu,mv mw Consnuctlo o.
�,-�� , f�� �,4\ ''O' n a r i a w ro i e•rr wmc ue�xaos u¢io war�nx w,naxe tucwrx woa 4ot 7�5
.uma�mi i si
O��O /� 38B0 ShorslMe Drlva
�• '; "> �' -�' Y�' � v�im sw��rbt r��p�q��¢�rs���ca�m raa ro aua
''?, ,- �'S � '� Orono,MN.55391
; " �r- �� KEYE�NOTES
P�VIEON Y CLUIK
� , • . Q cracwrs a nos xo�mm w¢m ax u�w nc nmaa arac mmwnc r�xc e+ammaxc.wc
---/ - -;�j �� - ��°- - . . Trensportabon "na''c°°o.u`°"�.[t. � m�w.�`ew`'1.�;!�la
� � a.oae usr OO �rc.na a c�eox oxo�«o�. �omc ewc m�aw a aw¢o r.z f���m-eate
\• f #' � f /% �, �ao maw a uxs+rtc�m unmmxc ainrt sonxc na�wu
/, I .O�; / , , ��a aacu cawun un caacniws x ne wu vw�a cwsocxo�nnn•
tl ` � � '��i.-- � ' / � �caana n wnn rwcx m-aoo mcs acwxn mavt m[wu.rax mxma a
P ,l% taxmc x ixs Aoou imw m o[ua�/Ui�ax wWc,vo swncr�c x[a�aua¢
8 � a - - °� , - �.a
#0 � �� e f� �_�1" #O �� � 'rO �I O��cau��sw a�aaEon�x� �un�.
� � \ I O 00.1MNIS NID�SFEOI�ATd6 f0A I➢dlpWl MfRGINI[NIS K MRMMIF OEQII.T 6
, O'��j�,,\ �� �'•.� � �nm. �n�im a n�sxon�sru e��ounu m mum Mu a `�
�' V �( � ��� O' �mw ro rcrixs i�c�i e x/E�i rox axixa�w�wuns x ne mu �
p ,OO i \ � 0.
� �` aaswsr� O v�roxo[wwmx m[ai��-ar rnarax m[wv, wronoc a«r�aa�ro artaax
�� . 4 �'��,�".'� - � iwmc ron o�nxa
$ f, rr Q+ axwu�sera ran wmmc a awvrxr uxmxs w s�onu:[uu rva sma�
.t��;� I� _�;� �.'r��fr swi a rnumac w m�xws rr,m�oc�u mixccnar¢a qauao
- `�' /,! , f'�;'.t`��� .� �� �0 gq
� •�.y.. ` `; ." ���._ ��� .�•�� E%
f a - ; £� #�7. - t�4'' �i Y� .wE Es...�or M�..�oo�o
�Q�i.JdP.a-.
��ELECTRICAL LIGHTNG PLAN d,za�es•�•••6••••0•
� „r.�a ...�
s.wrr.n� EIECfRICAI,UGHTING
ie0��v� PIAN
~p a E1.1
�ExhibK E -
e�m�rKA,�o��sp� �
euan000n
�auawacuamc
rnwv�pe�swai
e.nca�esr
Nuexwm�setva
awna�aim�oov�
�h�
px�awamAe'nsr
cac rwea�
TA Ii0d1
�pyqAps...n YTfNOO��ICM a1/PC
W79�M�E9qwq
�,L r e�vanoN �'°�^�
J
m=ra
�m�rKn�e�nir�cu
TawwL�srml
aaa`esr
V�weosmaeEq
awoeusi�l000e�
�es��n�
la�m�sr
m�cv�
vuu.waumnMe
iA FtOpl
I - -- — -- - - awva
��� n•vrnoroeemuenesiawsEaomnn �
j�SOUTH ELEVATION(PARTIAL)
Y
m-=ra
RECEIVED
DEC 12 2014
CITY OF ORONO
# 3704
I
���K
�,�
.���
TmY
aixa
riew�ursro�nrtr
�su�ima,as
sana�iwo�
�re�
piwauim�rensrmc
�
tn naa
awvo �
� mineeosmaoomw �, �y�a�n�u�
,;1 WEST ELEVATION
�
3rsr-ro
e�a��nra�s�sir�p�
��
�trxxu�onw arena�ea�
TAYWL�YBLSI00.)
B.IadY9F
WBIMFABI�6HBy ��ETM.NAWM/F11961
PIHNBI�IEGIL
IHYIMQ(IHIIIG ���� 1MILPIIOII[iN18
7IIWMLplii�
91MAA61�/EqO� �
MiB1��lE1i11911
Iv116U10�PIB'JIBf 11BM/Il�l
�y,�� s�a�drr
�u,ameums
rnaoon
B.IOOd TA HDOR
aeproca�veaearonreE�mnni w-xma�a��ooncx
e.�ma
4�
exo sAB1��EPa��aBxBa41EwB1
2 �TM�A�N I�M/BIIIA1�11E4�' f00115PY168�
�z=,•a
RECEIVED
DEC 12 2014
CITN OF ORONO
# 3704
� ,
C ity of O ro n o RECE�v�D
. �o%vo., Hardcover Calculation Worksheet DEC 12 2014
�`^� ^' P1'operty Address: 3880 Shoreline Drive, Orono,MN. 55391 C1TY OF ORONO
���A�t�«�"`-'�� P►'epared by: Oertel Architects Date: Nov. 6,2014
PC Exhibit F
Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5
Step 1: EXISTING HARDCOVER
In the following table identify all items of existing hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to Certificate of
Survey (survey must accompany this form). Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict existing
hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter which are split at the
75' setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion.
Key to Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width Total
Surve Square Feet
Exam le Gara e 24'x 30' 720 S.F.
A Exis[in Salt Stora e 7,182 S.F.
B Existin Bituminous(area of ro osed addition 3,224 S.F.
C Existin Maintenance Buildin 8,600 S.F.
D Existin FuelIsland 1,280 S.F.
E Existin Bituminous all remainin on site 116,751 S.F.
F S.F.
G S.F.
H S.F.
� S.F.
� S.F.
K S.F.
� S.F.
M S.F.
N S.F.
� S.F.
P S.F.
Q S.F.
R S.F.
S S.F.
T S.F.
� S.F.
V S.F.
W S.F.
X S.F.
Y S.F.
Z S.F.
1 Total Existin Hardcover 137,037 S.F.
Excludable Hardcover See Ci Code Sec 78-1684 :
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
2 Total Excludable Hardcover S.F.
3 Net Existin Hardcover Subtract line 2 from line 1 137,037 S.F.
4 Total Lot Area 291 643 S.F.
Proposed Hardcover Percentage [(3)_(4)] 47 �/,
(Proposed Hardcover next page)
This is an information packet regarding Hardcover. Every effort has been made to insure the accuracy of the information contained herein,
however,if any information is not consistent with provisions of the City Code,the Code provisions will prevail.
Page 8 of 9 � � � O�
. �
City of Orono RECENED
,.-�oNo,, Hardcover Calculation Worksheet DEC 12 20�4
�,`5� ! Property AddreSs: 3880 Shoreline Drive, Orono,MN. 55391 C�N pF ORONO
�`��F�A`.�'� Pre ared b : Date:
--- p y Oertel Architects Nov.6,2014
Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5
Step 2: PROPOSED HARDCOVER
In the following table, identify all items of proposed hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to
Certificate of Survey (survey must accompany this form). Include all existing hardcover items that are
intended to remain, as well as all proposed hardcover items that will be added. Use as many lines as
necessary to accurately depict proposed hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify
any features by letter which are split at the 75' setback line and calculate hardcover square footage
separately for each portion.
Key to Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width Total
Surve S uare Feet
Exam le Gara e 24'x 30' 720 S.F.
A Existin Salt Stora e 7,182 S.F.
B Pro osed Addition 3 224 S.F
C Existin Maintenance Buildin 8 600 S.F
D Existin Fuel Island 1 280 S F.
E Existin Bituminous all remainin on site 116,751 S F.
F S.F.
G S.F.
H S F.
� S F.
,J S.F.
K S.F
� S.F.
M S.F.
N S.F.
p S.F
p S F.
Q S F.
R S.F.
S S.F.
T S.F.
� S.F.
V S F.
W S.F
X S.F
Y S.F.
Z S.F.
1 TotalPro osed Hardcover 137,037 S.F.
Excludable Hardcover See Ci Code Sec T8-1684 :
S.F.
S.F
S.F
S.F.
S.F.
2 Total Excludable Hardcover S.F.
3 Net Pro osed Hardcover Subtract line 2 from Ime 1 137,037 S.F.
4 Tota�Lot Area 291 643 S.F.
Proposed Hardcover Percentage [(3)=(4)] 47 %
This is an information packet regarding Hardcover. Every effort has been made to insure the accuracy of the information contained
herein;however,if any information is not consistent with prov�sions of the City Code,the Code provisions will prev� �
Page 9 of 9 � ��
PC Exhibit G
DIVISION 4.-SITE PLAN REVIEW
Sec.78-141.-Purpose.
The purpose of this division is to establish a formal site plan review procedure for commercial and
industrial uses and provide regulations pertaining to the enforcement of site design consistent with the
requirements of this division in advance of building permit issuance.
(Ord. No. 68 3rd series, § 11, 2-8-2010)
Sec. 78-142. -Approval required.
It shall be unlawful to construct a building, enlarge the footprint of a building, or change or intensify
the use of an existing building or site in any business or industrial district without approval of a site plan in
accordance with this division.
(Ord. No. 68 3rd series, § 11, 2-8-2010)
Sec.78-143. - Review process.
Site plan reviews shall be reviewed in accordance with the following:
(1) City council. The city council shall make a decision on site plans reviews to construct a building
or enlarge the footprint a building. Prior to council consideration the planning commission shall
hold a public hearing and make a recommendation regarding the site plan review. Notice of the
public hearing shall be governed by City Code section 78-915
(2) Planning and zoning coordinator. The planning and zoning coordinator shatl make a decision on
site plans reviews to change the use of a building or parcel of land; to modify the interior or
exterior of a building or site or land feature in any manner that results in a different site design
or intensity of use, including the requirement for additional parking or to enlarge a building by
less than ten percent of its gross floor area. The planning and zoning coordinator shall have the
authority to refer an administrative site plan review to the city council for decision. The owner
may appeal the decision of the planning and zoning coordinator to the city council.
(Ord. No. 68 3rd series, § 11, 2-8-2010)
Sec. 78-144. -Application for site plan review.
An application for a site plan review shall be made to the planning and zoning coordinator on a form
provided by the city and shall include the name, address, and telephone number of the applicant, the
name, address, and telephone number of the property owner, and the district in which the property is
located. The application shall be also be accompanied by three copies of the following information, unless
waived by the planning and zoning coordinator:
(1) A current certificate of survey of the property. This survey shall be used as the base for all
required plans.
(2) A detailed site plan depicting the following:
a. Site dimensions.
b. Site conditions and existing development on the subject property and immediately adjacent
properties.
c. Proposed use of all areas of the site.
d. Required and proposed setbacks.
e. Location, setback, and dimensions of all proposed buildings and structures.
Page 1
f. Location of all adjacent buildings located within 100 feet of the exterior boundaries of the
property in question.
g. Location, number, dimensions and setbacks of proposed parking spaces, drive aisles, and
loading areas.
h. All public streets, entrance and exit drives, and walkway locations.
i. Location, access, and screening detail of proposed trash enclosures.
j. Location of outdoor mechanical equipment and proposed screening.
(3) Landscaping plan.
(4) Tree preservation plan, including the location, type, and size of all existing trees six inches or
more in diameter to be removed or presenred.
(5) Grading and erosion control plan prepared and signed by a Minnesota licensed engineer.
(6) Utility plans.
(7) Application fee and escrow.
(8) Any other information as may be required by the city, including but not limited to:
a. Architectural elevations of all principal and accessory buildings (including type, color, and
materials used on all exterior surfaces).
b. "Typical" floor plan and "typical" room plan drawn to scale with a summary of square
footage for each use or activity.
c. Fire protection plan.
d. Type, location and size (area and height) of all signs to be erected upon the property in
question.
e. Lighting plan.
(Ord. No. 68 3rd series, § 11, 2-8-2010)
Sec.78-145. - Evaluation criteria.
Before granting approval of the site plan review, the city council or the planning and zoning
coordinator shall determine that the proposal:
(1) Is compatible with surrounding land uses;
(2) Preserves existing unique and natural features of the site and minimizes impacts to wetlands,
floodplains, and shoreland areas;
(3) Creates harmonious relationship of buildings and open space with natural site features and with
existing and future buildings having a visual relationship of the development;
(4) Achieves a safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation system;
(5) Places no excessive demands on services and infrastructure, including local streets;
(6) Conforms to the city's plans fo�parks, streets, and walkways;
(7) Conforms to the Orono Community Management Plan;
(8) Achieves a maximum of safety and convenience of vehicular and pedestrian movement;
(9) Incorporates sufficient landscaping to reasonably screen undesirable features and to enhance
the image of the development;
(10) Protects abutting properties and does not create detrimental disturbances to surrounding
properties;
Page 2
(11) Conforms to all requirements of this chapter unless a variance has been granted.
(12) Incorporates efforts to conserve energy whenever practical.
(Ord. No. 68 3rd series, § 11, 2-8-2010)
Sec. 78-146.-Conditions.
The city council or the planning and zoning coordinator may impose conditions in granting approval
of a site plan review to promote the intent of this division and to protect adjacent properties.
(Ord. No. 68 3rd series, § 11, 2-8-2010)
Sec. 78-147.-Security agreement.
Before issuance of any permit, a letter of credit or cash deposit shall be supplied by the owner
guaranteeing completion of required site improvements. The amount of the security shall be 125 percent
of the estimated cost of the improvements other than the building.
(Ord. No. 68 3rd series, § 11, 2-8-2010)
Sec. 78-148. -Specific project.
A site plan review approval shall be valid only for the project for which approval is granted.
Construction of all site elements shall be in compliance with the plans and specifications approved by the
city council or the planning and zoning coordinator.
(Ord. No. 68 3rd series, § 11, 2-8-2010)
Sec.78-149.- Lapse of approval.
Unless otherwise specified by the city council or the planning and zoning coordinator, a site ptan
review approval shall become null and void one year after the date of approval, unless the property owner
or applicant has substantially started the construction of any building, structure, addition or alteration, or
use requested as part of the approved plan.
(Ord. No. 68 3rd series, § 11, 2-8-2010)
Sec.78-150.- Building code.
The review and approval of site improvements pursuant to the requirements of city adopted building
and fire codes shall be in addition to the site plan review process established under this division. Site plan
review approval does not imply compliance with the requirements of the building and fire codes.
(Ord. No. 68 3rd series, § 11, 2-8-2010)
Secs. 78-151-78-160.-Reserved.
Sec.78-348.-Conditional uses.
Within any LR-1C one-family lakeshore residential district, no structure or land shall be used for the
following uses without a conditional use permit:
(7) Public service structures, provided that:
Page 3
a. All buildings are located at least 50 feet from any adjacent property zoned for residential
use; and
b. The architectural design of the structure is compatible with the architectural design of the
surrounding area.
Sec. 78-916.-Granting of permit.
(a) The planning commission may recommend and the council may grant a conditional use permit as the
use permit was applied for or in modified form. On the basis of the application and the evidence
submitted, the city must find that the proposed use at the proposed location is or will be:
(1) Consistent with the community management plan;
(2) Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as required
by article V, division 3 of the City Code;
(3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management;
(4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system;
(5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost;
(6) Compatible with the surrounding area as the area is used both presently and as it is planned to
be used in the future;
(7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for
in the community management plan;
(8) Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the surrounding area,
unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan;
(9) Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the area or have a
materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when compared to the impairment
or impact of generally permitted uses;
(10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and activities
likely to disturb surrounding uses;
(11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes, dust,
electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means;
(12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause a
demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or unsafe access;
(13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to
minimize environmental impact;
(14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public right-of-
way or neighboring residential uses or districts; and
(15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare.
(b) A conditional use permit may be granted subject to such conditions as the council may prescribe.
(c) A conditional use permit shall remain in effect as long as the conditions imposed by the city council
are observed, but nothing in this section shall prevent the city from enacting or amending official
controls to change the status of conditional uses.
(d) A certified copy of any conditional use permit shall be filed with the county recorder or registrar of
titles. The conditional use permit shall include the legal description of the property included.
(Code 1984, § 10.09(6); Ord. No. 77 3rd series, § 1, 7-12-2010)
Page 4
Sec.78-1286.-Topographic alterations/grading and�Iling.
(a) Grading and filling and excavations necessary for the construction of structures, sewage treatment
systems, and driveways under validly issued construction permits for these facilities do not require
the issuance of a separate grading and filling permit. However, all grading and filling activity
approved permits for construction of structures, sewage treatment systems, and driveways shall
adhere to the grading and filling standards of this article.
(b) Grading, filling or excavating of more than ten cubic yards is prohibited within 75 feet of the ordinary
high water level of the public waters enumerated in section 78-1217. Grading, filling or excavating of
ten cubic yards or less shall require city staff review and permit and be subject to other pertinent
sections of this chapter.
(c) Public and private roads, driveways, parking areas, and public or private watercraft access ramps
sha�l not be constructed within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level of the public waters
enumerated in section 78-1217. If no alternatives exist, such improvements shall be subject to the
standard zoning variance review procedure, and such review shall take into account the following
considerations:
(1) Such improvements shall be designed to take advantage of natural vegetation and topography
to achieve maximum screening from view from public waters.
(2) All roads and parking areas shall be designed and constructed to minimize and control erosion
to public waters consistent with the requirements of all agencies with jurisdiction.
(d) Except for those projects requiring permits for construction of structures, sewage treatment systems
and driveways, a land alteration permit will be required as follows:
(1) For movement of one through 500 cubic yards of material anywhere within the Shoreland
Overlay District, a staff-issued land alteration permit shall be required.
(2) For movement of more than 500 cubic yards of material within the Shoreland Overlay District,
conditional use permit approval by the city council is required in addition to the required land
alteration permit.
(e) The following considerations and conditions must be adhered to during the issuance of construction
permits, grading and filling permits, conditional use permits, variances and subdivision approvals:
(1) Grading or filling in any type 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 wetland must be evaluated to determine how
extensively the proposed activity would affect the following functional qualities of the wetland:
a. Sediment and pollutant trapping and retention;
b. Storage of surtace runoff to prevent or reduce flood damage;
c. Fish and wifdlife habitat;
d. Recreational use;
e. Shoreline or bank stabilization; and
f. Noteworthiness, including special qualities, such as historic significance, critical habitat for
endangered plants and animals, or others.
This evaluation must also include a determination of whether the wetland alteration being
proposed requires permits, reviews or approvals by other sections of city ordinances or by other
local, state or federal agencies including but not limited to watershed districts, state department
of natural resources, or the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
(2) Alterations must be designed and conducted in a manner that ensures only the smallest amount
of bare ground is exposed for the shortest time possible.
(3) Mulches or similar materials must be used, where necessary, for temporary bare soil coverage,
and a permanent vegetation cover must be established as soon as possible.
Page 5
� �
(4) Methods to minimize soil erosion and to trap sediments before they reach any surface water
feature must be used.
(5) Altered areas must be stabilized to acceptable erosion control standards consistent with the
field office technical guides of the local soil and water conservation districts and the United
States Soil Conservation Service.
(6) Fill or excavated material must not be placed in a manner that creates an unstable slope.
(7) Plans to place fill or excavated material on steep slopes must be reviewed by the city engineer
for continued slope stability and must not create finished slopes of 30 percent or greater.
(8) Fill or excavated material must not be placed in bluff impact zones.
(9) Any alterations below the ordinary high water level of public waters must first be authorized by
the commissioner of the department of natural resources under Minn. Stat. § 103G.245.
(10) Alterations of topography must only be allowed if they are accessory to permitted or conditional
uses and do not adversely affect adjacent or nearby property.
(11) Placement of natural rock riprap, including associated grading of the shoreline and placement of
a �Iter blanket, is permitted if the finished slope does not exceed three feet horizontal to one
foot vertical, the landward extent of the riprap is within ten feet of the ordinary high water level,
and the height of the riprap above the ordinary high water level does not exceed three feet. A
riprap permit shall be obtained per the requirements of section 78-969
(fl Excavations where the intended purpose is connection to a public water, such as boat slips, canals,
lagoons and harbors, are prohibited above the ordinary high water level. Such excavations below the
elevation or the ordinary high water level are subject to approval of the department of natural
resources and other agencies with concurrent jurisdiction.
(Ord. No. 101 2nd series, § 1(10.56(16)(J)), 2-24-1992; Ord. No. 127 2nd series, § 8, 7-11-1994;
Ord. No. 163 2nd series, § 3, 12-8-1997; Ord. No. 171 2nd series, § 2, 4-4-1998; Ord. No. 28 3rd
series, § 17, 8-22-2005)
Sec.78-1700. -Speci�c tier regulations.
Per the official stormwater quality overlay district map, each property in the stormwater quality
protection overlay district is assigned to a protection tier based on its relative distance to receiving waters.
This protection tier dictates the specific protection measures that must be implemented.
(1) Tier 1 parcels. Hardcover shall not exceed 25 percent of the gross lot area.
(2) Tier 2 parcels. Hardcover shall not exceed 30 percent of the gross lot area.
(3) Tier 3 parcels. Hardcover shall not exceed 35 percent of the gross lot area.
(4) Tier 4 parce/s. Hardcover shall not exceed 50 percent of the gross lot area.
(5) Tier 5 parcels. Hardcover shall not exceed 85 percent of the gross lot area.
(Ord. No. 94 3rd series, § 11, 9-24-2012)
Page 6
PC Exhibit H
WATER RESOURCE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
Use this form to notify/apply to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District(MCWD)of a proposed project or work which may fall wi thin
their jurisdiction.Fill out this form completeiy and submit with your site plan,maps,etc.to the MCWD at:
15320 Minnetonka Bivd.Minnetonka,MN 55345.
Keep a copy for your records.
YOU MUST OBTAIN ALL RE UIRED AUTHORIZATIONS BEFORE BEGINNING WORK.
1.Name of each property owner: Hennepin County,Greg Moore
Mailing Address: 300 South Sixth Street C�ty. Minneapolis State: MN Zip: 5•`�487
Ennail Address: 9�egory.moore@hennepin.us Phone: (612)596-7830 Fax:
2. Property Owner Representative Information(not required){licensed contractor, architect,engineer,etc...}
Business Name: WSB&Assocfates, inc. Representative Name:Tom Voll
Business Address: 701 Xenia Ave S#300 Ci�,; Minneapolis 5��: MN Z�F; 55416
Email Address: �oll@wsbeng.com Phone: (763)287-7175 F�:
3. Project Address: 3880 Shoreline Drive City: Orono
Sta.te: MN Z�p; 55391 Qtr Section(s): Section(s}: Township(s}: Range(s):
Lot: Block: Subdivlsloli: pZD; 1711723330151
4. Size of project pazcel (square feet or acres}: 6•43 acres
Area of disturbance(square feet): 13068 sq ft Volume of excavation/fili(cubic yards):
Area of existing impervious surface: 3.14 acres Area of proposed impervious surface: �
Length of shoreline affected(feet): � Waterbody(& bay if applicable):
5. Type of permit being applied for(Check ail that apply):
� EROSION CONTROL ❑ WATERBODY CROSSINGS/STRUCTURES
� FLOODPLAIN ALTERATION � STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
❑ WETLAND PROTECTION O APPROPRIATIONS
❑ DREDGING 0 ILLICIT DISCHARGE
❑ SHORELINE/STREAMBANK STABILIZATION
6,Project purpose(Check all that apply):
0 SINGLE FAMILY HOME 0 M[JLTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL(apartments}
� ROAD CONSTRUCTION � COMMERCIAL or INSTITUTtONAL
� UTILITIES 0 SUBDIVISIONS(include number of lots)
❑ DREDGING ❑ LANDSCAPING(pools,berms,etc.)
❑ SHORELINEJSTREAMBANK STABILIZATION ❑ OTHER(DESCRIBE):
7.NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Permit Number(if applicable):
8. Waterbody receiving runofffrom site:�ake Minnetonka
9. Project Timeline: Start Date:�Aril 2015 Completion Date: November 2015
Permits have been applied for. City 0 CounTy 0 MN Pollution Control Agency L7 DNR 0 COE C�
Permits have been received: City-�County-�MN Pollution Control Agency�DNR�COE�
By signing below,I hereby request a permit to authorize the activities described herein.I certify that I am femiliar wi#h MCWD
Rules and that the proposed activity will be conducted in compliance with these Rules.I am familiar with tt�e information
contained in this application and,to the best of my knowledge and belief,all information is true,complete and accurate. I
understand that proceeding with work before all required authorizations are obtained may be subject to federal, state and/or Iocal
administrative,civil and/or criminal penalties.
t1• �t •t4
Signature of Each Property Owner Date
�
K��i5c�1 �- I � i ; ('����� I �,l 1
D�C � 2 2014
� � 3 7 p� ���o�oRONo
� , �
Erosion Control Supplemental Inforrnation
Final Stabilization will be provided with {seed, sod, etc): Seed and Sod
and 6 inches of topsoi!will be added/replaced prior to final stabiliza.tion.
Concrete Washout: Location of concrete washout
X Off site _Indicated on site plans _Other(description): _No concrete washout:
Vegetation: Protective fencing will be installed as necessazy so as to exclude all fill and eqaipment
from the drip line or critical root zone,whichever is greater,of all vegetation to be retained.
_Yes X Not Applicable Other(description):
Inspections: An erosion control inspection plan is required for all projects distttrbing'/4 acre or
greater. The inspection requirements are as follows:
1) The individua!ident�ed as being responsible for implementing the erosion control
� plarr must roulinely inspect the construction site once every seven days during active
construction and within 24 hours after a rainfall evertt greater than 0.S inches in 24
hours.
2) All inspectiorts and maintenance conducted during constructiort must be recorded in
writing and these records must be retatned with the erosion conirol plan and made
available at the District's reyuesd within 24 hours. ftecords of each inspection and
maintenance activity sha!!include:
i. Date arrd time of inspections;
ii. Narree of person conducting inspections;
iii. Findings of inspections, including reconrmendations for corrective actions;
iv. Corrective actions taken{including dates, times and party completing
maintenance activities);and
v. Date and amount of all rainfall events greater than O.S inches in 24 hours.
Provide the following information for the primary individual responsible for implementing the erosion
control plan:
Name �'�M��'
Organization t�''����" ��~� ,
Phone �t2 �� �1$�� AlternatePhone ��� ���✓ '��'g?CD
Email ����'� t �t�1�C�+�i�+ , t�S
I certTfy that I am familiar with the requirements of the MCWD Erosion Control Rule and that the
proposed activity will be conducted in compliance with this rule.
�M.o�,.�� !2 •ti� t�l--
Signature of Applicant or Authorized Agent Date
I��GEI�/'Eb
DEC 12 2014
� � 7 �� �nv nF nRnNn
�� ,
�
/�'i��L.7
� .
i �,,,�<,un�.A:: • � _ ' 701 Xenia Avenue South
Swte 300
Minneapolis,MN 55416
Tel: 763-541�800
Fax. 763-541-1700
Memorandum
To: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District,Permitting Departrrient
From: Tom Voll, WSB &Associates,Inc.
Date: December 11, 2014
Re: �YICWD Application—Hennepin County Orono Maintenance Facility Expansion
WSB Project No. 01680-130
This memo provides a summary of the requirements for utility improvements and the
construction of an expansion of the existing Hennepin County Maintenance Facility at 3880
Shoreline Drive in the City of Orono, MN. Based on review of MCWD rules, this project is
subject to the erosion control and stormwater management requirements. The construction is
expected to begin in Apri12015 and be completed in November 2015.
Description:
Utility improvements will consist of a new water service installation from Shoreline Drive to the
building, under the existing driveway. An expansion to the facility will be constructed on the
north end of the existing building. The project will disturb an area of 0.3 acres and will not
increase the amount of impervious surface on the site.
Erosion Control:
The plan shows the implementation of the following erosion and sediment control practices.
Table 1. Pro osed Erosion and Sediment Control BMPs
BMP T e Location
Silt Fence Along Shoreline Drive & Down Gradient of Ex osed Soils
Inlet Protection Storm Drains(Includin Down Gradient and Off-Site)
Sod Ex osed Soils
Additionally, the existing driveway will act as the construction entrance. All exposed soils will
be surrounded by existing asphalt or similar impervious surface.
Stormwater Management:
The site size is larger than 5 acres, with less than 40% site disturbance and no change in
impervious surface. This triggers the stormwater management rule and requires that BMPs are
incorporated into the project. Rge��/��
oEc � z 2o�a
Equal Opporturnty Employer � � � O� , CITM O�O�ONO
wsbeng com
K UHf,xU-1 ul\AdmmlPcnmtsUviCWDUNCWD Mcmo 12-I I-Il doc�
1 �
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
December 11, 2014
Page 2
Wetland Protection
NWI and FAW maps indicate two areas of wetlands located on the southern border of the parcel.
No wetlands are within the project area. There will be no increase in impervious surface on the
site, making this project exempt from buffer requirements as stated in section 5(a). In addition,
there will be no direct wetland impacts, making this project exempt from the wetland protection
rule.
Supporting Documents:
The documents provided with this memo for review are:
• MCWD Water Resource Permit Application
• Erosion and Sediment Control Supplemental Information
• Project Plans
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at (763) 287-7175 or
tvolln,wsben .�,com. Tha.nk you.
I��C��1/�D
AEC i 2 �014
� � � o� ��Q�oNo
I t � �
. , � , �,'A �
f..Y.
j O PC Exhibit 1
� � .
O O
��, C ITY of 4RON0
a �
�� G'� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
�9kESH�4�' � NO. � � � �3
A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES PER
MUNICIPAL ZONII�TG CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2;
SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) (2); SECTION 10.03,
SUBDIVISION 9(C); SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION S AND A
CONDITIONAL USE PFRNIIT PER
SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISIUNS 19-21
FILE NO. 2555
WHEREAS, Hennepin County(hereinafter the "applicant")is owner of a property
located at 3880 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono(hereinafter "City")and legally described
as follows (hereinafter the "property"):
� "Exhibit A" ; and -
`'VHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordar�ce with
Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning
Commission held public hearings on January 19, 2000 and April 17, 2000 at which times all
persons desiring to be heazd concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak
thereon; and
WHEItEAS, the applicant submitted a land use aFplication to the City of Orono
requesting the follawing approvals:
1. A Zoning Code Amendment would allow the County Maintenance Facility to exist in the
LR-1C zoning district. The faciliry was constructed at a time when the property was zoned
for commercial purposes, however, that zoning changed to residential in the early 1970's,
hence use of the property for the maintenance facility has continued as a legal non-
conforming use. (Section 10.25) �
2. Variance to permit hardcover alteration within the 500-1000 foot setback from the OH`VL
of Lake Minnetonka. The proposed hardcover woald result in a reductior. of impervious
surface from 148,835 square feet �61%) to 138,188 square feet (57%), where 35`�o
covera;e is allowed in the setback. (Section 1G.22, Subdivision 2 and 10.56, Subdivision
16 (L) (2))
Page 1 of 8
a �
� O
� �
O O
, - C ITY of ORONO
a �
ti
ti
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
��9k'E �I�4'�G NO. 4 � c�.s ��
S
3. ce to pemut the sand/salt storage facility to exceed the maximum allowed size for
an oversized accessory structure on a 6.65 acre lot. The Code permits a 2,400 square foot
oversized accessory structure on the property. The proposed building is 60 feet X 120 feet
in size, 7.200 square feet. The same section of the ordinance permits the total aggregate
of all accessory structures on this property is 4,800 square feet. According to the most
recent site plan the total proposed square footage for accessory buildings is only the
salt/sand storage facility (7,200 square feet). (Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) (2))
4. Conditional Use Permit for the grading on the property and construction of the stormwater
management pond. (Section 10.03, Subdivisions 19-21).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
Minnesota: �
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2555.
2. The property has been used as a County Highway maintenance facility since at least
1962, the time the original building was constructed. In 1962 the zoning of the
property was for commercial purposes, since the property was rezoned to LR-1C.
Because the use of the property has not changed since the rezoning, the facility has
been allowed to exist as a legal non-conforming use. The facility is used primarily
for winter road maintenance, with a coverage area for this facility from County
Road 15 between Mound and Highway 12, County Road 19 from Orono to
Excelsior.
3. The Planning Commission reviewed this application and recommended denial of
the Zoning Code Amendment to the LR-1C District based on the following:
A. The Comprehensive Plan has guided the property for residential use. The
proposed expanded use is much more intense than what the property is
currently used for.
Pa?e 2 of 8
i O
/� �
O O
, - C ITY of ORONO
,� � )
ti ,
ti
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCiI
�t`9kE I3�4'�G NO. � �3- �� w
S
. There was concern continued use of the site impacts the water quality of
Lake Minnetonka.
C. The City of Orono rezoned the property from commercial to residential in
the early 1970s. Approving a Code Amendment to permit this type of use
in the LR-1C district would not be in keeping with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan, so it should remain in a non-conforming status.
D. The proposed height of the building was 42' requiring a variance. The
building would have been 22' taller than the existing principal building.
E. Other sites in the area have not been explored to accommodate the salt and
� sand storage building. The applicants were advised to research other
locations that may be feasible.
4. County Staff has indicated the proposed building would actually be less intense than
the use that exists because the number of salt/sand deliveries will be reduced by 60
trips annually and the saldsand mix and storage would be relocated indoors. During
a significant snow event, night deliveries of dry salt and sand mix are required
because they have limited indoor storage. With an enclosed building, they could
stockpile the mix and accept deliveries during the daytime hours.
5. The proposed building has been reduced in height from 42' to 20' and the building
has been redesigned to not require a fully enclosed building but rather three storage
bays for the salt/sand product.
6. Elevation views, provided by Hennepin County, indicate the buildings would only
have minimal impact on adjacent properties to the north. The 42' building proposal
would have blocked views from a small area in Spring Park across the railroad �
tracks.
7. The storage bays would provide protection for the salt and sand product. Much of
the salt and sand has been stored outdoors and could become part of the runoff �
from the site towards Lake Minnetonka. The facility is located within the 1000'
Shoreland area of the lake.
Page 3 of 8
) '
/ O
/� �
O O
��, CITY of ORONO
a �
ti
ti
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
�� �G � � �� �
`�kESII04�' N0. .
. stormwater management pond has been proposed to treat stormwater before
leaving the site. Water drains towards the south side of the property and enters a
culvert that carries the water directly to the lake. A management pond will treat
much of the water before leaving the site.
9. County staff has indicated the operations would reduce noise to surrounding
neighborhoods and eliminate the salt and sand transported by stormwater runoff to
the adjacent wetlands. The wetlands drain into a storm sewer pipe and are routed
to Lake Minnetonka.
10. Due to the proposed buildings capacity, Hennepin County has estimated
approximately 60 round trip truck runs annually would be eliminated and the
salt/sand operations would occur during daytime hours. Without indoor storage the
County is required to make deliveries on a 24 hour schedule during snowfall
events.
11. The Council fmds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and
do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the
variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire
hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, would not merely serve as a
convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship
or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant;
and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and
Comprehensive Plan of the City.
12. The Ciry Council fmds that granting a conditional use permit for land alteration for
pond construction will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare
of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other
danger to neighboring property, nor�will its use depreciate sunounding property
values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the
intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City.
Page 4 of 8
i O
� �
0 0
, - CITY of ORONO
� �
ti
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
�t9kE p4��'G NO. � � � �
S�I
. he City Council has considered this application including the fmdings and
recommendations of the Planning Comrnission, reports by City staff, comments by
the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and
welfare of the community.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby
grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 to pemut construction
of an accessory building on property that is devoted to a non-conforming use; Section 10.22,
Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(L)(2)to permit hardcover alteration in the 500'-
1000' lakeshore setback in excess of 35%; Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) to permit a 60' X
120' (7,200 s.f.) accessory building to be constructed on the property, where a building 2,400
s.f. is allowed; and for a conditional use permit to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03,
Subdivisions 19-21 to permit land alteration for construction of a stormwater management pond.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The building is constructed per the site plans provided by Hennepin County.
2. Erosion control measures shall be in place prior to any land alteration activities,
and shall not be removed until such time Staff authorizes removal.
3. The fill removed from ponding areas shall be placed in the locations and to the
grades as shown on the site plans on file with the City of Orono.
4. All land alteration shall be subject to final approval by the City Engineer.
5. The use of the building shall be limited to storage of the salt/sand product.
6. The three lots that exist on the property shall be combined into one tax parcel.
. 7. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the owner,but
are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit and
land alteration permit within one year of the date of Council's approval, or the
special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (June 26, 2001).
Page 5 of 8
/%O
� �
O O
�, - CITY of ORONO
� �
ti
ti
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
�t`9kE Hp4��'G NO. � �- � �
S
. iolation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of tlus
resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically
terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor.
9. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of
this resolution and on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns, hereby agrees to
the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property.
Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 26th day of June, 2000.
ATTEST:
�'L.�1�1.- � �/ .
� Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gabri Jabbour, May
Prop Owners Re p. t���rn- Gc.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 26th day of June,
2000, by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a
Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City.
,
� f� ��� /
MARY ANN JOHNSON Notary Pu� ic ,;
NOTi1RY PUBLIC-A�A�ESOTA
�'�'C�t�r�On E�iras Jen.31,Z005
Page 6 of 8
i �
// O
� �
O O
, - CITY of ORONU
� �
ti
ti
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
��9kE II�g'�G � NO. � � � �
S
STATE NESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this y f�' day of /U�L�e ry/ �E�,Q , 20 �a , before me a Notary
Public within and for said County, personally appeared G ux ,(� �I/d�/Q., , ,e��AP S��finCr I r P�n P�,N �`�
known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument�d
acknowledged that she executed the same as her free act and deed.
MARY ANN JOHNSON
tar�rttr vts�.�c•r�sor�
������� Notary ic
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this day of , 20 , before me a Notary
Public within and for said County, personally appeared
known to me to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and
acknowledged that she executed the same as her free act and deed.
Notary Public
Page 7 of 8
1 �
Exhibit A -
. � .� �> � .
�
IFGAL DESCRIPTIONS: ..�;-?, `'���:�. _ ` �� "y� '���'
J �
J
.T t-.• . �'�
Tract 1-Tarene Prop�erfY Per Ceftt�oQte ot Tttie SS9d70 �•'�• '.: • .,...� �'� .,`.✓
The East 50 feet of the West 200 feet of the South 233 of that part of Government Lot 8. Section 17,
Towrship 1i7. Range 23, lying East af the East line of 'Streater's Spring Park Addition', Hennepin
County, Minnesota, the boundaries of which tract are marked by Judicial Landmarks placed at the
Northwest and Northeast corners thereof, and by Judicial �andmarks placed on the west line of said
tract 33.01 feet North of the Sauthwest corner thereof and on the East line of said tract 33.01 fee
Narth of the Southeast co�ne� thereof, pursuant to Torrens Case Na. 15i47. According to the
Government Su�vey thereat.
All of Tract i is subject to permanent easements for street purposes as per Torrens Dacuments l377°
and 1656002 (County HighWay Plat)
Area of Tract i - !i, 632 Square Feet (0.267 Acres) .
Tract 2-7orrer�a propettY Pe�Cert�f�ha of Titie 564670
That part of Government Lot 8, Section 17. Township ii7, Range 23, and that part of Lot i, �lock 9,
Townsite of Langdon Park, all described as beginning at the intersection of a line drawn parallel
with and 233 feet North of the SoUth line of said Government Lot B and a line draNn parallel aith
and !00 feet East of the East line of "Streater's Spring Park Additian', Hennepin County. Hinnesot�
thence North slong the last described parallel line and �ts extension to the Sautherly right of Wa�
line of the Great Northern Failway Campany; thence Easterly alang said Southerly right of way linE
to its intersection With a line drawn North at right angles to the South line of said Section i7
from a point thereon dis�ant i315.97 feet West from the Sauth quarter-corner of said Sect�on 17:
thence South along said last described line ta a pcint 233 feet North of the South line of said
Section i7: thence West par.allel with the Sauth line of said Section i7 ta the point of Ceginning.
the baundarie� of which tract are marked by Judicial Landmarks placed at the four corners thereof
and the South line of which tract is further marked by Judicial Landmarks placed thereon 50.02 fee
Accard�ng4toetheEGove�nment Surveyethereafeandfaccording�to the5recordedTplatnthereofNo. i5i47.
Subject to a private driveway or street easement over the westerly S00 feet of 7ract 2.
Area of Tract 2 � 243, 101 Squara Feet (5.581 Acres)
Traet 3-Abstracfr ProQertY P�Doament No.3845782
That part of Government Lot 8, Section 17, 7ownship 117. Range 23 West, lying within a distance of
S00 feet Easterly.of the Easterly l.ine of 'Streater's Spring .Park Additian', Hennepin County,
Minnesata, and lying North of the southerly 233 feet of said Gavernment Lat 8, and Sauth of the
Great Northern Railway right of way. •
Subject to an easement far street purposes over Tract 3, lying North of a line parallel with and
50 feet Southerly af the Southerly right of way line of the Great Northern Railway right of way, e
� per �ec�.:�^s•^•�s 33282�7 anr_+ �aag7R�
Page 8 of 8
i � , �� �
� • 1
�---
PC Exhibit J
�� �� .
0 0 --
.
CITY of ORONO
� � .
�
� p~' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
�9kESH�g'� NO. 4 � � �
A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES PER
MU1vICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION lOZ2, SUBDIVISION 2;
SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) (2); SECTION 10.03,
_ SUBDIVISION 9(C); SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION�AND A
' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER
SECTION 10.03,SUBDIVISIONS 19-21
FILE NO. 02-2776
WHEREAS,Hennepin County(hereinafter the"applicant")is owner of the property
located at 3880 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono(hereinafcer"City")and legally described
as follows (hereinafter the "property"):
"Exhibit A" ; and
WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed.notice in accordance �vith
Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning
Commission held a public hearing on July 15,2002 at which times all persons desiring to be heazd
conceming this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and
`VHEREAS, the applicant submitted a renewal application to the City of Orono
requesting the following approvals:
1. Renewal of a variance to permit hardcover alteration within the 500-I 000 foot setback from
the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. The proposed hardcover would result in a reduction of
impervious surface from 148,835 square feet (61%) to 138,188 square feet (57%), where
35% coveraae is allowed in the setback. (Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and 10.56,
Subdivision 16 (L) (2)) �
2. Renewal of a variance to permit the sand/salt storage facility to exceed the maximum
allowed size for an oversized accessory structure on a 6.65 acre lot. The Code permits a
2,400 square foot oversized accessory structure on the property. The proposed building is
60 feet X 120 feet in size, 7,200 squaze feet. The same section of the ordinance permits the
total aggregate of all accessory structures on this property is 4,800 square feet. According
to the most recent site plan the total proposed square footage for accessory buildinas is only
the saldsand storaje facility(7,200 squaze feet). (Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) (2))
Pa�e 1 of 7
• y i
�O�
O O
CITY of ORONU �
.� � -
..���� ti
�'� G~' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
�`�kEsKo4`'� No. 4 �,�
3. Renewal of a Conditional Use Permit for the grading on the property and construction of the
stormwater management pond. (Section 10.03, Subdivisions 19-21).
_ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File#02-2776.
2. The property has been used as a County Highway maintenance facility since at least
1962, the time the original building was constructed. In 1962 the zoning of the
property was for commercial purposes, since the property was rezoned to LR-1C.
Because the use of the property has not changed since the rezoning,the facility has
been allowed to exist as a legal non-conforming use. The facility is used primarily
for winter road maintenance,with a coverage area for this facility from County Road
15 between Mound and Highway 12, County Road 19 from Orono to Excelsior.
3. The Planning Commission reviewed this application and recommended approval of
the renewal application subject to the following conditions:
A. The pond shall be installed prior to any occupancy of the salt/sand storage
building.
B. All runoff from the site shall be directed to the pond for treatment.
C. All debris and material located in the wetlands on the property shall be
removed prior to occupancy of the building.
, '
D. All conditions of Resolution No. 4485, as adopted by the City Council on
June 26, 2000, shall be conditions of the renewal application.
4. County Staff has indicated the proposed building would actually be less intense than
the use that exists because the number of salt/sand deliveries will be reduced by 60
trips annually and the salUsand mix and storage would be relocated indoors. During
a significant sno�v e�•ent, night deliveries of dry salt and sand mix are required
Paae 2 of 7
� o�
0 0
CITY of ORONO �
,� ; � .
ti
ti
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
��`9kESI3�4�G NO. '� � � �
because they have limited indoor storage. With an enclosed building, they could
stockpile the mix and accept deliveries during the daytime hours.
_5. The Council finds that the conditions existing on this property aze peculiaz to it and�
do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the
variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions,light,air nor pose a fire hazard
or other danger to neighboring properties,would not merely serve as a convenience
to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hazdship or difficulty;
is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant;and would be in
- keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of
the City.
6. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit for land alteration for
pond construction will not be detrimental to the health,safety or general welfaze of
the public,would not adversely affect light,air nor pose a fire hazazd or other danger
to neighboring property,nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and
that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and
objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City.
7. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and
recommendations of the Planning Commission,reports by City staff, comments by
the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and
welfaze of the community.
CONCLUSIONS,ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more ofthe above findings,the Orono City Council hereby grants
variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 to permit construction of an
accessory building on property that is devoted to a non-conforming use;Section 10.22,Subdivision
2 and Section 10.56,Subdivision 16(L)(2)to permit hardcover alteration in the 500'-1000'lakeshore
s�tback in excess of 35%; Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) to permit a 60' X 120' (7,200 s.f.)
aLcessory building to be constructed on the property,where a building 2,400 s.f.is allowed;and for
a conditional use permit to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03,Subdivisions 19-21 to permit land
alteration for construction of a stormwater management pond.Approval is su�ject to the following
conditions:
Pa�e 3 of 7
. ,. , 1 1
� O�
O O
� �
CITY of ORONO
ti
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
��l �G~
`9kEsII��' NO. � R � � ,
1. The building is constructed per the site plans provided by Hennepin County.
2. Erosion control measures shall be in place prior to any land alteration activities,and
_ shall not be removed until such time Staff authorizes removal.
3. The fill removed from ponding areas shall be placed in the locations and to the grades
as shown on the site plans on file with the City of Orono.
4. All land alteration shall be subject to final approval by the City Engineer.
5. The pond shall be installed prior to any occupancy of the salt/sand storage building.
6. All runoff from the site shall be directed to the pond for treatment.
7. All debris and material located in the wetlands on the property shall be removed prior
to occupancy of the building. �
8. All conditions of Resolution No. 4485, as adopted by the City Council on June 26,
2000, shall be conditions of the renewal application.
9. The use of the building shall be limited to storage of the salt/sand product.
10. The three lots that exist on the property shall be combined into one tax pazcel.
11. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not�vith the owner,but
are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit and
land alteration pernut within one year of the date of Council's approval,or the special
conditions of this resolution will expire on that date(July 22, 2003).
12. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this
resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically
terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor.
13. The undersianed applicant has read,understands and hereby a�ees to the terms of
this resolution and on behalf of itself,its successors and assigns,hereby agrees to the
recordina of this resolution in the chain of title of the property.
Page 4 of 7
� o�
0 0
CITY of ORONO �
,� . ..;-. �., _
ti
�� '� G~' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
�`�kEsKo�`'� rvo. 4 � $ � � .
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting
held on the 22nd day of July, 2002.
ATTEST:
. � v % --- _.� -
Lin a S. Vee, City Clerk Bazbara A. Peterson, Mayor
Authorised Representative of Hennepin County
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of July, 2002 by
Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said
instrument was executed on behalf of the City.
� _� 4~' P,F�,_:.i�ODGE � ;�
�` ' hOTA.;Y�U�UC-MIhtiE:'OTA �`���� ��� �.u��
..� My Cornmission Expires Jan.31,2005
- Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoing instrument was ackno�vledged before me on this �'�`' day of
�L-1-�-/ ,200 � by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota
municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City.
�-�`_� R,r,�H�L DOQGE
� � � /�'
; �CaC�C�� I�`/�iG'�G''� ' -
IvOThRY�UEUC-N1's�31,4005
��' � t.�y c�R����� Notary Public
�-=�
Page 5 of 7
� � �
� O�
O O
C ITY of URONO �
� - �- � -
ti
ti
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
��� og'�G No. � � � � ,
kESII
STATE OF MINNESOTA _
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
On this���day of ��r►'���' ,206�'", ��o7'Y.�O�-S �.�/�c�t vp� �`�y'�'�'z'ecv
personally appeared before me, j-�/�/1�`��`#�''�
who is personally known to me
G'F' f--�i�+n.Ld
- ✓ whose identity I proved on the basis of G'Y'N
whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation,a credible witness
and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the
same as his/her/their free act and deed.
��� � � � RACHEL DO�::�
��-'E�� �'� _�'��`.,.�. NOTARY PUBLIC-trl;F<t E;_ :??.
``'-•��� �,py G�us�on Expires Jan.3i,2�u i
Notary Public .w.:�*
w
Page 6 of 7
Exhibit A :
. '.�� 8 � �►_
� LFGAL DESCR1P710NS: . � ' �
�Tcact 1-Torrstis PropetfY Per Certtfkafie of Titfa Sb4d70 '� -
The East 5a feet of the West 200 teet a' the South 2�3.,,�of that part of Gavernment Lot 8. Sectian
ToWrship ii7. Aange 23, lying East of ttie East li^e of Streater's Spring Park Addition'. Hennep
County. Hinnesota. the baundaries of which tract are marked by Judic ial Landmarks placed at the
Nertriwest and Nertheast corners tnereof, and by Judicial Landmarks placed on the west line of sa
� tract 33.01 feet North of the Sauthr+est carner thereaf and on the East line of said tract 33.01
Narth ef the Southeast corner thereof. pursuant ta 7orrens Case No. 15147. According to the
Government Survey thereaf. �
All af �ract i is sub�ect to permanent easements far street purposes as per Torrens Oocuments !3
and 1650002 (County H ghway Plat)
� Area af Tract i - li. 632 Square Feet (0.267 Acres) .
�
�' 7racfi 2-7orre�v�r�fiY P�Certi�afie of 7ttSe 354�b?0
�
�.�`' That par� af Government Lot 8, Section i7, TaWnship ii7. Range 23, and that part of Lot i. 81ac�
Tawnsite of langdon Park, all desc�ibed as beginning at the intersectian of a line drarrn parallE
xith and 233 feet North of the South line of said Government Lat e and a line draxn parallel xif
and 100 feet East of the East line of 'Streater's Spring Park Add"stion'. Hennepin County. Hinne:
thence North alang the last descriCed parallel line and its extension ta the Southerly right of.
line of tt�e Great Northern Railway CampanY thence Easterly along said Southerly right af way :
to �ts intersection with a line drawn North at right angles to the Seuth line of said Section i,
frnm a paint thereon dis�ant l315.97 feet West from the South quarter-corner of said Section 17:
thence South along said last described line to a point 233 feet Nort� of the Sauth line of said
Sectian i7: thence West par.allel uith the Sauth line of said Section 17 ta the point of beg�nnii
th� boun�ar�es of r+hich tract are marked by Judicisl Landnarks placed at the four corners there�
and the Sauth line af which tract is further marked by Judicial Landmarks placed therean 50.02
and 10a.04 feat East af the Southxest corner of said tract, pursuant to Terrens Case Tlo. l5i47.
�ccarding to the Government Survey thereof and according to the recorded plat thereof.
Subiect to a pr�va:e driveway or street easement over the xesterly 100 feet of 7ract 2.
Area ef Tract 2 = 243. 10i Square Feet (5.5H1 Acres)
?racfi 9-Abstrac�r Prope�tY P�t Docxtnenfi No.384578.'t
That part of Government Lot 8, Section i7. Toxnship 117. Aange 23 West. 2ying within a distance
!QO feet Easterly.of the Easterly line of 'Streater's Spring .Park Addition'. H�nnepin Caunty,
Greatshorthern Aailway�rightfQfhNHyoutherly 233 feet of said� Gavernment Lot 8. and_Scuth of the
Sub ect ta an easement for street purpases over Tract 3, lying harth of a line parallel with an
50 �eet SoutherlY of the Southerly right of rray line af the Great Ncrthern Railxay right of x3y
' pe^ ���'�.^..e.^.ts 33282�7 an�+ ?�e57��
Page 7 of 7
�
� j'� � � . �: ` L � �� . .
i
� .�?' � �� I�t�s�� .
r
�� .r ,R 1.. : f. �;
i , �
1 ' Y�` � � r
��, .�w �,
'.`�� " r ;
���- � <<
�Fi, , .,� Y
, � :
� ,
, ,
, � ,
;� �..�. , ;: �
, ��.
, , s�a� �
� �`; � v �t' �
: p �;
° �' -_ � Ra:, ;
, , „
1� ' � ���•�. .�' �i ' .
♦,' 1
3._' �, �
�..� � � � , . F. . ..
' � � f-. . ." �. �Fi: . :� . , ,
:� `�� . . , �� " . . _
j��j: . ' . . � .
f f � +rre�a..i.�
�I
�} �
. . � ;i ' ,aa � �. r,-.
� • : �� �� � �� � - �`
r.
. � r . . . � . _ ' �� ' �'.
A M � >:1, G' #��
i --
�y �� ._ ` '
'�`}:. .x � �. ',.
;
4`' < �
' 3
j�°� � .' �:. y�'y�
• �
�;�} � ' ��.� �� n i
x !
y�� - � - . . , � , d`�
� i �_� � �� k �
� . -
+. - ! , ,. � �' , �;'
r �" � � � � . �
�a+,,rwnw `� �, }
¢� T
s �;;
. . .. . - %� � .
, �� �' i.-�� ��^ "
.;� � �;
�c, --.------ _ '
_ __� .� � ;,�. `�,
, —�� ' a, ,
x:. ��A � x y
' �� . k� �; �' �
...�u\_ __ Y� `_' . . �,� � �� .��a �1
�� i.�t� '' � � _ � t�;
n��; � � t: C �
e � � a• t V �
yi�' 1 i� �,
���.� I , .���. -. .. , .�, i 1��:�� � ""'- .
c x,smg�, ,.+/" . . . ...,� . � ,,,_,�
: €-. � i - ; � . .
�`��' !w ; ( �� L"�:K
i � ' .
. .'t� � �r .�.� 1`{� .
.�� . . . � ;� �. .,� . � . .
' ..� ,� ' - �'y�
�'� � . . . � � r�.',
s� � M1` Y 'x . ' + �jM �` ;, iyt—=;
4� � ���, � . �� � � � �����' �ff��r ii�i
�64 � � ��� �1, " _ ' �� . � '!i '
`� � � ' . � `- ,���:'�F { ��.
r � � ��,, � ,,^�x r ., ( � r
q . ` �4'. ' �� � i..�+ t.' S< ��. ( . f�
.� aM t:� } !�'J�s b�, .��,�y��� � �� ` 4 !4f�r If`.��I��l r� ��,��
.. I .�� � ',� !!. '`",' f I d �� .;, iyy����� ;�p t+�([ .
� ! �' �' .,� i� +fi? yy �t� +tIY��Y.
�'. �,� 4��j� � j �i ,
,� � s�. � ti � � ���.,:
�.a� , � `� �i, � �� � s � , ' :;` ���,
�-� � ` E�s �K`"�� �r,.
� � I t rf
i�;y� ' � �' 'ir ����
� � ��r, �� � �� �
, ��, � � � � ��� �'� '.
� � .
� . -.,k .;�{ti. l.. �� �����! y ��. � i I ' .
. _ � I � ��� ���.
� �� ' f� �,° 'k �� ,��
,� ��s� � +
� � 4 � i,� � �,�� , , j�'i
� � f �' �. '� r '��`, Y j ��
�� : '� x � ;
� r ; ' s" — � �, r t i,:�_ �' � �",�
i .,�. _ {�.. �-°#:) ,;�''� �j
� � ���_ l , ys �, �J r �
� �'� �;� ����' �'� , ���� '
� �.s £� s' a F: �'
, � �� � � �; `�< < �
__ ._ _ _._ _ „ ���f�
`' �� ', 4
�� �
�t'� '
i'� � ��� I1 '.
a
1
.�S'��. . � ��
'i -
t`.. 7„ , -� .
.�dlt� '.;� _-
. ';� a ,.:i . , .- .
t rj �
� 7�i . � �` ' ��{ -,._
��
r � t'Y'�r
�,
t� ti�`�'y� ,( r—•. .
. �,� {�:, .
--- � � � i`'ti � I �`,��� �
�' �
r � ����, ' . I;�4
�; , �„ ', .
� � �a
'�� �� `.
_ � f t
� `, '�;'�
� � � W ; '#�.:
��� � �.
,
��" �,�,.a, ��� ��� �t
�}J� y �
`� .1�� EL� ..
4' S �� ' .
, � t i
� *'
�' t1 ' Ft,.� ��y� _
f : S � �
+ '`L:� � �t�' .
K f�' /y,��"�". rr .
����� ��_��� ����.
��� f ,
�', �� �; ,
i
x.,_`` ,f� � •.F..
a
t t , i..
+ y t�.
�r �� � N s;r
��,�. � � i�N ,�
� �i � ,
6'_ � � � ... i �''..� �
•�r (' R
r•��. ��t �,.
� y ;..
� }��;�-�.
t �� �:
;�, �� �
� ��.�� �
��Np _
� �
yF �
G
�7'r fS H�A�
Legend
Railroad
� City Limits
❑ Parcels(11-1-2014)
. -
15-3704
�
wxex�.: n
This drawing is ndther a legally recorded map nor a �
survey and is not intended to be used as one Th�s '.
0 2$J F22L e dnxang 4s a wmPllatian of records,mformatwn,and da0
bcated m varbuz dty,counN,and shte officez,and Q
oMer sources affecting the area shown,and is to he used �"�
for refermce purposes only.The GN of Orano is not r
�Bolton&Menk,lnc-Web GIS 1/15/2015 1:45 PM K�atii.m�a�o x�.m�.a�n...�����ra�o.n
�+ A`y S ' �A. , 1 , �w �� � � � ;} �Y F* . W .-.
� k�l���k�' � _* ''�� +:`< + * ' '� #�
S: � _x�t �+�. � �w. .� '.�� . x *�..
�. �� . ' S�. �`' . . � . t „�, �.i �4.
- '4 �� ,���w l.z....s . . :��r,^'__ r� � �'.
, 1�n�. . ' �. . . ��,�a ��'
!:� ' ._. � . y-�+'i. "h.'�
'�3 . . . � ,. .i
. . . � � . . . .+y�.Tr�.
�'.- .` . _ . .
��� �;' �c
e � ,
,
� *• � 'N+t^ C '`E
. i � ��
.+ . .. ��r ,�. . ~ � ��,
, � �- � r_.� �! �
. 4 + . .•* �"t r:
{yi � � ... � �j�}y 4 ��.?`�-.
'^k �#• . � "� � �..+W.��.. •) �
1�.r� r. _.. ' J . �-
I��7+
t'_.,. I :t C F ". .
� II �� �-��4� . ��y.. {�, "y� �.,,�„�;�..�`r- .
j _ �t' . ?�3+��� ��'Y"„ .
� �} F '#"��' '�:� � .f ,y r
�, �"y��' ''.� �''F`�. ' ��. v
� . '� � 3 ,��; ��' - rt
> >. �-
,� � �� �+� ,� t'' � - :�
+�, l �
�y: " � tv?y 1► ' �
d ,
-
� �. `
� . ; �
, t Y� . , . ^ .��,�; �k� ,i����l
°e h �� w��, ,{ .� J ��� .��
f,�,� �+� !�+- r� � � �'� ,�� �
. . � . .�"* r ,� � '`1'��_
, ' .t w .�,. , -. . ,::+* �. . e a . .. � 3 � �+ �'� r�t.
++� } .... `�ti�I� ���
� �i � �.. , ' �. s �r.� �,.
. . .. � ` � � .. , �� r •�'j�7' ' -• �
. . � .. � . . `,���'�; �_� ,.
.� '��: ��. ;�'�
� f �•.... _ � . ...r €` ���� L ,�,,,:._, � ,
. ,
±w`a . ;
,, � .� .�.
' '; +:�...,.,ii J�`. ..,.,;. ^ � �`a /� ��
• .
- - , �eT�''r w•, , - -
w � .. . � ,
. _ J 4 _.�sn�is� ��"�' �� --_
r ...�i �..
i
..� ��„ ..,..�..:..: � � � �
_ '
',•-s-."� . - `' '
� , � �, __
� 5� --� w� 5 �t;' �.. ,
. .
'rt',,,,T,',i _.. . _
_ r ��_� .,
, .
, . �
. . }
� r �
,
,_ , � , ,
"� � �..`
� t�: ..,,,
� ,�r+ ��F � � ' � f
`-u � �r �r, — � � ,,,� i:� � _ ,
s � . �: �'` .x-� �
' ..>..�t 3-.""`,-._ � ..
t
. �' � . . . � , . • � - . -. . �
i '�', , :'a, )w - � ...._ ' . .
I , �— , - . � _ .
� _ .-1. �� _ �
,. .
_.�... .n . .
,�.� ' . ..�. - .
�`'�.• ' �... . . .. � • .. . �'�i�,. v ,�.�r ..r";�-.�
�< � � �. � - - r .
.. _,�, ., . .
��� + .
i_ �`� � �
� i.�• _ ti• -
• _ ._ •,�s`.- - _,
� �` ,i �� ,..
� � R - _ t � :�r ,
- _r � �
� c .- ,,�- _ - � � �.i,� tr�� �i ,
�Ik � 1.
. i �ti__.� P . .,. - �rt! ,' . .
�. r� , �M '�
- ,_. --,..,_ . � � •: r.., '"k '�� � � �� �
� k.,r z, ��� ,.<,' �"7; ; l
, � x , • � ,� � ,.�
_ `.�, ��� --- �
�'•� .7�,r���..1 I�1� '.�1' �� .._. .d/ � t J :s,�., '._" _
"'.,.�5, .i' ""� '.?�i`A
.. . • — , .s rc� � .1..'
..�,. • ���rati ���f M�I� , ��...r..... � _
./ —.�. .-...-� , ,� . "' . �
. . / �" .. —/ Y�.� �':: f �.,,-. .. . . ::....... ..- .
. �
� � . .. . "► . .., 's. " ........,..j
•
.t3X
�'��.,.. Y�i , . .�j�..
�
.^:}�. . " � . .
� ?
. �� � . . .�:�-. . . ..
� . .._..._. .f �. : -
�J ` _ ��` . ."'_"." __
� f,._`t_ . ' l�-.-�.'.,_�� . � . m �� �t .I(�'.....
�
t � .
;� . . , . �� . . ..
y � . .
.:�. . �' . . .. , . . ..w .
y'�,.._ . .. � ��,. . .. . :,`
^ ,�1 I
i j
i.
, - -r^ j ' '� (
��.,� k�+ �. T` � ��� p.. 5 �J '+ ..., � .JI.
� !3 ��X.+•�• �.I � � �.�. ~� �1<�.� j4T �••�' . � ���i ""j�.
Ft& ��%+(;'�,- ��� r
Rr7 � !'. �I .
, ? �r � �
~ +rF v
. . , �' '':'�� '__.-,'_�s.�.�.._ .rt �'� !
rx ; �:y ' • � � 1
ti, F "��� r���?' +ii x
a, �.�;; 3w � �"'`��;a�� � � y;.• . _ 7
. 4 S r _ A f ., .y..,�; � _ -` ''' s�s`
_ . .. r � . . _ .. . w_�a.�c:.�......_.1._,_ _�__. . .r�.�,.,, '„
t
� -
-. _� �.. �- . .,:,.. - �: .�� . . - "`i,7
_
.s.
, , .
_
• .� ��� __j �r • 1� �r � - � ���`� ��r
Y . ,
.. F , � r,�!; . . � . ,. . - ��,�+
� a�
,x .� �' r ; �
. �� ,•�7+_. +� F =i
rf �
.._ ;" �
., . �t ,;. � ' _ � �,x
, . .. ,
.� �' _ �,;,:
� � 1
., Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map PCExhibitM
Provided By: Resident and Real Estate Services Department Date: 12/1/2014
�� e,� �^� " , � I i I i
i �
� � � I °'
� � � � �
� � I
r m M�1 i0 � W �
IW � 1 �
mi a � I
� ' „' � �17-117-23-31 i i --- � I--
17-117-23-32� � . � �, ; ",� �. �, ; � � � � . � �
�, , , i
• p � "' �° TOGO RO�D
�, .
� � � i , , , � � � �
! � a� � q o iv, � � 6
I �
m • w a "t ,� ��— � ' '_' ' ~ � A �� �
� a I �__—' I� ' I a ' q
n q m
� en
� '_� . _'_" .__' � �
q,�°" ; f 4 ,m � ; '^ a w � �o � n� ' _._'
a � ' �� r W �
Q 00 �
p I � q ��.� A IT
°' , ��—I�.�� ` 3- 3 � � _ w i
.T���AS'!1-SU�r'�\ � 17-117-23-3..4 .
m � ,
N° �,C��. 'a, � - � ,
a ` m� _ ._ - -
(` I 00 W 4 i
�s �, L "
h� � '" ��tipA _�:� pTf1ER�A �g`'' Otv AVEN�:
,y -
.,
!i � a
,�
�
- 3-34 :P �
' , �
�.aJ�� PI
� 4 _ - - P
` � �_ muri_� � i W1 �
lmg Ns
�
�
� - t
W t _ "'
i
w"
��; 0-117-23=21
A
•
m.
v�
20-117-23-22 .-`� � m
� .
I � m p, � m�
�
: ' W
• M
. ,,. I-/ A
f4
� - ^
. .. �, `�O ,� .
C
�
20-117-23-22 �� �t� � ,,, ���
2 �
v
/
Zo-11�7-2�-2a-0 �,A`� ,
- � , �
� ,�
Buffer Size: 350 feet o �20 2ao aso ft
Map Comments: � ' ' � � ' ' ' �
3880 SHORELINE DRIVE
ORONO For more information contact:
MN 55391 Hennepin County GIS Division
RECEIVED 300 6th Street South
Minneapolis,MN 55487
DEC 12 2014 9�s.info@hennepin.us
CITYOF ORONO � � � o�
� �� I
PC Exhibit N
RUN llATE:12/01/2014 HENNEPIN COGNTY PROPERTl'1NFOR14ATION SY'STtiM(PROPtiRTY O�i'NE1tS LIST) PA(>E:l
� I7 17-117-23 33 0009 17 l7-117-23 33 IXYt3 17 17-117-23 33 0088
R(X',ER ALLAN Bl)EHL R E BERRETT&C D9 BERRETT EVALINA C KLEIn
3£i10 NORTHERN AVE 34(X)DEL OTERO AVE 3876 NORTHERI�AVE
R(X3ER ALLAN BUEHL ROBERT E&CLAIRE M BERRE7T EVALiNA C KLEIN
38I0 NORTNERIY AVE 1085 BROWN RD S 3A7G NORTHERh AVE
SPRING YARK MN 55384 WAYZATA M7� 55341 SPRING PARK MN 553ii4
17 17-I 17-23 l3 0010 17 17-�17-23 33 00�1G 17 17-I 17-23 33(�9d
HAROLD R KOKESH ETAL CHRISTINL-SHEARMAN LORI S PLTLRSON
3R16 hORTHERN AVE 3926 DEL OTERO AVE 2265 HAZELDELL AVE
HAROLD R KOKESCH CHRiSTiNE SHEARMAN LORl S PETERSOi�
3R16 KORTHERN AVL- 392G DEL OTC-RO AVE 2265 HAZL^LDL•LL AVG
SPRifJG YARK MN 55384 SPRING P.4RK MN 55384 SYRING PARK MN 553A4
17 17-t17-2?33 00t6 17 17-117-23 33 O(}17 17 17-117-23 33 O137
ERiC ROBERT TISCHLER MLCHAEL R ERICKSON C MATTSON&M MATTSON
�ii,32 NORTHERN AVE 3934 DEL OTERO AVE 38'_'2 I�ORTHERri AVE
ERIC R TISCHLER MiCHAEL R ER(CKSON MICHELE.'NATTSON
3tW2 hORTHERtY AVE 3934 DEL 07'ERO AVE 3822 NORTHERn AVE
SPR(NG PARK MN 55384 SPRIhG PARK D4A1 55384 SPRING PARK Mfi 553R4
17 17-117-23 73 OOI8 17 17-117-23 33 0061 17 U-117-23 33 013$
ANDRA L EMERY/KEITH)EMERY TYLLR I ROL?HLE DOUGLAS C TRASK
3A52 A;pRTHERN A�E 3940 NORTHERN AVE 3832 NORTHERT�AVL
ANDRA L EINERY/KE1TH J EMERY TYLER ROETHLE DOUGLAS C TRASK
3852 NORTHERN AVE 39.30 NORTHERN AVE �569 SHORELINE DR
SPR WG PARK MN SS.�R4 SPRING PARK MN 55384 SPRING PARK Mh 55384
17 17-I17-21 i30U19 17 17-117-23 33 fl(X�(i 17 17-117-23 33()139
WILL[AM A ANDL-RSON GERALD ROLAND HANSEN DOUGLAS]SIPPE-:L
3877 PARK LA 3900 NOR'I`HERN AV� ?241 HAZE-LDELL AVL
WILLIAM A ANDERSOi� GERALD R HANSEN DOUGLAS]SIPPE:L
3R77 PARK LA BOX 152 2241 HAZELDELL AVE
SPRING PARK A1N 553R4 SPRWG PARK MN 553R4 SPRING PARK MN S53R4
17 17-I 17-23 33 0020 ll 17-117-23 33(XXi7 17 17-1 17-23 33 O]42
JAN W STRUCK R081N L SHERMAN THOMAS TRUDEL
3862 NORTHERN AVE 2258 H.AZELDELL AVE 3910 DEL OTERO AVE
JAN NT STRUCK ROBIN L SHERMAN THOMAS TkUDP.L
3R62 hORTHERN AVE 225R HAZELDELL AVE 39(0 DEL OTERO AVE
SPRIN(;PARK MN 5.5384 SPRIIrG PARK MN 553Fi4 SPRING PARK MN 5S3R4
17 17-117-23330O22 l7 t7-1(7-233?f)(X>R 17 t7-117-2333OI4'i
J J FITZLOFF&L J 6'ITZLOFF B W ADAMS&R G ADAMS JAMES J SMI7H
3851 PARK LA 3913 MAPLE'TOi3 AVL 391-t DEL OTEKO AVL
JEFFItEY&LAURiE FITZLOFF BRENT ADAMS/REBECCA ADAMS JAMES J SMITH
31 CO RD 92 3913 MAPLETpN AVE 39I4 DLL OTERO AVE
1NDEf'EVDEWCE MN 55359 SPRING PARK MN 553R4 SPRING PARK MN SS384
17 17-I 17-23 33(1038 17 17-1 17-23 33(NX�9 17 17-]17-23 33 014i
DOCGLAS C GAMBLE BRUCE D WILLIAMSON R J CASHMAh&A A CASHMAN
3916 SHOREUKE DR 340t MAPLETON AVE 39I6 DEL OTERO AVE
DOUG[.AS GAMBLE BRUCE D WILGIAMSON RONALU J&AhN A CASHMAN
2814 SUMMIT DR 390I MAPLLTON AVE 3916 DEL OTERO AVE
ESCONDIDO C.4 920�5 SPRING PARK MN S51R4 SPRING PARK MN 5S3R4
17 17-117-23 33 0039 17 17-117-?3 33(b84 17 17-117-23 33 0145
('LARK R OLTMAN TRUSTEE T D&J L MASON GREG VANDERWiL7
3924 SHORELINE DR 2254 L1LAC RD 3918 DEL OTERO AVE
CLARK R OtTMAN THOMAS D&)OLENH L MASON GREG VANDERWTLT
39?4 SHORELTfvZ DR 2254 LILAC LA 3918 DEL OTERO AVE
SPRING PARK MN 553R4 SPRII�TG PARK MY 553A4 SPRING PARK Mf� 55384
17 17-I 17-23 310040 17 17-I17-23 33IXTR7 17 17-117-23 33 014G
JOHN P KASTER NORfiEN F BEhIEGERDES LIMDSAY L ASHBIiRN
393J SHORELiNE DR 3R72 NORTHERN AVE 3�SHORELINE DR
JOHN P KASTER NORfiEN F BEhJEGERDES LT'�IDSAY L ASHBURN
3932 SHORE�IT'E DR 387?NORTHERh AVE 3y00 SHORELINE DR
SPRING PARK M[J 55384 SPRII�G PARK MN 55384 SPRiNG PARK MN 5538-i
'� 1
RUN ll,�TE:(2101/2014 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY WFORITATION SY"STEM(PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PAGE:2
17 17-117-23 33 01�7 38 17-117-23 33 0007 38 2p-117-23 2100I$
MEG C,RACE NEWELL M E BREWER&B L BREWER CALVARY MEb10R1AL CHI;RCH
39O2 SHORELtNE DR 3A00 SHORELINE DR 24?0 DUh WOODY AVE
MEG GRACE NEWELL MARK E&BARBARA L BREWER C'ALVARY MEMORI,\L CHL'RCH
3902 SHORELINE DR 3A00 SHORELINE DR 24?0 DUNWOOUY AVL
SPRING PARK MN 55384 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391
17 17-117-23 33 0148 38 I7-I 17-23 33 0151 38 20-117-23 22 O(H)t
VfNCEN'T K BURNNART COUNTY OF HENNEPIN C W SMITH&S ti SMiTH
3904 SHOREL1tiE DR 38R0 SHORELINE DR 3925 SHORELINE DR
VINCENT K BIJRNHART COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CORTLAND SMITH c4t SUSAN SM1TH
39(YF SHORELIR'E DR ATTN:REAL ESTATE MAt�AGER 3925 SHORGLINE UR
SPRING YARK MN 55384 701 4TH AVE S SUIT'E 400 SPRING PARK Mh 553R4
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415
17 17-117-23 33 0149 38 17-i 17-23 34�2 38 _'0.1 17-23 23(�2
RAI�DY SCHU[T RGAL ASSETS II LLC JAMES D BGDELL
39(Ki SHORELINE DR 370(l NORTHERN AVE 393.5 SHORELINE DR
R,�KDI'A SCHUFI' REAL ASSETS 11 LLC 1AMES D BEDELL
3�(i SHORELII�E DR 550 25TH AVE N P O BOX 33
SPRING PARK MN 55383 ST CLOUD MN 56303 b40CND Mh 55364
]7 17-I U-23 33 0150 38 17-I t7-23�4 0050 38 ?0-I 17-23 22 0003
THOMAS fREURICK BROU'ELE7TG MICHALL THEODORE CARL RICHARD ADOLPH CARLSON
2242 MAPLETON AVE 3780 NORTHERN AVE 3905 SHORLL[NE DR
THOMAS FREDRiCK BROI ELETTE MiCHAEL T CARL R(CHARD A CARLSON
2�42 MAPLETON AVE 37R0 NORTHERN AVE 3905 SHORELINE DR
SPRING PARK MN 55384 WAYZt1TA MN 55391 SPRING PARK MN 55384
17 17-I 17-23:i3(1152 3R 17-I t7-23 34 t1Q51 3R 2(1-I 17-23 22 O(Hk
ANTHONY R F'OLLOCK J R QUAM&J E QUAM J P RAUSCHChDOfiFER LT AL
3916 hORTHL•RN AVL 37G0 NORTHERN AVE 3A95 SHO(tELINE DR
ANTHONY R i'OLLOCK IOHN R QUAM J&S RAUSCHLNDORFL•R
39I6 NORTHERN AVE 3'I(�NORTHERN AVE 3895 SHORELINE DR
SPRWG PARK MN 55384 WAYZATA MN 55391 VJAYZATA MN 55391
f 7 I7-117-23 34 0021 3R 17-1 17-23 34 0052 3R 20-117-23 22 lHN)5
K P KALKBRENI�ER&K C W.ILKER HENNEPIN CO REG10hAL RR AUTH KOhRAD CHRiSTOPHER KRI�GER
38(�NOR'fHERN AVE 38 ADDRESS UNASSiGNL•D 3915 SHORELINE UR
K1RK KALKBRENnER HENNE•PIN COUTTY KONRAU CHRiSTOPHLR KRUGER
KIMBERLY C WALKER REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY 483]MANITOU RD
3H(Nl NORTHERN AVE 701 4TH AVE S SUITE 4O0 EXCELSIOR MN 553?I
SPRING PARK MN SS3fi�3 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415
17 I8-117-23�13 0186 3R 17-1 17-23 3a IX165 3R 2f6117-23 22 00(Ki
HEt�NEPIh CO REG(ONAL RR AUTH LAKE MTKA WOODS ASSOC T M GREGORY&T A GREGORY
17 ADDRESS UhASSIGNED 3755 LNINGSTON AVE 3877 SHORELINE DR
HEI�NEPII�COUNTY LAKE MTKA WOODS ASSOC T M GREGORY&T A GREGORY
REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHOJ2ITY GO OMEGA MANAGEMEfYT 1885 STEIGGR LAKE LA
701 4TH AVE S SCITE 400 15350 25TH AVE N STE II�S VICTORIA MN SS386
MINNE.aPnLIS Mh ?5415 PLYMOUTH MN 5.5447
18 17-1 t7-23 33(10[kl 3R t7-117-23 3J 0083 3R 20-1 17-23 22 0(N)7
E J&M)HELD LAKE MTKA W(�DS ASS(X' J MICKELSON&T MICKELSON
3R90 SHORELIM1E DR 3R ADDRESS UKASSIGNED 3R65 SHORELINE DR
EDWARD J&MARSHA J HELD LAKE MTKA WOODS ASSOC JEC7�RLY&TINA MICKELSON
3890 SHORELINL DR C!O OMEGA MANAGLMLNT 3865 SHORE•L[NE DR
WAYZATA MN 55391 15350 25TH AVE N STE.108 WAYZATA MN SS391
PLYMOIiTH MN 55447
3R 17-1 17-23 33 0005 38 17-t 17-23 34(b8i 38 20-117-�3 221x108
DAVID UMBEHC�KER TONKA VENTURES LLC BRENT D WALTON
38h0 SHOREUhE DR 3A ADDRESS UNASSTGNED 2405 DUNWOODY AVE
DAVID I;MBEHOCKER TONKA VGNTlR2ES LLC BREN'I'D WALTON
38b0 SHORELINE DR 7760 FRANCE AVE•S#l770 2405 UUNWOODY AVL•
WAYZATA MN 55391 EDiNA MI�T 55435 WAYZATA MN 5539t
38 17-117�3 33 00(� 38 17-I 17-23 34 0086 38 2U-I17-23 22 O(M)9
LEERYAN OF MINNEAPOLIS LLC CITY OF ORONO JEAh WALSH
3850 SHORELINE DR 3770 SHORELINfi DR 2425 DUNWOODY AVE
BARBARA S HEItSLEY C1TY OF ORONO JEAK WALSH
3850 SHORELIh'L DR 2750 KLLLY PKWY 2425 DUhWOODY AVE
WAYZATA MN 55391 ORONO MN 5535G a'AYZATA MN i5341
� r� R
RUN DATE:t2/0112014 HENNF,PIN COL'NTY PROPERTY 1TiFORMATION SYSTtiM(PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PAGE:3
1 CERTiF1`1'HAT 7'HC FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRI;E REPRESGNTAT'ION OF 1hPURMATION
AS 11'APPEARS THI DA ON T{iE RECORUS OF HE Eh iN COUNTY RESIDENT AND RI,AL ESTAT'E SERVICES DCPARTMLNT
DATE: �� I �I BY:
RECEIVED
DEC 12 2014
� � � O� ciN o�oRotvo
� Y s
COU17C11
MINUTES OF THE Exhibit E
ORONO PLANNING COA�IlVIISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 20,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse not d it is in the proposed ordinance but that the Planning mmission did not discuss '
Landgraver th ed Ms. Daniels for her input. Landgraver stated one o the reasons for e Planning
Commission to xist is to take industry norms and then try to adapt those where oommunity is at or
apply them to th ommunity that the City and residents are tryi��cre L aver stated it is good
to get input,but at is point he has not persuaded to change an ver noted the City has
spent a lot of comm ity resources on this project and tt�he w�1� a e something the Council
can review.
Schoenzeit noted there is e variance process that c�b��lo if a pers�r� practical
difficulties or have technica information showing so .
Leskinen stated she is comforta e with the discussio Ct�mission has had that she
would be willing to forward the ft ordinance o o the C�y A o�'City Council once e revisions
are made. ,
Gaffron stated Staff will put together e reviffi�t�t�� tonight's di ' n,which will the e
given to the City Attorney for his iew. x�c�asked �he Planning Commission would li to
see it again prior to it going to e City Co
Leskinen stated she do ot see any reason�it� back�'the Planning Commission at this stage,
especially since the anning Comr���n has alre s�aent a�deal of time on this the first go-
around.
Schoenzeit moved,McGranar d,to direct Sta� corporate tonight's discussion into the
draft ordinance regarding conversion system CS)for the nezt level of review by
the City Attorney and City Cou� Y#'1TE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
3. �1'3-3'�4 $�1'I��AI COUNfiY��RTY SERVICES,3880 SHORELINE DRIVE,
Ct�+TDITIO1�AkL U��RMIT,��LAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE,7:54 P.M.—
�:�3 P.M.
ed Hennepin County t�rated a highway maintenance facility from the property located at
3t�(1 �e Drive since 1962, T�facility is used primarily for winter road maintenance. The facility
was� when the properiy zoned for commercial purposes and the property was rezoned in
the early l��I.�-1C. The nance facility was allowed to continue as a legal,nonconforming
use. The use taf��erty is considered a public service structure which is allowed through a
conditional use ' . An sion or change to the existing use or structure on the property requires a
conditional use pert�,
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit and commercial site plan review to allow a 3,200
square foot addition on the north side of the existing building. The property is currently at 47 percent
hardcover where 35 percent is permitted. The addition will result in nonstructural hardcover to be
converted to structural hardcover which requires a hazdcover variance.
At 47 percent hardcover,the property exceeds the Tier 3 hardcover limit of 35 percent. T'he proposed
addition will be constructed over existing hardcover and will not result in an increase. The change from
nonstructural hardcover to structural hardcover technically requires approval of a hardcover variance.
Page 13 of 21
, y ►
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COlVIlVIISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 20,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
The proposed addition will result in almost no change to the site layout or site usage. T'he addition will
not result in significant changes to access to the building or vehicular tr�c patterns within the site. The
existing site plan is in compliance with past approvals. The overhead door for the portion of the addition
slated for vehicle storage is facing into the site to the south and should not impact properties to the north.
Staff finds that Items 2,6, 7, 8, 9, and 13 of the conditional use per�� applies in this situation and
are outlined in Staff's report.
It is Staff's believe the proposed addition to provide�di�nal oftTc�, locker r9om space will
not result in a notable intensification of the site as the ' k a�d��pmer� t�ffi�e s��rill not
increase. T'he proposal should have virtually no negat�' �adjacent p ' ��ill there be
negative impacts in terms of stormwater or site usage. � recommend,ho�,f�at future
requests to increase the hardcover on the site not be apprr�.
Staff recommends approval of a conditional use permit for the prop ' n and approval of the site
plan, subject to the following conditions: One, ad �o the approv�d p�t;Two,the building permit
application will be subject to engineer,buildin�o�ci�l,�l f�e marshal re�; and Three, subject to
MCWD approval.
The Planning Commission had no questior��`Staff.
The applicant had nothing to add to S�'s report.
Chair Leskinen opened the publ�c 'ng at 7:58 p.�.t.
There were no public commer�s �this application.
Chair Les ' c �public he ' �'7:58 p.m.
Leski��ed the app' �pretty strai��ard and that she does not have any concerns with the
pro
ver asked if the MCVV� be conducting any evaluation to determine whether the stormwater
pq�14`c�tructed in 2000 is still ' nal. �
Curtis �part of the build' j�rnit review,the building inspector will review it as well as the
MCWD.C�ti� in her v�e���rvill be addressed if it is an issue.
Landgraver stat��c�l t��v if this would be the appropriate place to determine whether it is still
functioning.
Leskinen noted the memorandum from the MSB does talk about the stormwater pond. Leskinen stated to
her recollection it triggers a stormwater management rule that requires best management practices to be
incorporated into the project. Leskinen stated the memorandum appears to address some of that.
Landgraver stated in his view he felt this would be a good opportunity to review that,but that he is not
sure whether it is within the Planning Commission's purview.
Curtis stated she will make a note of that and consult with the City Attorney.
Page 14 of 21
-• �a w
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING CONIlVIISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 20,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse asked if they will be building the whole addition or not at this time.
Greg Moore,Hennepin County Construction Project Manager, stated the addition will be on the north
side of the building. Moore indicated a portion of the proposal w�built a�an alternate. The bid received
came in within budget so it will be built.
Lemke moved,Landgraver seconded,to recomme►�d oval�A ' n No. 15-3704,
Hennepin County Property Services,3880 Shorel�I�ive,gr�t �l'� ' 'onal use permit and
hardcover variance,subject to engineer,building ami�e marsi� ; rence to the
approved site plan; and subject to MCWD approv�. �: Ayes 6,Nays�.
4. #15-3705 AMEND CHAPTER ,ARTICL�I�,�I�T 7&8 T LIlVIINATE
RR-1B-1 AND M-6 DISTRI S,8:03 P.M.—�.4 P.�,
Curtis noted the Planning Comm' ion disc ed ' e at their w . The change i e
ordinance eliminates unused z ing district c ' o� �nin�:- ap�the City Code. e
lanning Commission was ' full agreement� e provisions within the zon' g
or ' ance. �,
�°` ��
Staff rec ends ap oval of the zoning text�nen .
,3
Chair Leskinen ened the public at 8:U4Vp.�. ��``ti �
` �'�,,,6
There were public mme� '�'this applicatio�. `�
� �,
Chair L inen closed the pu�:lic x��:04 p.m.
��.
McG � se dei,t� mend appr al of Application No. 15-37�
Ame� er 78,A IV,�ivis n 7�t�,�u eliminate -1B-1 and M-6 Districts. VOT$;,
Ay�r b,l�srys 0. �`_.,� �~.�.
.
3. #15-3706 MEND SEC'"TI�'3t+T 78-121��tEG ING CLARIFICATION TO T TOE ��
(��I,,U�'D INITION,8:0��'.�.—8:07 P.M� �
Curtis n ' t�also dis �tt the Plann' g Comm�'rsg,ion's January work ssion. Curtis stated
the prop ed it�ttie �clarifies e toe of the bl�definition t e consistent with state
shorel d rules� '� ' ical consi nt ordinance admin`�ati�:'
Sta recommends approv�i of the zonin te�ct amendment. '��
��� `•''�
hair Leskinen opened the public h 'ng at 8:06 p.m. P:�`� �
rr'�
There were no public comments garding this app�i�ation.
Chair Leskinen closed the p �e hearing�:06 p.m.
f
Page 15 of 21
1 �
CNVI�VI�.M�„��
Date Application Received: NA
Date Application Cousidered as Complete: NA �'� O C� `����
60-Day Review Period Expires: NA
C17Y�F 4�RON0
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date: February 5, 2015
Item No. �o
Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section:
Name:Mike Gaffron Planning
Title: Senior Planner
Item Description: 14-3707 Amend Zoning Ordinance Text:
Add Language to 78-1405 Non-Encroachments Section Regarding Retaining Walls
-Second Review
List of Exhibits:
Exhibit A. Sketches for Discussion
ExhibitB. Draft Council Minutes 1/26/15
Exhibit C. Council Memo and Exhibits dated 1/22/15
Summary of Request: This change to the list of allowed non-encroachments on yard
requirements in Section 78-1405 adds a section clarifying that retaining walls cannot be closer
than five feet from any side or rear lot line, nor located within an easement nor within 10 feet of
a traveled roadway.
Planning Commission Recommendation: On 1/20/2015 the Planning Commission held a
public hearing and recommended adoption of the proposed code amendment on a vote of 5-1.
The lone negative vote was based on an opinion that certain very low retaining walls should be
allowed closer to the lot line than 5 feet.
Council Review 1/26/15: Council requested additional information on the impacts of this
ordinance amendment and indicated more time was needed to consider the matter. Tabled 3-0.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council discuss the concerns about
At the January 26 review of this proposed amendment, Council questioned whether the 5-foot
setback from a side or rear lot line for retaining walls was necessary and whether it would apply
to low structures such as timber-cribbed planter beds or low decorative terrace walls.
Following are some observations that may assist Council in discussing the issue:
- Other cities' codes regarding construction of retaining walls are widely varied. Many don't
require any permit for those less than 4 feet in height. Others, similar to Orono, require a land
alteration permit(which is a zoning permit, as opposed to a building permit) for walls under 4'
high. At or above 4 feet in height, we require engineering and a building permit - this appears to
be common among cities. Also, some cities require a permit for those under 4' in height if they
support a surcharge(fill above the wall).
14-3707
February 5,2015
Page 2
- Some cities do not require a lot line setback for retaining walls, others do .
- The existing sections of Orono Code that establish a 5-foot setback for retaining walls are 78-
966 and 78-967; these sections are under Article V. Conditional Uses, Div. 3 - Requirements for
Specific Uses, Subd. II- Land Alteration. It's a very convoluted and difficult-to-interpret section
of code that evolved over time. 78-966 states:
Sec. 78-966.Prohibition.
(a) It is unlawful for any person to perform or have performed the following land alteration
activities without a conditional use permit issued by the council:
(1)Remove, fill,use for fill, dredge, store or excavate rock, sand, gravel, dirt or similar earth
material within the limits of the city.
(2)Fill or reclaim any land by depositing such material or by grading of existing land to
elevate or alter the existing natural grade.
(3)Build,alter or repair any seawall or retaining wall,or otherwise change the grade or
shore of lakeshore property.
(b) All land alterations involving filling and grading shall be performed only with clean fill as
defined in section 78-1. Granting of such permits is subject to other regulations and prohibitions
of this Code and other applicable statutes or ordinances of other governmental bodies.
(Code 1984, �10.03(19); Ord. No. 163 2nd series, �1, 12-8-1997)
Items (a)(1) and(a)(2) are activities that are typical of any retaining wall installation, which
functionally means that all retaining walls need a CUP. But, 78-967 provides for some
exceptions to the CUP requirement, as follows:
Sec. 78-967.-Exception.
(a)The requirements of section 78-966 are not intended to govern the following land alteration
activities:
(1) Normal and customary grading in the area of an existing or a newly constructed
building,or the grading of the driveway serving such building.
(2) Any earth movement under 500 cubic yards which does not adversely impact the
existing drainage.
(3) Grading,filling or excavating of ten cubic yards or less within the shore setback zone
of all lakes enumerated in article IX of this chapter.
(b) Such grading and earth movement shall be subject to approval by the building inspector at
the time of issuance of a building permit,provided that a plan showing proper drainage and
protection of adjoining property has been submitted.Where such earth movement is not being
performed in conjunction with a building permit, a separate land alteration permit shall be
required.Any unusual land alterations, including earth filling,removal or grading,proposed by
a builder shall be subject to a conditional use permit as provided for in tlus chapter. The
following land alterations shall be considered as unusual land alterations:
(1) All excavations for foundations in excess of 12 feet average depth if any amount of the
excess material removed below 12 feet depth is to be stockpiled on the site.
r
14-3707
February 5,2015
Page 3
(2) Any additional fill brought on site in excess of 500 cubic yards, except for fill required
to raise grade for adequate frost footing protection, the intent being that structures shall not
be artificially raised above the preexisting surrounding topography.
(3) Grading or alterations that would propose any changes in elevations within five
feet of adjacent residential lot lines except for drainage swales and ditches.
(c)T'he building inspector shall have the authority to refer any requests for land alteration
permits to the city council for review and approval in instances where the land alteration appears
to potentially create negative impacts or be not in keeping with the goals and policies of the
community management plan.
(Code 1984, §10.03(21); Ord.No. 163 2nd series, �2, 12-8-1997; Ord. No. 1712nd series, �1, 4-4-1998)
Interpretation of 78-967:
- 78-967(a)defines three exception situations in which a land alteration CUP would not be
required.
- 78-967(b)then indicates that for these three exception situations,the building inspector must
approve the grading plans before issuing the associated building permit; or if there is no building
proposed,just grading, a land alteration permit would be issued.
- 78-967(b) goes on to state that if any of these three exception situations include "unusual land
alterations", a CUP will still be required. "Unusual land alterations" are then defined to be one
of three unusual conditions:
- excavating foundation more than 12 feet deep and stockpiling the spoils on site
-bringing in more than 500 cubic yards of fill
- changing grades within 5 feet of a lot line
Therefore, since a retaining wall changes grades, if constructed within 5 feet of a lot line, it needs
a CUP. We have avoided the need for many CUPs by advising all applicants that they should
keep their retaining walls at least 5 feet from the lot line.
What is a retaining wall? During the Council discussion whether low planter boxes or similar
structures would or should be subject to the ordinance as proposed, it was suggested that the term
"retaining wall" should be defined. "Retaining wall"is not currently defined in Orono code. A
cursory review of municipal codes in Minnesota suggests that inclusion of such a definition in
zoning codes is not universal. Here are some dictionary definitions as well as other codes'
definitions of"Retaining wall":
Merriam-Webster: A wall built to resist lateral pressure other than wind pressure;
especially : one to prevent an earth slide.
MacMillan Dictionary: A wall that is built to prevent earth or water from moving
forward.
Collins DicNonary: A wall constructed to hold back earth, loose rock, etc.
Oxford Dictionary: A wall that holds back earth or water.
Illustrated Book of Development Definitions: A structure constructed to hold back or
support an earthen bank.
14-3707
February 5,2015
Page 4
City of Victoria, MN: A wall built to support earth of a higher level on one side than the
other.
City of Medina,MN: A wall or similar structure designed for the retention of dirt,
gravel, sand, soil, or other landscaping,natural, or man-made material.
Is a raised planter bed considered to be a retaining wall?
Low cribbed raised planter boxes have generally been ignored from a zoning perspective, and
they typically have not generated neighbor complaints. We normally do not receive pertnit
requests for such landscaping or gardening activity. An option for Council to consider is whether
planter beds meeting certain criteria should specifically be made exempt from setbacks and/or
permitting.
What are reasons we would want to have a 5-foot setback for retaining walls? (Assuming
they don't encroach on any existing utility easements):
- They need to be located and designed so as not to impede drainage between and across
adjoining properties
- They need to be maintainable from the wall owners' side of the lot line
- From a safety perspective, they need to be located so as to not create unsafe conditions for
neighboring properties
- Visually, they can have the same impact as an accessory structure in limiting light and open
space enjoyed by adjacent properties
Why the 10' retaining wall setback from traveled right-of way? The provision for a 10'
setback from the traveled roadway stems from the definition of"public road"within Section 18-
1 regarding Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Places, which states:
Public road means the entire area dedicated to public use, or contained in a plat,an easement or
other conveyance, grant or by adverse possession,to the city or other governmental body,and shall
include but is not limited to roadways,boulevards, sidewalks,trails, alleys and other public
property between lateral property lines in which a public roadway lies.Where traveled public
roadways exist in a location not shown on the platting map,the right-of-way shall not be less than
ten feet wide on each side of the actual paved or traveled roadway surface(emphasis added).
The intent of the inclusion in the proposed ordinance is to clarify that it is not acceptable to have
retaining walls directly abutting the road right-of-way without City approval.
Staff Recommendation
Staff would note that the draft ordinance was intended to simply add provisions already in the
land alteration section of the code to the non-encroachments section of the code. The 5' setback
requirement already exists (albeit difficult to interpret) in 78-966/967.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Staffrequests that Council discuss the issues noted and provide staff direction as to any desired
revisions to the draft ordinance.
i
I
.c � 2 ' �
or �
Ux �W
�
� � �
�- � �9
� + �'
� a �� �
�e � � �
� �
� � �
- �� .� �j'� J N
a. � Z �
� �� � '4 4� �.
2 � a � � N
�a � � ,
� � � � �
fl ' �� 3 N 11 � �
� � � � C � �; � m .
U `� .� *�, I
,� � �- � -
� ?x
� � �
�
� � �nt
a �----� 3 � �
� �
� �
� � 3 �.
� � � '�, �
� '� . -'E-. �- 2
� Q s �
m
4
_ �
� � � �
d V
__ ��
� Council
� MINUTES OF THE Exhibit B
ORONO CITY COUNCII,MEETING
Monday,January 26,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m. '
:�`;
The Spring Hill Conference Center went away approximately 15 yeazs ago and became a golf course. I �,,,�.
Gaffron indi ated there has never been any property before that and since that has been zoned RR-1B-1 �` L��
so Staff reco ds that be eliminated from the City Code.
Gaffron stated the -6 Multiple Family Planned Residential District was created in 76 to provide
standards for multipl family development but has been superseded almost entirel y the 1989 PUD
zoning ordinance as w as the RPUD,which was created in February of 2001. e City has never, since
1976,had any property ed M-6, this is an outdated piece of the City Code taff recommends those
two districts be removed fr the City Code.
L,evang stated the changes are s 'ght forward.
McMillan indicated she also is fine 'th the changes.
Levang moved,Cornick seconded,to opt ORDINANC O. 130,Third Series,an Ordinance
Amending the Orono Zoning City Code y Etiminatin he RR-1B-1 and M-6 ZONING
DISTRICTS. VOTE: Ayes 3,Nays 0.
4. #15-3706 AMEND SECTION 78-1211 ARDING CLARIFICATION TO THE TOE OF
BLUFF DEFINITION—ORDINANCE NO. 1
Gaffron stated this definition was questioned y an atto ey as the City was going through a variance
application last year. Gaffron stated the C' 's definition ctly mimics the State Statute's definition,
but there was a question about how man different points o slope might be defined as the toe of bluff.
Gaffron stated from a practical standpo' t,there can only be o toe.
The proposed language changes th anguage it to state that the toe f the bluff is the lower point of the
lowest SO-foot segment with an erage slope exceeding 18 percent. affron stated essentially that
means when it is a steep slope d it ends right at the lakeshore,you w ld not go out into the water to
get to that 18 percent. As a sult,when the toe is defined as lakeward o he OHW,the OHW becomes
the toe and not some poin ut in the lake.
Levang stated she do remember that discussion on the variance application an that she is happy there
is a clarification on e definition.
Mayor McMill asked if there is any public comment on the amendment.
There were o public comments regarding this application.
Levan moved,Cornick seconded,to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 131,TWrd Series,an Ordin nce
Ame ding the Orono Zoning City Code by Amending the Detinition of"Toe of Bluff." VO
Aye 3,Nays 0.
5. #15-3707 AMEND SECTION 78-1405(a)(5)TO CLARIFY RETAINING WALL AND
LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE SETBACKS—ORDINANCE NO.(Tabled)
Gaf&on stated this is a change to the list of allowed non-encroachments on yard requirements in the City
Code. The clarification states that retaining wa11s cannot be closer than five feet from any side or rear lot
Page 2 of 13
' ' MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,January 26,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m. , ,
\:
lines,cannot be closer than ten feet from the traveled right-of-way,and cannot be installed within an R �
easement area. � ,
�
Gaffron stated because of some potential confusion and because it is not currently in the non-
encroachment section, Staff would recommend it be added. Gaffron stated essentially the new ordinance
section states that"No retaining wall of any height shall be located closer than five feet from any side or
rear property line,never fewer than ten feet from the edge of a traveled roadway,or placed within a
drainage,utility, or other easement,except upon approval in writing for an encroachment agreement by
the City or similar approval from another regulatory andlor utility agency."
McMillan noted she attended the January Planning Commission meeting when this item was discussed
and that some of the discussion revolved around the fact that the City requires a permit for a 4-foot higher
retaining wall.
Gaffron stated a 4-foot or higher retaining wall requires engineering.
McMillan asked if somebody can construct something below that.
Planning Coordinator Curtis indicated it would require a zoning pemut.
McMillan asked if a 2-foot high boulder wall would require a permit.
Curtis stated it is associated with the grading permit. Curtis stated the City's permit form for a zoning
permit has several line items that need to be filled out and that the land alteration permit has a$50 permit
fee. The person would also need to indicate on the permit application whether they are going to construct
a retaining wall or other structure.
McMillan asked if a raised garden bed would need a zoning permit if it is less than four feet.
Curtis stated the City Code threshold is 0 to 500 cubic yards and that nowhere in the City is there a low
threshold of one yard or ten yards.Curtis indicated Staff does use discretion when people ca11 and ask
about planting a garden or planting trees or moving some dirt around to level for sod,and in some cases
will consult with the City Engineer to see if it really requires a permit. Since the City Code does have a
zero cubic yazd threshold,any earth movement technically requires a zoning permit.
McMillan stated that was one of the issues a Planning Commissioner had with the change. McMillan
asked at what point it becomes a retaini.ng wall versus a decorative wall.
Curtis stated technically a 1-foot wall would be holding soil,but it is not a retaining wall that requires an
engineer design.
Edwards stated when retaining walls start to become a structure at four feet or above,the City requires a
building permit and also an engineered design signed by a licensed engineer. Edwards stated there is
some leeway between four and six feet,but generally the City uses four feet as their threshold for
requiring an engineered design. Edwards stated that requirement typically kicks in when there is grading
being done.
Page 3 of 13
� ' ' MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,January 26,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m. `
,.�;,
McMillan asked what would happen with existing situations if this City Code change is approved. �
��
Gaffron stated existing retaining walls are not affected by this unless the wa11 is changed in some way. "
Gaffron stated when it says that no retaining wall shall be located closer than five feet;the City would not
go back and require the resident to remove it. Gaffron stated the one dissenting vote on the Planning
Commission was questioning the raised garden beds in a small azea within five feet of the property line.
Gaffron stated every situation will be different, but that there are possible ramifications to neighboring
properties if a wall is closer than five feet to the property line. Gaffron stated there is the possibility that
utility companies could find that an obstruction. Gaffron stated the City Council could define what a
retaining wall is or include some exemptions in the City Code but that Staff is not prepared at this time to
define exactly what those things are.
Levang noted the Council is not specifying what the retaining wall is constructed out of.
Edwards stated the main issue that Staff reviews is the drainage and whether the proposed work is going
to alter the drainage pattems to drain onto the neighboring property. Edwards stated when someone is
placing a simple, small retaining wall next to the property line that does have the potential to alter the
drainage and could cause runoff to the neighboring property.
Gaffron stated another potential issue is the need to go on to the neighbor's property to maintain the wall
if it is right against the lot line.
McMillan asked if the edge of a traveled,established roadway needs to be ten feet from the property line.
Gaffron stated in situations where there may not be an easement and there is a roadway,the City has the
right to maintain and to claim for public use the first ten feet past the pavement or past the traveled
roadway. Gaffron stated in many cases that ten feet leaves someone within the right-of-way but in some
cases it puts them into the actual property itself. There could also be a visual aspect issue in certain
situations.
McMillan asked whether there would be an exemption if someone has a deteriorating timber wall within
the right-of-way by the roadway and they need to replace it. McMillan noted in certain situations it may
not be possible to re-grade the area.
Gaffron stated the City does have an encroachment agreement to handle these situations and that Staff
would review it to ensure that replacement does not make the situation worse.
McMillan asked if that would be an administrative approval.
Gaf&on noted Staff has brought encroachment agreements to the Council in the past.
Curtis indicated it would depend on the encroachment and what was being encroached upon.
McMillan asked if there is a fee for the encroachment agreement.
Curtis stated the fee is$150 because City Attorney and Stafftime is involved in drafting the
encroachment agreement.
Page 4 of 13
� ' MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,Jannary 26,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
�
.
City Attomey Mattick stated the more items that are included in the utility easements•the more likel it O
, y �
could unpact the easement,which is the reason for the review. Mattick stated if there is an encmachment ��
in the right-of-way,the property owner is notified that they may need to remove it at some point at their �
own cost.
McMillan stated her issue is with the one or two-foot high retaining wall but that basically a retaining
wall is a retaining wall regardless of the height of it. McMillan noted there are some people that have
walls within the right-of-way. McMillan suggested this change be clarified in the newsletter.
Cornick stated he is a little troubled by the zero tolerance. Cornick asked if this could lead to neighbor
disputes and whether that is something the City should attempt to address.
Gaffron stated if there are specific changes the Council would like to see,he would recommend tabling
the amendment.
Cornick stated he would like to give it a little more thought.
McMillan stated she is in agreement with Council Member Cornick and that she would also like to
understand how it could potentially impact the different zones of a property.
Levang moved,Cornick seconded,to table Application No. 15-3707,Amend Section 78-1405 of the
Orono Zoning City Code by Clarifying Retaining Wall and Landscape Structure Setbacks.VOTE:
Ayes 3,Nays 0.
6. #15-3709 AMEND SECTION 78-1001(6)TO ADD NAVARRE AREA TO PUD D��D
USE PROVISIONS—ORDINANCE NO. 132
Gaffron stated in April of 1989,the City adopted an ordinance that included revisions to the B-1
commercial district,created the B-6 highway commercial district,and established provisions for
development by the PUD process. PUD City Code Section 78-1001(6)authorized utilization of the PUD
Zoning District only in the Highway 12 corridor,which was set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan
Amendment#2 adopted in May of 1988.
Since then,the City has not been able to use the PUD process or create a PUD district outside of the
Highway 12 corridor area. This change to the City Code would allow that process to be used within the
Navarre azea. Gaf�'ron noted there is the potential for redevelopment in the Navarre area and that the
PUD District would allow for mixed use development. Gaffron indicated this would be the first step in
allowing mixed use in the Navarre area and that a set of standards for PUD use should eventually be
established.
Cornick stated it sounds like good planning.
Levang asked if any specific corridors should be specified or whether it just applies to the general
Navarre area.
Gaffron stated the way it was drafted initially only talks about Navarre in general. Gaffron stated there is
mixed use potential on certain guided properties in Navarre and there are also properties that were not
Page 5 of 13
' ' � � Council
Exhibit C
Date Application Received: NA
Date Application Considered as Complete: NA
60-Day Review Period Expires: NA
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date: January 22, 2015
Item No. S
Department Approva • Administrator Approval: Agenda Section:
Name: Mike Gaffron Planning
Title: Senior Plann
Item Description: 14-3707 Amend Zoning Ordinance Text:
Add Language to 78-1405 Non-Encroachments Section Regarding Retaining Walls
List of Eahibits:
Exhibit A. Draft Ordinance
Exhibit B. PC Memo and Exhibit dated 1/20/15
Summary of Request: This change to the list of allowed non-encroachments on yard
requirements in Section 78-1405 adds a section clarifying that retaining walls cannot be closer
than five feet from any side or rear lot line, nor located within an easement nor within 10 feet of
a traveled roadway.
Planning Commission Recommendation: On 1/20/2015 the Planning Commission held a
public hearing and recommended adoption of the proposed code amendment on a vote of 5-1.
The lone negative vote was based on an opinion that certain very low retaining walls should be
allowed closer to the lot line than 5 feet.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as drafted.
The land alteration section of the zoning code currently does not allow grade changes within five
feet of a lot line. The non-encroachments section of the code needs to be amended by adding a
similar provision with respect to reta.ining walls. Retaining walls have not previously been
addressed in the non-encroachment section, yet are allowed to be constructed within required
yards. This has resulted in confusion as to where retaining walls can be located. The
amendment clarifies that retaining walls located in a side or rear yard have to be at least 5 feet
from lot lines, and cannot be closer than 10 feet from the traveled right-of-way, and cannot be
installed within an easement area.
This addition to the non-encroachments section is being inserted as 78-1405(a)(5.1) in order to
place it in the correct location within the listing.
Staff Recommendation
The proposed non-encroachment section addition regarding retaining walls should be adopted
per the attached draft ordinance.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt the attached Ordinance Amending Section 78-1405 of the Orono Zoning
Code by Clarifying Retaining Wall and Landscape Structure Setbacks.
/ '•' �
ORDINANCE NO._, THIRD SERIES
CITY OF ORONO
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 78-1405 OF THE ORONO ZONING CODE BY
CLARIFYING RETAINING WALL AND LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE SETBACKS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS:
SECTION l. Section 78-1405(a)Nonencroachments of the CiTy of Orono Zoning
Ordinance is hereby amended by adding the following:
(5.1)No retaining wall of anv height shall be located closer than 5 feet from any side or rear
propert,y line, never fewer than ten feet from the edge of the traveled roadwav, or placed
within a draina e,g utilitv, or other easement, except upon approval in writin fg or an
encroachment agreement bv the city; or similar approval from another regul�rv and/or
utility agency.
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its
passage and publication.
ADOPTED this 26th day of January,2015 on a vote of_ayes and_nays by the City
Council of Orono, Minnesota.
ATTEST: Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor
Diane Tiegs, City Clerk
Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of , 201 S.
1
: , � .
� CITY OF ORONO
PLANNING CASE: 15-3707 MEETING DATE: January 20, 2015 a~,
�
APPLICANT: City of Orono 60-DAY RULE DATE: n/a
PROCEEDING: Zoning Ordinance Text EXHIBITS: A. Draft Ordinance
Amendment
PREPARED BY: Andrew Mack, AICP
PLANNING REPORT
I SUMMARY OF REQUESTS —CLARIFYING RETAINING WALL AND LANDSCAPE
STRUCTURE SETBACKS
11 BACKGROUND—This change clarifies language pertaining to permit restrictions for
retaining walls which cannot be closer than five feet from any side or rear lot line, nor
located within an easement. The PC supported this change to clarify minimum retaining
wall setbacks from property lines.
III RECOMMENDATION—Staff recommends approval of the zoning text amendment.
Page 1 of 1
t �� � �
PC i it A
ORDINANCE NO._, THIRD SERIES ��2
CITY OF ORONO
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE CLARIFYING RETAINING
WALL AND LANDSCAPE STRUCTURE SETBACKS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 78-1405(a)Nonencroachments of the City of Orono Zoning
Ordinance is hereby amended by adding the following:
(5.1)No retainin�wall of an hei�ht shall be located closer than 5 feet from anv side or rear
pronertv line,never fewer than ten feet from the ed�e of the traveled roadwa or placed
within a draina�e,utilitv or other easement except upon approval in writin for an
encroachment a�reement b the city or similar apnroval from another re latory and/or
utilit}�a encY
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its
passage and publication.
ADOPTED this day of ,2015 on a vote of_ayes and_nays by the City
Council of Orono, Minnesota.
ATTEST:
Jessica Loftus, City Administrator Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor
Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of , 201 S.
�
� _, COUNCII MEETINC
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION FEB 0 9 2015
DATE: February ��(�.�ORONO
ITEM NO: �
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Adam T. Edwards �j Public Works Director/
Title Public Works Director City Engineer's Report
Item Description: Wellhead Protection Ordinance
Exhibits
A- Proposed Wellhead Protection Ordinance
B- Summary of Proposed Wellhead Protection Ordinance
l. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to create Section 14-142 to provide for wellhead
protection by prohibiting new private wells where public water supply is available.
2. Background. In October of 2013 the City adopted our Wellhead Protection Plan(WHPP). The
WHPP is a requirement of the Minnesota Department of Health under Minnesota State Statutes 103I sub5
parts 4720.5100-4720.5590. Wellhead Protection is a method of preventing contamination of a public
water supply well by effectively managing potential contaminant sources in the area which contributes
water to a public water supply well. Measure B3-2 of the WHPP plan reads:
The City Council will pass and ordinance requiring hookup to City water where available. This
will reduce the likely hood that pumping of other wells will dmpact contaminant movement to the
City wells.
3. Proposed Ordinance.
14-142 Wellhead Protection-New Private Wells Prohibited.
(A) The owners of all buildings where a public water supply is available,or becomes available, shall connect
the buildings to the public water supply,subject to the following conditions:
1. A private property with a functioning well will not be required to be connected to the city water until the
well becomes nonfunctioning or the building undergoes major remodeling resulting in an increase in water
use that exceeds the capacity of the well.
2. Where it is not feasible to connect to a public water supply,or if private on-site water supplementation is
required as determined by the City of Orono, a well may be drilled in accordance with the specifications and
provisions of the Minnesota Depardnent of Health, Water Well Construction Code.
(B) At the time connection to the public water supply is completed, all existing private wells no longer in use
shall be sealed by a licensed well contractor according to the Rules of the Minnesota Department of Health.
4. Justification. Prohibits new private wells from being installed where a public water supply service is
available. This reduces the likely hood that private wells will introduce or draw contaminants into the
City drinking water supply management area.
5. Recommendation. I recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance as part of our overall well head
protection plan.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the new Wellhead Protection Ordinance.
ORDINANCE NO. _, THIRD SERIES
CITY OF ORONO
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE FOR PROTECTING THE CITY'S WELLHEADS BY PROHIBITING
NEW PRIVATE WELLS WHERE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY IS AVAILABLE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Orono Municipal Code Section 14-142 regarding Wellhead Protection -
New Private Wells Prohibited is hereby adopted to read as follows:
Sec. 14-142.- Wellhead Protection - New Private Wells Prohibited.
(a) The owners of all buildings where a public water supplv is available, or becomes
available, shall connect the buildin�s to the public water suppl�ject to the followin�
conditions:
(1) A private property with a functioning well will not be required to be connected to the
cit,y water until the well becomes nonfunctioning or the building under oe�s major remodelin�
resulting in an increase in water use that exceeds the capacity of the well.
(2) Where it is not feasible to connect to a public water sup�l , o�r 'if_private on-site
water supplementation is required as determined by the City of Orono, a well may be drilled in
accordance with the specifications and provisions of the Minnesota Department of Health, Water
Well Construction Code.
�b) At the time connection to the public water supply is completed, all existing private wells
no longir in use shall be sealed by a licensed well contractor accordin�to the Rules of the Minnesota
Department of Health.
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its
passage and publication.
ADOPTED this 9th day of February,2015 on a vote of_ayes and_nays by the City
Council of Orono, Minnesota.
ATTEST: Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor
Diane Tiegs, City Clerk
Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of , 201 S.
�
s �
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. ,THIRD SERIES
ORDINANCE NO , THIRD SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 14 OF
THE ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE
BY ADDING SECTION 14-142
REGARDING AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING
AN ORDINANCE FOR PROTECTING THE CITY'S WELLHEADS BY PROHIBITING
NEW PRIVATE WELLS WHERE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY IS AVAILABLE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Orono Municipal Code Section 14-142 regarding Wellhead Protection -
New Private Wells Prohibited is hereby adopted to read that the owners of all buildings where a
public water supply is available, or becomes available, shall connect the buildings to the public
water supply, subject to the certain conditions and all existing private wells no longer in use shall be
sealed by a licensed well contractor according to the Rules of the Minnesota Department of Health.
SECTION 2. establishes that a summary of this Ordinance shall be published in THE
PIONEER and THE LAKER newspapers and that the Ordinance in its entirety shall be effective
upon approval and publication of the Summary Ordinance.
This Summary Ordinance is an abbreviated summary of Ordinance No. , Third Series. A printed
copy of Ordinance No. ,Third Series in its entirety is available for inspection by any person at the
office of the City Clerk during regular office hours. This ordinance becomes effective immediately upon
publication.
ADOPTED this 9th day of February,2015 on a vote of_ayes and_nays by the City
Council of Orono, Minnesota.
ATTEST: Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor
Diane Tiegs, City Clerk
Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of , 201 S.
1
. �
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: February 9, 2015
ITEM NO: �
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Adam T. Edwards �/ Public Works Director/
Title Public Works Director City Engineer's Report
Item Description: Amendment to Municipal Code 14-134: Service Pipes.
Exhibits
A- Proposed Water Service Pipe Ordinance Amendment
B- Proposed Summary Ordinance for the Water Service Pipe Ordinance Amendment
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to amend Section 14-134 of the Municipal code to clarify
and provide consistency for water service pipe repair responsibilities.
2. Background. Last winter the bitter cold caused some service pipes to freeze. Most often the freeze
occurs underneath the street pavement due to the insulative effect of the snow being removed. These
incidents caused the City to look more closely at the service pipe section of the City Code. The review of
the code identified an inconsistency in establishing responsibility for service pipe repairs. Section 14-134
made the property owner responsible for service pipes all the way to the main for freezes while section
14-]38 made the property owner responsible for repair of leaks only to the curb stop.
3. Proposed Ordinance Amendment.
Sec. 14-134.-Service pipes.
Every service pipe must be laid in such manner as to prevent rupture by settlement.The service pipe shall be placed
not less than seven feet below the surface in all cases so arranged as to prevent rupture and stoppage by freezing. It
is the responsibilitv of the property owner or buildin�occupant to repair frozen service p�es between the curb sto�
into the house or other buildine.
e€-�eeiw�ex. Service pipes must extend from the curb stops to the inside of the building,or if not taken into a
building then to the hydrant or other fixtures which they are intended to supply. A valve the same size as the service
pipe shall be placed close to the inside wall of the building,ahead of the meter and well protected from freezing.
Joints on copper tubing shall be flared and kept to a minimum.Not more than one joint shall be used for a service up
to 70 feet in length. All service pipes, including joints,shall be left uncovered until inspected. Minimum size
connection with the water mains shall be three-fourths inch in diameter.The strength of all pipes shall be as
prescribed by the city.
4. Recommendation. I recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance as amended. The code as
amended provides continuity with other sections of code related to the same subject. The code as
amended ensures responsibility for repair and maintenance is properly placed on those who exercise
authority/ control over that section of the utility. The City owns everything to the curb stop and the
resident everything from the curb stop to their building.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Adopt the amended Service Pipe Ordinance.
. �
ORDINANCE NO._, THIRD SERIES
CITY OF ORONO
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY REVISING THE
RESPONSIBILITITES FOR WATER SERVICE REPAIRS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Orono Municipal Code Section 14-134 regarding service pipes is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 1�-134. -Service pipes.
Every service pipe must be laid in such manner as to prevent rupture by settlement. The service pipe
shall be placed not less than seven feet below the surface in all cases so arranged as to prevent rupture and
stoppage by freezing. It is the responsibili of the propertv owner or buildin�occupant to repair frozen
service pipes between the curb stop into the house or other buildin�
. Service pipes must extend from the curb stops to the
inside of the building, or if not taken into a building then to the hydrant or other fixtures which they are
intended to supply. A valve the same size as the service pipe shall be placed close to the inside wall of the
building,ahead of the meter and well protected from freezing.Joints on copper tubing shall be flared and kept
to a minimum. Not more than one joint shall be used for a service up to 70 feet in length. All service pipes,
including joints, shall be left uncovered until inspected. Minimum size connection with the water mains shall
be three-fourths inch in diameter. The strength of all pipes shall be as prescribed by the city.
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its
passage and publication.
ADOPTED this 9th day of February, 2015 on a vote of_ ayes and _ nays by the City
Council of Orono, Minnesota.
ATTEST: Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor
Diane Tiegs, City Clerk
Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of , 201 S.
1
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. , THIRD SERIES
ORDINANCE NO , THIRD SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 14 OF
THE ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE
BY AMENDING SECTION 14-134
REGARDING AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY REVISING THE
RESPONSIBILITITES FOR WATER SERVICE REPAIRS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Orono Municipal Code Section 14-134 regarding service pipes is hereby
amended to read it is the responsibility of the property owner or building occupant to repair frozen service
pipes between the curb stop into the house or other building.
SECTION 2. establishes that a summary of this Ordinance shall be published in THE
PIONEER and THE LAKER newspapers and that the Ordinance in its entirety shall be effective
upon approval and publication of the Summary Ordinance.
This Summary Ordinance is an abbreviated summary of Ordinance No. , Third Series. A printed
copy of Ordinance No. , Third Series in its entirety is available for inspection by any person at the
office of the City Clerk during regular office hours.This ordinance becomes effective immediately upon
publication.
ADOPTED this 9th day of February, 2015 on a vote of_ ayes and _ nays by the City
Council of Orono, Minnesota.
ATTEST: Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor
Diane Tiegs, City Clerk
Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of , 201 S.
1
` COUNCIL MEETING
Date Application Received: NA FEB 0 9 2015
Date Applicatiou Considered as Complete: NA
60-Day Review Period Expires: NA
C1T1(OF ORONO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date: February 5, 2015
Item No. �
Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section:
Name:Mike Gaffron Planning
Title: Senior Planner
Item Description: Storm Water&Drainage Trunk Fee Review
List of Ea�hibits:
Exhibit A. Staff Memo &Exhibits - January 7, 2015 PC Work Session
In order to initiate Council consideration of potential revisions to the Storm Water and Drainage
Trunk Fee("SW&DT Fee"), attached are memos and exhibits provided to the Planning
Commission for their January 2015 work session. Although this was not discussed by the PC, it
is a topic that primarily requires Council input and direction.
The attached materials raise a number of issues to be resolved,but do not yet pose recommended
solutions for those issues. Staff is in the process of preparing an analysis of possible options for
consideration,which is intended to be available in late February or early March for Council
review.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Review the attached materials and advise staff of any comments or concerns you may have as
this process moves forward.
MEMORANDUM January 7, 2015 PC Work Session
To: Staff& Planning Commission
Soren Mattick, City Attorney
From: Mike Gaffron, Asst. City Administrator
Date: December 1, 2014
Subject: Storm Water & Drainage Trunk Fee Issues
Summary: In May 2014 staff presented the City Council with a number of issues
related to the Storm Water & Drainage Trunk Fee (SW&DT Fee) suggesting the need
for potential Code amendments and/or a re-interpretation of the SW&DT Fee provisions
in light of Council actions and staff discussions over the past two years.
Attachments:
1. May 2014 Council Work Session Memo with attachments:
A - Pertinent Ordinances - Municipal Code Sections 14-281 thru 14-287
B - History of SW&DT Fees Collected (Single-family residential projects)
C - 2014 Fee Schedule Excerpt - SW&DT Fees
2. December 2014 Updated & Expanded History of Collected Fees
Discussion
Please review the Memo and attachments from the May Council 2014 Work Session for
a detailed background on the SW&DT Fee and a review of the primary issues
surrounding it. At that work session, Council generally agreed that the SW&DT Fee
structure needs to be reconsidered per the 4 discussion points on page 9 of the May
memo. Additionally, the Lakeview Golf development application process has added the
issue of the sheer magnitude of the fee for a large development. To address the above,
staff is suggesting the following process:
- analyze the methodology to determine whether there are inequities between the fee
charged for large lots versus small lots;
- review how the fee relates to hardcover levels and hardcover increases or
decreases, as well as the use of BMPs to minimize runoff leaving the site;
- examine how the fee takes into consideration on-site stormwater improvements, and
consider adopting standards for fee credit for off-site improvements
- consider whether the triggers for charging the fee are 1) clear and 2) appropriate;
- draft a definition for `new development' relative to the fee;
- review and reconsider the parameters and basis for charging the fee for
`redevelopment'; and
- establish standards defining how past fees paid are credited for future development
of a site.
�
SW8�DT Fee Review
December 1, 2014
Page 2
THE FOLLOW/NG IS SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION TO MAY 2014 WORK SESSION MEMO
Data Review - SW&DT Fees Collected Since Inception
Attachment 2 is a table presenting an updated history of the SW&DT fees collected for
new single-family residential developments since the ordinance was implemented in
2002. Fees collected to date total just over $850,000 from 28 individual subdivisions.
An analysis of the fees, which by ordinance are based on total acreage of a
development site (including wetlands), can be summarized as follows:
1. In all but 3 of the 28 subdivisions, the fee was calculated based on the total
property in the subdivision, including the existing home when one existed. In finro
of the three anomalies, only the one newly-created vacant lot was charged the
fee on the basis that the remaining further-subdividable acreage with the existing
house would create no additional stormwater impacts unless/until further
subdivided. The third anomaly was a lot line rearrangement that made an
existing lot buildable, so only the newly-buildable lot was charged the SW&DT
fee.
2. The vast majority of fees have come from developments in the 2-acre zoning
districts. The per-acre trunk fee for the 2-acre zone has risen from $2700 in
2002 to $3840 in 2014, an increase of just over 3% per year over 12 years.
The average fee "per lot" collected from 69 lots created via subdivision in the 2-
acre zones since 2002 is $9,833 per lot, with a range from $5,400 to $12,800 per
lot. This wide range is a function of the increasing per-acre fee over time, and the
size of the individual lots beinq created.
Larger lots pay for more acreage (but not for more than 4.0 acres per lot in the 2-
acre zone). This is, of course, counter-intuitive to the concept that bigger lots
have less stormwater impacts; the justification basis is that larger lots have
greater volumes of runoff under certain conditions such as frozen or already
saturated ground, and require lengthier stormwater conveyance systems to serve
them (another example of the higher cost of low density).
3. Relatively few properties have developed in the 1-acre and 5-acre zones since
2002. Average per-lot SW&DT fee charged in the only 1-acre subdivision was
$12,225 per lot; each lot was nearly 2-1/2 acres. In the 5-acre zone, only two
subdivisions occurred; one created two lots of 7 acres each, with a resulting per-
lot fee of$14,980; the other created two lots of 5 acres each, and took advantage
of a 50% credit allowed for placing acreage in conservation easements, resulting
in a per-lot fee of only $6,717.
4. Since 2002 there have been 5 subdivisions (4 complete, 1 pending) subject to
the 1/2-acre zone SW&DT fee, creating a total of 29 single-family lots. The
average per-lot fee resulting from this higher density development is $3,825 per
lot, with the average lot size of 0.75 acre.
SW8�DT Fee Review
December 1, 2014
Page 3
5. For comparison purposes, the Lakeview Golf development of 46 lots on 142
gross acres is expected to generate a SW&DT fee (at $3840 per acre) of
$545,280 or $11,854 per lot. This is on the high side of the average per lot fee
collected to date, but not the highest paid to date.
Additional Background: Per-Acre Fee Amount
In 1999 when the SW&DT Fee was being crafted by the City's consulting engineers, 12
properties in Orono expected to develop during the period 2000-2005 were chosen as
examples to determine the amount of infrastructure expected to be required to manage
water quality and quantity. The anticipated infrastructure included regional ponds to
treat and store runoff, and piping to convey runoff to those ponds.
The engineers determined the potential amount and cost of stormwater infrastructure
needed to serve these properties. They then established `equivalency factors' between
different densities of development based on standard runoff coefficients, with the 2-acre
lot being used as the base. For example, an acre of development in the 1/2-acre zone
was considered to generate on average 1.48 times the runoff of an acre developed in
the 2-acre zone. Dividing the total cost of infrastructure of the 12 properties by the total
equivalent acreage yielded an overall per-acre cost of$2670.
This resulted in assigning higher per-acre costs to higher density (i.e. higher percentage
of hardcover) development. At the same time, the per-lot or per-unit cost was lower in
the high-density zones, as more units were possible per acre. The initial fee structure
appearing in the 2002 Fee Schedule was as follows:
New Development Land Use Trunk Fee per Acre
Single Family Residential 5 Acre Zone $2,160
Single Family Residential 2 Acre Zone $2,700
Single Family Residential 1 Acre Zone $3,510
Single Family Residential 1/2 Acre Zone $4,050
Multi Family Residential 4 Units/Acre or Less $4,860
Multi Family Residential Greater than 4 Units/Acre $5,670
Commercial or Industrial $6,480
Current Code Provisions for SW�DT Fee Reduction
As noted in the May work session memo (page 3 of 9), certain opportunities for
reducing the SW&DT fee in the 5-acre and 2-acre zones were established shortly after
the initial ordinance was implemented. These related to placing a `cap' on the acreage
to be used in calculating the fee (7 acres in the 5-acre zone; 4 acres in the 2-acre zone),
and allowing up to a 50% reduction for placing acreage in conservation easements (5-
acre zone only).
SW�DT Fee Review
December 1,2014
Page 4
Additionally, the code provides for a reduction or rebate of a portion of the fees when a
developer provides stormwater facilities providing treatment beyond that required for the
development site. The ordinance indicates the City reserves the right to develop policies
for such a credit. No policies have ever been established.
The developer of the Lakeview Golf site has questioned whether the calculated SW&DT
fee of over $500k is justified, given that nearly half of the property will be placed in
conservation easements. Again, note that the current code only allows for a
'conservation easement reduction' in the 5-acre zone, not in the 2-acre zone in which
Lakeview is located. The developer has suggested a number of potential justifications
for a reduction of the fee which are further explored later in this memo.
Future Needs for Stormwater Funding
It is important to include in this discussion the magnitude of the City's future funding
needs for stormwater management and potential sources for meeting those needs.
Implementation of the needed stormwater projects and activities identified in the 2011
Orono Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) generally exceed $250,000 per year
on an ongoing basis. Future needs include maintaining and upgrading existing
stormwater infrastructure; adding new stormwater facilities where they are lacking; and
anticipated mandates to address TMDL's and existing phosphorus loading issues within
Orono's various water bodies.
Following is an excerpt from the SWMP:
9.5 FUNDING
Funding for the projects and programs identified in Table 9.3 will typically come from
development fees, the stormwater utility, and grant opportunities. Development fees will pay
for the instatlation of permanent BAAPs to mitig�e the imp�cts from stormw�er runoff, a
reduction in sedimerti# loads by implementing �asion ��i �ec�m�rtt control techniques during
developmen#, and implementat� of ti� City of Orono's wrettand protection ordinance. The
City of Orono's Stormwater Utility will pay for activities such as MS4 education, stormwater
system operation and maintenance, and implementation of the City's phosphorus reduction
program.
The Stormwater Utility annually generates approximately$135,000; therefore, the City will
need to utilize other funding mechanisms to make up the difference for the estimated
$232,000 to $331,000 SWMP implementation costs. These costs will be made up by
reviewing the annual Stormwater Utility fee and making adjustments to the fee, prioritizing
projects, and utilizing the funding sources in the list below. If the City needs to prioritize
funding towards specific projects it will place highest priority on those projects that give the
City the best opportunity to meet the phosphorus reduction goals required by the MCWD.
1. Grant monies possibly secured from various agencies. This could include MCWD,
Hennepin County, Board of Water and Soil Resources, and the MnDNR.
SWBDT Fee Review
December 1, 2014
Page 5
2. Special assessments for local improvements performed under authority of Minnesota
Statutes Chapter 429.
3. Revenue generated by Watershed Management Special Tax Districts provided for
under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 473.882.
4. Project funds could be obtained from watershed district levies as provided for in
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1030.905 for those projects being completed by or in
cooperation with MCWD.
5. Other sources potentially including tax increment financing, tax abatement, state aid,
and others.
The SW&DT Fee, originally intended to be collected from new development projects as
well as from redevelopment of individual sites, has since 2002 generated $857,000 or
approximately $66,000 per year, during which time the City has expended $1.01 million
on stormwater capital improvement projects. The City of Orono 2014-2028 Capital
Improvement Plan projects annual expenditures well in excess of $400,000 per year on
stormwater operations, maintenance and improvements. While O&M will generally be
covered by the Storm Water Utility funding, CIP projects will rely on the SW&DT fees as
well as the five potential sources noted above. The SW&DT fees attributable to new
development are expected to diminish as Orono becomes completely developed, and
timing of future development is somewhat unpredictable.
Developer Feedback
Two specific SW&DT issues were identified in the May work session memo - how much
acreage to use in calculating the fee when a large parcel is proposing to just split off
one lot; and the inequities inherent in the SW&DT fee structure for redevelopment
projects, which has never been implemented. A third issue has recently been brought
up by potential developers, including the developers of Lakeview as well as potential
future developers of the Eisinger property and the property on Orchard Park Road.
Each of these has questioned the basic justification for the fee as well as its magnitude
as a result of being charged for the entire property acreage as opposed to some other
method.
Pat Hiller recently sent the following email to the Mayor and cc'd it to staff:
Mayor McMillan:
Thank you for taking the time Monday night to listen to our concerns regarding the
magnitude of the storm water trunk fee for Lakeview. We understand that what we are
asking the council to consider is not contemplated in the code as it is currently written, so a
code amendment appears to be necessary if the council is willing to ease the fee burden.
We have been discussing some ideas internally about how that code amendment could read
SW8�DT Fee Review
December 1, 2014
Page 6
so that it would help to meet our needs and also be fair and consistent to future developers
within the city. Here are our ideas for the council's consideration:
1. All conservation easement and wetland acreage would be removed from the total
chargeable acres in the formula.
2. Reduce the standard per chargeable acre amount if the developer over-sizes the
storm water ponding on site. The current pond sizing standard requires that on site
ponding be designed such that the rate of storm water exiting the site does not exceed
the status quo, non-developed run off rate. So, for example, if the developer chooses to
oversize the ponds such that the rate of water leaving the site is cut in half, then the per
chargeable acre fee would be cut in half. What this does from a public policy standpoint
is incentivize a developer to treat and hold more water on the site than the minimum,
thus reducing the overall burden on the city's storm water runoff infrastructure. It is
probable that future storm water infrastructure projects could be delayed or reduced in
scope with developers over sizing storm ponds. The exact wording of this idea would
have to be worked out by the engineers, so 1 am just trying to illustrate the principle.
3. Include a provision where the council would have discretion to make selective
reductions in the storm water fee in certain extraordinary situations where a developer is
investing money above and beyond what would norma/ly be expected in a development.
In the case of Lakeview I can think of three such extraordinary areas:
a. Substantial investment in site restoration and creation of 65
acres of natural, prairie conservation easement.
b. Subsfantial expense to clean up elevated mercury/evels in the
soils on and around the greens and some tee boxes.
c. Creation of a privately owned, public park space with walking
trails and creative, natural landscaping areas. Note that we are
spending a great deal of money creating this space but still paying the
ful/park dedication fee anyway for the overall development.
For the purposes of the Lakeview preliminary plat resolution, we would be fine with just
leaving the storm water trunk fee as a TBD in the document so that we can hopefully finalize
the preliminary plat approval at the next council meeting on December 8t`'.
The above letter raises a number of points that deserve further analysis:
1. The current code allows a reduction of the SW&DT fee by a percentage equal to
the percentage of the total site placed into permanent conservation easements,
but only in the 5-acre zone. Are there reasons this was not also allowed for the
2-acre zone?
Following is an excerpt from a 2002 discussion paper regarding the
establishment of the 2002 SWMP:
In October 1999 Council considered these figures and noted that the fee for a 5-acre
lot was extremely high considering we have always looked at low-density
development as `environmentally friendly', and it seems under this plan the low
density is penalized.
SW8►DT Fee Review
December 1, 2014
Page 7
This is purely a function of the high per-unit cost of providin c�vance svstems
for low densitv development, similar to the costs of sanitary sewers. However, if
Council wishes to reduce the trunk fees for low density development, a number of
factors must be considered:
a) Since the total cost of the stormwater system is fixed,reducing the share for low-
density lots must be made up elsewhere (Raise the fee per acre for higher density?)
b) An arbitrary `density' reduction factor might be added for the 2-acre and 5-acre
zones to bring them down to palata.ble levels. T'he actual amount of development
remaining to occur in the 5-acre zone is minimal, so the number of dollars ultimately
collected may be relatively small no matter what the fee is set at.
c) It might be somewhat less arbitrary to allow a 40%reduction in 5-acre zone fee
(and perhaps a 20% reduction in 2-acre zone fee) if specified perimeter buffer
easements are granted, which could tend to reduce the magnitude of regional
ponding needed...
Ultimately, in the original SW&DT ordinance adopted in December 2001, the
Council chose to adopt a reduction based on buffer establishment placed in
conservation easements, just for the 5-acre zone. This may have been an
acknowledgement that the relationship between the value of lots 5-acres and
larger and the per-acre fee, even after the equivalency factors have been taken
into account, would be disproportional with the actual costs of needed
infrastructure, and would result in an unreasonable fee burden for larger
properties. It also may have been an acknowledgement that a significant portion
of a 5-acre lot can remain undeveloped and unmowed while still allowing for the
typical residential use, while typical residential use of 2-acre lots with amenities
such as decks and patios, accessory buildings, pools, tennis courts, septic
systems, etc. leaves little room for buffers to be established and maintained.
It would be fair to say that the Lakeview development is creating non-typical 2-
acre lots, with a substantial portion of each lot in conservation area. In many
instances, less than 1 acre of non-conservation easement area will available for
building purposes. These lots will not be capable of accommodating the level of
amenities that might be found on a typical 2-acre lot. As a trade-off, the high
percentage of conservation easement areas will have a positive impact on the
stormwater systems and reduce the need for on-site ponding, thus reducing the
on-site stormwater infrastructure costs.
Keep in mind, however, that the SW&DT fee was established based on the need
for regional ponding throughout the City. The Lakeview site is relatively `low' in
the watershed (its stormwater leaving the site will discharge almost immediately
SW�DT Fee Review
December 1, 2014
Page 8
to Forest Lake) leaving little room for downstream ponding to be created. But not
all properties in Orono are similarly situated, and the ordinance does not
differentiate between properties located at different points in the watershed. And,
the expected TMDL remediation needs for Forest Lake will likely be expensive
and are a future cost for which the City will be expected to assist in financing.
2. In theory, the concept of reducing the SW&DT fee based on providing excess
ponding capacity to result in greatly reduced rates of discharge, may have some
merit.
Something similar to this was done in Stonebay. The developer was credited for
a portion of the costs to construct the regional pond and offsite drainage facilities,
the credit based on the difference befinreen the cost of a pond with capacity to
just serve the Stonebay development, and the cost of the regional pond that also
served areas adjacent to but not within the Stonebay development. In this case,
the benefit accrued to the offsite properties, which avoided pond construction but
paid their SW&DT fees to offset the City's costs of a reduction for Stonebay. The
difference between this and Lakeview is that there is no offsite development
expected upstream from Lakeview that will generate SW&DT funds to offset a
SW&DT fee reduction for Lakeview.
3. Potential SW&DT fee reductions based on non-stormwater-related amenities
being provided, would seem to not be in keeping with the intent of the SW&DT
ordinance. Cleanup of contamination from a prior use, while contributing to the
health of the environment, does not reduce the potential stormwater impacts.
Provision of parks that are open to the public will not reduce potential stormwater
impacts.
Reduction or elimination of the the negative environmental aspects of a golf
course use may have some value as compared to the conversion of raw
farmland that was not used as a golf course. Whether this value can be
quantified in a fair and reasonable way is questionable.
Possible Alternatives for Discussion
To be determined...
SW8�DT Fee Review
December 1, 2014
Page 9
Summary of SW&DT Fee Issues to be Resolved
1) A definition of `new development' should be drafted applicable to administration
of the SW&DT fee ordinances.
2) Need to reconsider the existing methodology for apportioning the stormwater fee
burden befinreen large lots and small lots, and eliminate inequities or perceived
inequities.
3) In order to begin charging the SW&DT fee for redevelopment, the parameters for
calculating that fee need to be revised. For instance, review how the fee relates
to hardcover levels and hardcover increases or decreases, as well as the use of
BMPs to minimize runoff leaving the site.
4) Provisions should be established and documented in the Code with regard to
past and future payments of the SW&DT fees. Establish standards defining how
past fees paid are credited for future development of a site.
5) Examine how the fee takes into consideration on-site stormwater improvements,
and consider adopting standards for fee credit for off-site improvements
6) Need to analyze whether the triggers for charging the SW&DT fee for both new
development and redevelopment are 1) clear and 2) appropriate; if not, then fix.
MEMORANDUM May 27, 2014 Work Session
To: Staff& Council
Soren Mattick, City Attorney
From: Mike Gaffron, Asst. City Administrator
Date: March 28, 2014
Subject: Storm Water & Drainage Trunk Fee Issues
Summary: Staff has identified the need for potentia! Code amendments and/or a re-
interpretation of the SW&DT Fee provisions in light of Council actions and staff
discussions over the past two years.
Attachments:
A - Pertinent Ordinances - Municipal Code Sections 14-281 thru 14-287
B - History of SW&DT Fees Collected (Single-family residential projects)
C - 2014 Fee Schedule Excerpt - SW&DT Fees
SWMP and Storm Water CIP. The City of Orono in 2002 adopted a SurFace Water
Management Plan (SWMP) that serves as a guide for the development, expansion
and management of the surface water system throughout the City. The SWMP was
updated in January 2011 to reflect current needs and to meet Federal and State
requirements. One of the elements of the SWMP is an inventory of Orono's existing
surface water systems and a description of future needed storm water facilities. These
are regional facilities that are needed to senre the entire City irrespective of property
boundaries and in addition to the individual storm water management facilities that
may be required of individual developments.
The 2002 SWMP identified long-term system improvements that would be needed as
Orono becomes fully developed, and included a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that
incorporated individual projects identified as critical to the ultimate management of
surFace waters in the City. That long-term CIP identified in 2002 had an estimated
cost of nearly $11,000,000 in 1998 dollars.
The 2011 SWMP update acknowledged the hard realities of funding surface water
management needs, and established a revised Surface Water Management CIP with
implementation tied to annual funding expectations. The Surface Water Management
CIP categorizes planned expenditures in four areas:
1) Activities associated with meeting the City's obligations relative to its NPDES
(National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit, such as educational
materials, annual clean-up days, inspection programs for illicit sewer and septic
system discharges, organics recycling, etc.;
2) Capital Improvement Projects, which include implementation of the SWMP, water
quality and water quantity projects for developing areas, wetland restoration, and
priority projects for developed areas;
3) Ongoing Operations and Maintenance of the system such as stormwater ponds,
storm sewers, and culverts, as well as street sweeping; and
Page 1 of 9
t
4) Implementation of Official Controls such as construction site erosion control,
wetland buffers, and ordinance updates.
Annual planned City expenditures in these four areas total approximately $250,000 to
$350,000.
Funding Sources. NPDES obligations and operation & maintenance of the storm
water system are primarily funded through Orono's Storm Water Utility (authorized per
Ord. 213, 2"d S. adopted 12/10/2001) which is a $15.84 quarterly fee (2014) charged
to each existing dwelling unit on a unit basis and to each developed commercial
property based on a Residential Equivalent Factor.
Implementation of official controls is primarily funded through user fees such as
building permit and land alteration permit fees.
The level of funding needed for planned capital improvement projects, however, is not
fully covered by the Storm Water Utility or permit fees. Additionally, future anticipated
requirements for phosphorus reduction in specified local water bodies as a result of
federally mandated Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies will likely result in even
greater funding needs for as-yet undefined stormwater projects. The funding sources
for these capital projects can be broken down into 4 components:
a) Storm Water & Drainage Trunk (SW&DT) Fee charged to New Development
b) Storm Water & Drainage Trunk Fee charged to Redevelopment or Expansion*
c) Storm Water Utility Fees
d) Grants, Cost-Sharing and other alternatives for funding a variety of projects
*The redevelopment/expansion element of the SW&DT Fee structure has not been
implemented based on past Council direction, and a recent review by staff and the City
Attomey suggests that significant revisions in the provisions for this element are needed prior
to its implementation - see below under SW8�DT Fee Administration Issues.
SW&DT Fee Background. Ordinance 214, 2"d S. adopted 12/10/2001 established
the Storm Water & Drainage Trunk Fee, which authorized the collection of a one-time
fee to be collected at the time of new development. This fee has been charged since
2002 to all new development involving the creation of new lots for residential
development as well as for new commercial development.
The base per-acre charge for the SW&DT Fee was established in 2002 by estimating
the cost of Water Quality and Water Quantity projects needed to serve 12
representative properties expected to be developed over the next 5 years, then
dividing by the gross acreage (including wetland) to result in an average cost per acre
for development in the 2-acre zones. An equivalency factor was used to establish per-
acre rates for the 1/2-acre, 1-acre, and 5-acre zones as well as for denser residential
development and commercial development. For the 2-acre zone, the per-acre
SW&DT Fee was set at $2670 per acre in 2002, chargeable to all acreage within a
development including wetlands. That figure has grown to $3780 per acre via inflation
in the ensuing 12 years. See table below excerpted from the 2014 Fee Schedule.
Page 2 of 9
.
New Development Trunk Fee/Acre
Land Use
Single Family Residential 5 Acre Zone $3,075
Single Family Residential 2 Acre Zone (base fee) $3,840
Single Family Residential 1 Acre Zone $5,000
Single Family Residential 1/2 Acre Zone $5,765
Multi Family Residential 4 Units/Acre or Less $6,930
Multi Family Residential Greater than 4 Units/Acre $8,085
Commercial or Industrial $9,230
Methods for reducing the SW&DT Fee charged to new development were later
established by Ordinance 222, 2"d S. adopted 11/12/2002 (Sec. 14-283) for certain
zones and certain types of development, as follows:
- For the 5-acre zone, a reduction of up to 50% of the SW&DT Fee will be
allowed for the percentage of the lot protected by perimeter and/or drainageway
buffer easements, whereby the buffer areas must remain in a natural state.
- For the 5-acre zone, any lot exceeding 7.0 gross acres including wetland, shall
be charged a maximum trunk fee equal to the trunk fee for a 7.0 acre parcel.
- For the 2-acre zone, any lot exceeding 4.0 gross acres including wetland, shall
be charged a maximum trunk fee equal to the trunk fee for a 4.0 acre parcel.
A second method established in concept by the ordinance (Sec. 14-287) is the
potential reduction of the SW&DT Fee based on providing stormwater facilities "that
provide additional treatment benefits beyond what is required to treat the stormwater
runoff from the development site". The City has not formally established such policies
but on at least one occasion has rebated the developer a portion of the SW&DT Fee
based on oversizing of a stormwater pond to provide treatment capacity for areas
outside the development (Stonebay).
SW&DT Fee Administration Issues. There are a number of issues with how the
SW&DT fee is administered based on the wording and/or impacts of the existing code:
1. Lack of claritv and direction for dealinq with new deve/opment activitv (i e a
subdivision) that, for instance, results in one small lot being split off from a
much larger lot, or the splitting up of a large parcel into two smaller parcels for
estate planning purposes where both parcels are further subdividable.
Example: The ordinance as written requires payment of the fee for all
acreage within a subdivision. The City had followed this policy strictly since
the SW&DT ordinance was adopted in 2002. In 11 of 11 subdivisions where
the existing house was intended to remain in place, the lot with existing
home was subject to the SW&DT fee.
Page 3 of 9
However, in the recent Reilly subdivision on High Lane/Graham Hill where
one 2-acre lot was split off from a 7-acre homestead, the applicant
successfully argued that the remaining 5 acres where the existing home
was intended to remain should not be subject to the fee because, among
other reasons, it is further subdividable and has no additional impa�t on the
environment.
This recent Council action suggests that a review of the basis for applying
the SW&DT provisions is needed, and the code may have to be amended to
address situations such as the above. For instance, should we change it so
that any new lot that is `further subdividable' avoids the SW&DT fee? Who
decides whether a future subdivision is feasible? Or, should any newly-
created lot with a house on it be automatically exempted, like we do with
Park Fees? Who is to say that the existing house won't be removed by a
new owner and replaced with a new bigger house with lots of additional
hardcover, which translates to greater environmental impact...?
2. Significant inequities in the fee structure for redevelopment activities as
compared to new development and between various types/levels of
redevelopment projects.
In addition to establishing a stormwater fee for new developments, Ordinance
214 authorized the collection of a one-time trunk fee for redevelopment projects
to be collected upon issuance of building permits, based (1) on the level of
impervious surFace expansion and (2) adjusted for the type of land use. Shortly
after adoption of the ordinance, the City Council at a work session directed that
implementation of this facet of the ordinance be delayed for an indeterminate
period, due in part to the expectation of a negative public reaction.
As a result, the City has never begun collecting SW&DT fees for single family
redevelopment (rebuilds) nor for new individual homes on previously vacant
existing lots. The topic has never been revisited.
The Redevelopment section of the ordinance establishes a per-acre fee that
applies to the entire acreage of a redeveloping site, and it is based on the
amount of impervious surface expansion that is proposed. The text and table
(from the current 2014 Fee Schedule, matching what is in the Code) are as
follows:
Redevelopment projects wil/be deflned as any project to either remove and
rep/ace existing structures or to enlarge existing structures. These
projects wil/ be charged a portion of the base trunk fee adjusted for the
area of expansion of impervious surface above the existing conditions.
The table below lists the base trunk fee based on the area of impervious
surface expansion and adjusted for the type of land use. The trunk fee
shall be determined by mu/tip/ying the appropriate fee by the acreage of
the deve/opment site.
Page 4 of 9
Residential Commercial or Industrial
Redevelopment or Redevelopment or
Expansion of Existing Expansion of Existing
Area of Impervious Surtace Development-Trunk Development-Trunk
Expansion Fee/Acre Fee/Acre
0-1000 Square Feet $1,350 $3,230
(±35% of 2-ac base fee) (±35% of C/I base fee)
1000-2000 Square Feet $2,690 $6,460
(±70% of 2-ac base fee) (±70% of C/I base fee)
More than 2000 Square Feet $3,780 $9,240
�100% of 2-ac base fee) (±100% of C/I base fee)
The inequities and likely public outcry become clearer when some examples
are considered:
Example 1: The resident of a 2-acre lot wishes to expand his home by
adding 200 square feet to his existing 300 square-foot attached deck. The
deck is an existing structure that is being expanded by 200 square feet.
The area of impervious surface expansion is 200 s.f. which subjects it to a
SW&DT fee of ($1,350 per acre x 2 acres) _ $2,700 which likely exceeds
the cost of the deck expansion.
Example 1A: Same as Example 1, but in addition to 2 acres of dry
buildable, the property also contains 3 acres of wetland. The SW&DT fee
now becomes ($1,350 per acre x 5 acres) _ $6,750.
Example 2: A person has just purchased a 1-acre lakeshore lot in a 1-acre
zone that had a small home on it (1,200 s.f. footprint) up until 5 years ago,
which was then torn down and the lot now is vacant. He proposes to build a
new home with a 3,000 s.f. footprint on the property. Would it be subject to
a fee based on 1,800 s.f. (the difference between the old footprint and the
new footprint) or ,3,000 s.f. (based on it being new development)? And
either way, how should the expansion of associated non-structural
hardcover (i.e. replacing the old narrow gravel driveway with a new, wide
paved driveway) be taken into account? The code language suggests that
when there is a structural replacement or expansion, the overall hardcover
must be considered. But the mere expansion of nonstructural hardcover
absent a structure replacement or expansion, is not addressed, and
apparently would not be subject to the fee.
There is no established `look-back' period in the code beyond which building
on a vacant lot would be considered new development rather than
redevelopment. And, the City records may not contain any information about
what hardcover was in place before the old cabin was torn down.
- If considered as new develoqment, the 1-acre site would be charged a
SW&DT fee of ($5,000 x 1 acre) _ $5,000.
Page 5 of 9
- But if it is considered as redevelopment, we would not be able to
establish a fee without comparing the old hardcover numbers from the
old house with those of the new house. Then, absent that data, we
would establish that it's adding more than 2,000 s.f. and it would be
charged ($3,780 x 1 acre) _ $3,780.
Example 3: A property owner wants to add 1,200 s.f. of garage and
storage space to his 4-acre lot. He has three options: 1) add on to the
existing house; or 2) add on to the existing detached garage; or 3) construct
a new separate detached storage building.
Under the option of adding on to the house, this would be considered a
1200 s.f. enlargement of an existing structure, which would trigger a
SW&DT fee of ($2,690 x 4 acres) _ $10,760. The same fee would apply if
he adds on to the existing detached garage.
Under the detached new separate building option, he is not removing and
replacing existing structures or enlarging existing structures.
- If this is considered as new development, then he pays a SW&DT fee of
($3,780 x 4 acres) _ $15,120.
- But, if this is considered as neither new development nor redevelopment,
then he pays $0.
Example 4: A property owner has a home on a 1/4 acre lakeshore lot on
Casco Point. He wants to add a 500 s.f. room addition. He will have 24.9%
hardcover after the addition is built, and he won't have to remove anything
to do so. His SW&DT fee would be ($1,350 x 1/4 acre) _ $338.
His next-door neighbor has the identical home on a 3/4 acre lot. He wants
to add a 500 s.f. room addition. He will have only 15% hardcover after the
addition is built, and he won't have to remove anything to do so. His
SW&DT fee would be ($1,350 x 3/4 acre) _ $1,013 - even though he has
significantly more area for stormwater infiltration because of his bigger lot.
Example 5: A similar example would apply for teardown/rebuilds on the
lakeshore. Two adjacent lots - one 1/4 acre, the other 3/4 acre - could pay
vastly different SW&DT fees based on 1) the increase from the pre-existing
hardcover level, and 2) the lot size. It's conceivable that the larger lot was
previously underbuilt and is adding more than 2,000 s.f. of hardcover but
ends up at only 15% hardcover - it triggers the maximum fee ($3,780 x 3/4
acre) _ $2835. At the same time the smaller lot is actually reducing
hardcover from a previously overbuilt condition to get from 45% to 30%
(variance still needed) and would pay $0 SW&DT fee because there is no
impervious surFace expansion. The owner with a larger lot and no variance
may feel penalized when his neighbor with the small lot gets a variance to
be over the hardcover limit and yet has to pay no fee.
Page 6 of 9
3. Lack of clarity as to applicabilitv of the redevelopment fee. Recent new home
construction on the Maple Place existing individual lots and the need for
stormwater system upgrades off-site to accommodate that development has
now begged the question as to what constitutes new deve/opment as opposed
to redevelopment. The Code does not define `new developmenY; staff has
always interpreted new development to mean the result of a subdivision
process. However, recently there has been one significant construction project
that did not result from subdivision - the senior housing at 875 Wayzata
Boulevard - that was charged the SW&DT fee for multifamily development. The
historically vacant Maple Place lots are being charged the SW&DT fee on an
individual basis as building permits are issued*. It is now clear that not all `new
development' involves a subdivision.
*The Maple Place project brought this issue to the attention of staff due to the specific stormwater impacts of developing on a
series of adjacent existing individual lots. As a plat for development of 3 double lots, there was no question that the SW&DT
fee would be collected at the new development rate. When that changed to building on 6 existing adjacent vacant lots absent
a subdivision, but still involved a CUP for grading to manage the stormwater, staff questioned whether it was consistent with
current practice to charge the SW&DT fee. Soren suggested that it is clearly authorized by City ordinance, and our discussion
with the Maple Place applicants in April 2012 resulted in their commitment to pay the fees with the individual building permits.
The Code defines 'redevelopment' as "any project to either remove and
replace existing structures or to enlarge existing structures". This
definition does not specifically address whether it applies only to existing
principal structures or also to existing accessory structures. This definition
does not address whether construction of an entirely new accessory structure is
considered as new development or redevelopment. Since there is no definition
of`new development', we have no direction as to where accessory structures fit
into the mix.
Proposed Goals for Moving Forward
• Define the term "new development" to include a variety of activities that
inherently increase environmental impacts, including subdivisions to create new
building sites as well as new construction or hardsurface installation projects
occurring on previously vacant properties where a subdivision is not involved.
- Determine whether constructing new accessory structures not involving
replacement or enlargement of existing accessory structures, is included in the
definition of`new development'.
- Determine under what conditions it is appropriate to charge a fee for all or
only some lots in a new subdivision - i.e. decide under what scenarios is a new
lot with an existing home charged the SW&DT fee.
• Consider establishing a fee system for new development that places more of
the burden on properties that do not have the means to infiltrate stormwater
on site. The current ordinance establishes a er-acre trunk fee that is the least for
large lots and increases as lots get smaller and/or as density or intensity of use
increases. The problem is that as a per-acre charge, it is likely that the small lot
with no infiltration potential and substantial runoff needing to be treated, pays much
Page 7 of 9
less than the large lot with the same square footage of impervious surFace, as
illustrated by these examples:
Example 6a:Given a 2-acre vacant lot and a 3-acre vacant lot next to it, in the
2-acre zone, each having identical new homes being constructed and installing
equal impervious surface, the larger lot with greater potential to infiltrate runoff
will have a SW&DT fee of ($3,780 x 3 acres) _ $11,340 while the smaller lot
with less ability to infiltrate will have a fee of($3,780 x 2 acres) _ $7,560.
Example 6b: A 1/2-acre undeveloped lakeshore lot (in the 1/2-acre zone) that
is maxed out on hardcover will pay a SW&DT fee of ($5,765 x 0.5 acre) _
$2,883 while a 5-acre lot in the rural 5-acre zone that has a low impervious
surface percentage and greater amount of infiltration potential, will pay ($3,075
x 5 acres) _ $15,375.
The original basis for acceptance of this inequity was that the 5-acre lot generates
a much greater volume of runoff than the individual 0.5-acre lot under normal
development with a house/garage/driveway and typical amenities (this is because
under frozen or saturated ground conditions, 10 times the area generates 10 times
the volume of runof�. However, this is a difficult sell to large-lot landowners and
developers who view the undeveloped portions of their land as having no negative
stormwater impacts.
• Determine whether charging the SW�DT fee to redevelopment should
commence, and if so, under what circumstances. Consider the table on Page 5 of
this memo: Should the thresholds for Area of Impervious Surface Expansion be
revised? Should the percentage of the base fee be revised? Should the base fee
be established at a different level for redevelopment than for new development?
Should the fee be tied to the percentage of hardcover on a site rather than the
amount of impervious surface expansion? Should the fee for redevelopment not be
imposed as long as hardcover does not exceed the allowed percentage for the
Hardcover Tier? Is it legally acceptable to attach an impa�t fee to a hardcover
variance approval (Soren?)?
• Establish provisions regarding past and/or future payment of SW�DT fees.
For example, establish that once the fee is paid for a lot created by a new
subdivision, it is not charged again when a house is built on that lot, nor when that
house is later expanded. Or for example, if a lot for which the fee was paid under
a past subdivision is then itself subdivided, there should be no additional fee.
Also should establish that under redevelopment (if that fee structure is
commenced) whether the SW&DT fee paid for an expansion is creditable toward
the SW&DT fee for another expansion a few years later.
Page 8 of 9
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
After review of the issues, Council is requested to provide staff with direction regarding
how to proceed; specifically:
1) Does Council agree that a definition of `new development' should be drafted
applicable to administration of the SW&DT fee ordinances?
2) Does Council desire to reconsider the existing methodology for apportioning the
stormwater fee burden befinreen large lots and small lots?
3) Does Council desire to begin charging the SW&DT fee for redevelopment, and
if so, should the parameters for calculating that fee be revised?
4) Does Council agree that provisions should be established and documented in
the Code with regard to past and future payments of the SW&DT fees.
Page 9 of 9
� EXHIBIT A
PERTINENT ORDINANCES:
Orono Municipal Code Article III, Division V, Subdivision N. Stormwater Trunk Fee
Sec. 14-281. Statutory authority.
Minn. Stat. §444.075 authorizes cities to impose just and reasonable charges for the use and
availability of storm sewer facilities (charges). By this subdivision, the city elects to exercise
such authority.
(Ord.No. 214 2nd series, § 1(1), 12-10-2001)
Sec. 14-282. Findings and deterniinations.
1n providing for such charges,the findings and determinations set out in this section are made.
(1) In the exercise of its governmental authority and in order to promote the public health,
safety, convenience and general welfare, the city has constructed, operated and maintained a
storm sewer system (the system). This subdivision is adopted in the further exercise of such
authority and for the same purpose.
(2) The system, as constructed,heretofore has been financed and paid for through the
imposition of special assessments and ad valorem ta�ces. Such financing methods were
appropriate to the circumstances at the time they were used. It is now necessary and desirable
to provide an alternative method of recovering some or all of the future costs of improving,
maintaining and operating the system through the imposition of charges as provided in this
subdivision.
(3) Development or redevelopment of land changes the characteristics of the stormwater
runoff from the property and results in the need for improved stormwater facilities,and also
increases the demand on the stormwater system, which results in greater maintenance and
operational costs of the system.
(4) In imposing charges, it is necessary to establish a methodology that undertakes to make
them just and equitable. Taking into account the status of completion of the system,past
methods of recovering system costs,the topography of the city and other relevant factors, it is
determined that it would be just and equitable to assign responsibility for some or all of the
future costs of operating,maintaining and improving the system on the basis of the acreage of
land to be developed or redeveloped.
(5) Assigning costs and making chazges based upon expected typical stormwater runoff
cannot be done with mathematical precision but can only be accomplished within reasonable
and practical limits. The provisions of this subdivision undertake to establish a reasonable and
practicable methodology for making such charges.
(Ord.No. 214 2nd series, § 1(2), 12-10-2001)
Sec. 14-283. Rates and charges.
(a) Establishing. The stormwater trunk fee charges, for various land uses, shall be included in
the city fee schedule and shall be changed as necessary by resolution of the council.
(b) Determination. The city has developed a surface water management plan that includes
design criteria for stormwater systems and preliminary design information for a comprehensive
Page 1 of 3
stormwater system in the city. In general, stormwater trunk fees are calculated by dividing the
total cost of system construction, by the number of developable acres the system will serve.
The appropriate base trunk fee per acre,to be used on a citywide basis, shall be determined as
necessary using this methodology.
(c) Acreage equivalency factors. Recognizing that different types of land use generate
different amounts of stormwater runoff, an equivalency factor multiplier is assigned to each
land use type. The two-acre residential lot is considered as the standard in the city, because a
large percentage of the land in the city is zoned for two-acre single-family residential land use.
The two-acre single-family residential lot will be assigned an equivalency factor of 1.0. The
table below lists the equivalency factors for different land uses. These equivalency factors will
be applied to the base trunk fee per acre.
TABLE INSET:
Land Use Equivalency Factor
Single-Family Residential5-Acre Zone (1) (2) 0,g
Single-Family Residential2-Acre Zone (3) 1.0
Single-Family Residential 1-Acre Zone 1.3
Single-Family Residential 1/2-Acre Zone 1.5
Multifamily Residential4 Units/Acre or Less 1.8
Multifamily Residential Greater than 4 Units/Acre 2.1
Commercial or Industrial 2,4
1. Buffer easement reduction.For the five-acre zoning district,a reduction of up to 50 percent of
the trunk fee for the lot will be allowed for the percentage of the lot protected by perimeter and/or
drainageway buffer easements. These buffer easement areas shall remain in a natural condition.
2. Maximum fee. For the five-acre zoning district,any lot exceeding 7.0 gross acres, including
wetland, shall be charged a maximum trunk fee equal to the trunk fee for a 7.0 acre parcel. Such lot
shall remain eligible for the up to 50 percent reduction noted in footnote 1, such reduction based on
the percenta�e of 7.0 acres that is placed in buffer easements.
3 Maximum fee.For the two-acre zoning districts,any lot exceeding 4.0 gross acres,including
wetland,shall be charged a maximum trunk fee equal to the trunk fee for a 4.0 acre parcel.
(d) Payment. All applicable stormwater trunk fee charges set forth in this subdivision shall be
paid in full before any building or land alteration permits are issued for the project.
(Ord. No. 214 2nd series, § 1(3), (4), (9), 12-10-2001; Ord.No. 222 2nd series, § 1, 11-12-
2002)
Sec. 14-284. New development projects.
New development projects shall pay the base trunk fee per acre of land developed adjusted
using the appropriate land use equivalency factor as set forth in this subdivision.
(Ord.No. 214 2nd series, § 1(5), 12-10-2001)
Page 2 of 3
Sec. 14-285. Redevelopment projects.
Redevelopment projects shall be defined for the purposes of this subdivision as any project to
either remove and replace existing structures or to enlarge existing structures. These projects
will be charged a portion of the base trunk fee adjusted for the area of expansion of impervious
surface above the existing conditions. The table below lists the percentage of the acreage base
trunk fee based on the azea of impervious surface expansion and adjusted for the type of land
use. The trunk fee shall be determined by multiplying the appropriate fee by the acreage of the
development site.
TABLE INSET:
Area of Residential Commercial or
Impervious Development Industrial
Surface 2 Acre Commercial/
Expansion Single-Family Industrial Base
(square feet) Residential Base Trunk Fee/Acre
Trunk Fee/Acre (%) (%)
0--1000 � 35 35
1000--2000 70 70
More than 2000 100 100
(Ord.No. 214 2nd series, § 1(6), 12-10-2001)
Sec. 14-286. Responsibility to supply information.
The owner,occupant or person in chazge of the property subject to this subdivision sha11
supply the city with such information as the city may reasonably request related to the use,
development and area of the property. Willful failure to provide such information or to falsify
such information is a violation of this subdivision.
(Ord. No. 214 2nd series, § 1(10), 12-10-2001)
Sec. 14-287. Adjustment of chazges.
The intent of the stormwater trunk fee is to provide funding for ixnprovements to the
stormwater system as the result of development in the city. Current regulations require
property owners to provide stormwater treatment for the stormwater from the development
property. The city reserves the right to develop policies to provide stormwater trunk fee credits
for stormwater improvements on developing properties that provide additional treatment
benefits beyond what is required to treat the stormwater runoff from the development site.
(Ord.No. 214 2nd series, § 1(8), 12-10-2001)
Page 3 of 3
SW&DT Fees Collected with Siogk Fsmily Reaidentisl Subdivisions/New Development
� -Since Ioce tioe of Ordinance in December 2001
Dste File# Subdivisioo t!New Lob #New #Totsl Lots Total Acreage Aeresge SW&DT Fee Based On Total
w/E:iatiog Vacant Lots SWBsDT
Hoaae to
Remain Fee Psid
Sept.2002 02-2810 Idytivale Farm 0 2 2 8.63 ac 8.63 x$2700/ac $ 23,301
Oct 2002 02-2845 Stubbs Fazm 1 1 2 7.61 ac 2 lots totaling 7.61 ac(a3$2,700/ac $ 20,547
Sept 2003 02-2839 Mintaka 0 2 2 50.91 ac 2 lots at 4.0 ac @$2700/ac $ 21,600
Apri12004 04-2968 Stubbs Bay Addition 0 2 2 4 ac(a�$2700+23q ac @$2�pp/ac $ 17,118
June 2004 04-3003 Maxwell Bay Estates 1 2 3 12 ac 31ots Q 4.0 ac S 32,400
June 2004 04-2978 Mallyvale 0 2 2 (4.0 ac) 1 lot�4.0 ac Q 52700/ac"Because the subdivision is primarily the rearrangemem $ lp,gpp
3220 Watertown Rd. of two existing lots in order to make the northerly lot buildable,the argument can be
made that only the newly buildable lot(Lot 1)should be subject to the Stoim Water
and Drainage Trunk Fee which is charged for land being developed."
Nov 2004 03-2937 Englu�d Third Add. I 1 2 4.0 ac 4.0 ac Q,$2700/ac
S 10,800
Feb 2005 04-3016 Creekside in Orono 0 7 7 20.0 ac 20 ac x 52700/ac
$ 54,000
March 2005 03-2961 Spring Hill Estates 1 2 3 23.9� 31ots x 4.0 ac @ 52700 $ 32,400
July 2006 OS-3131 Glendale Crne 1 8 9 5.6 ac 5.6�x 54,275/ac $ 23,940
July 2006 0&3363 Fox Island 1 5 6 57+� 23.16 ac(41ot�@ 4.0�+1 lot at 2.62 ac+1 lot at 2.16 ac+238�road&
driveway outlots)x 52770/ac $ 64,153
Nov 2006 OS-3161 Sherri Lakeview Estaces 2 3 5 3.85 ac 3.85 ac(a3$4160/ac
$ 16,016
March 2007 06-3169 Diese�Development 1 1 2 13.'79 ac 1 lot of 6.14 ac$52280/ac plus 1 lot of 7.0 ac(a3$22g0/ac $ 29,959
Sept 2007 07-3275 Graham Hill 0 13 13 40.1 ac 40.1 ac Q$3050/ac
$122,305
Sept 2008 07-3312 Rolling Meadows Fowth 1 1 2 5.0 ac 5.0 ac C3a 53050/ac S 15,250
Oct 2008 08-3385 Majestic Sptuce Add. 1 1 2 12.3 ac 2 lots of 4.0 ac at 53200% $ 25�600
Jime 2009 09-3409 Wyndmere 2"d Addition 1 1 2 7.57 ac 2 lots wtaling 7.57 ac(a3 53330/ac $ 25,208
August 2010 10.3478 Kintyre Two 0 6 6 16.7 ac 16 7 ac(a3 53330/ac $ 55,611
August 2012 12-3562 Willow Hill 0 3 3 9.71 ac 9.71 ac�$3660/ac $35,539
May 2012 12-3550 Graham Hill Preserve 2nd 1 1 2 7.6 ac 1 lot of 2.37 ac x E3660/ac (Homestead lot of 4.78 ac not chatged) $ 8,674
June 2013 13-3607 Bayside Meadows 0 5 5 13.72 ac 13.72 ac(a3 53840/ac $52,685
Oct 2013 12-3579 Pineview 1 3 4 15.01 ac 21ots of 4.0 ac max x$3360/ac+21ots tota(ing 4.08 ac x 53360/ac S 40,589
March 2014 14-3659 Bohn's Point West 0 2 2 4.89 ac 4.89 ac(a3$5000/ac $24,450
Oliver Hili 0 7 7 4.92 ac 4.92 ac Q�5765/ac $28,364
Northern Oaks 0 6 6 4.89 ac 4.89 ac(n�a5765/ac $28,191
(1645 Shadywood) 0 2 2 2.50 ec 2.50 ac�55765/ac $14,413
Peach ahsding indicates aabdivisions in whic6 one or more eaistieg residences were ezpected to remain in place on oee of t6e new bta.
Yellow shadmg=prelim plat approved,final subdivision pending
�
ZOrTI1�TG APPLICATIONS(CONT) Annlicable �
Fee Code Section
STORM WATER AND DRAINAGE TRUNK FEES Sec.14-281 thru 14-287
Storm water trunk fees apply to new development and redevelopment of existing properties and provide funding for the storm water infrastructure necessary to serve
the City. The trunk fee is based on t6e land use and acreage of the property being developed. An equivalency factor multiplier is assigned to each land use type,with a
2-acre residential lot considered as t6e standard in the City with an equivalency factor of 1.0. The table below lists the storm water trunk fees per acre for the various
zoning districts and land uses in the City.
Storm Water and Draina e Trunk Fees
New Development Trunk Fee/ (1)Buffer Easement Reduction For the 5-acre zoning
Land Use Acre district,a reduction of up to 50%of the trunk fee for the lot
witl be allowed for the percentage of the lot protected by
Single Family Residential 5 Acre Zone(1)(2) $3,075 Perimeter and/or drainage way buffer easements.These buffer
easement areas shall remain in a natural condition.
Single Family Residential 2 Acre Zone(3) 53,840
(2)Maximum Fee.For the 5-acre zoning district,any lot
Single Fami(y Residential 1 Acre Zone exceeding 7.0 goss acres including weUand,shall be chazged
�5,000 a ro�����fee equal to the trunk fee for a 7.0 acre
parcel.Such lot shall remain eligible for the up to 50'/0
Single Family Residential 1/2 Acre Zone a5,765 reduction noted in(1)above,such reduction based on the
percentage of 7.0 acres that is placed in buffer easemenis.
Multi Family Residential4 Units/Acre or Less $6,930
(3)Maximum Fee.For the 2-acre wning districts,any
Multi Family Residential Greater than 4 Units/Acre ag�pgs lot exceeding 4.0 gross acres including wetland,shall be
charged a maximum trunk f�equal to the trunk fee for a 4.0
Commercial or Industrial $9,230 �re parcel.
Redevelopment projects will be defined as any project to either remove and replace eaisting structures or to enlarge eaisting structures. These projects will be charged a
portion of the base trunk fee adjusted for the area of eapansion of impervious surface above the existing conditions. The table below lists the base trunk fee based on the
area of impervious surface ezpansion and adjusted for the type of land use. The trunk fee shall be determined by multiplying t6e appropriate fee by the acreage of the
development site.
Area of Impervious Surfsce Residential Redevelopment or Expansion Commercial or Industrial
Expansion of Eaisting Development Redevelopment or Expansion of Existing
Truok Fee/Acre Development Trunk Fee/Acre
0-1000 Squaze Feet $1,350 $3,230
1000-2000 Square Feet $2,690 $6,460
More than 2000 Squaze Feet $3,780 $9,240
` �
2014 Fee Schedule-Page 6
SW&DT Fees Collected with Single Family Residential Subdivisions/New Development UPDATED 12/1/14 MPG
, - Since Ince tion of Ordinance in December 2001
Date File# Subdivision #New Lots #New # Total Total Gross Acreage SW&DT Fee Based On Total Zoning Final
w/Existing Vacant Lots Acreage Average SW&DT District SW&DT
I3ouse to Lots Lot Size Fee Paid Minimum Fee Per
Remain
Acreage Lot
Sept. 2002 02-2810 Idyllvale Farm 0 2 2 8.63 ac 4.3 ac 8.63 x $2700/ac $ 23,301 2 $ 11,650
Oct 2002 02-2845 Stubbs Farm 1 1 2 7.61 ac 3.8 ac 21ots totaling 7.61 ac @ $2,700/ac $ 20,547 2 $ 10,273
Sept 2003 02-2839 . Mintaka 0 2 2 50.91 ac 25.5 ac 21ots at 4.0 ac @ $2700/ac $ 21,600 2 $ 10,800
Apri12004 04-2968 Stubbs Bay Addition 0 2 2 10.29 ac 5.1 ac 4 ac @$2700+2.34 ac @ $2700/ac $ 17,118 2 $ 8,559
June 2004 04-3003 Maxwell Bay Estates 1 2 3 12 ac 4.0 ac 31ots @ 4.0 ac @$2700/ac $ 32,400 2 $ 10,800
June 2004 04-2978 Mallyvale 0 2 2 (4.0 ac) 4.9 ac 1 lot @ 4.0 ac @ $2700/ac"Because the subdivision is primarily the $ 10,800 2 $ 10,800
3220 Watertown Rd. (9.8 ac) rearrangement of two existing lots in order to make the northerly lot
buildable,the argument can be made that only the newly buildable lot(Lot
1)should be subject to the Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee which is
' charged for land being developed."
Nov 2004 03-2937 Englund Third Add. 1 1 2 4.0 ac 2.0 ac 4.0 ac @$2700/ac $ 10,800 2 $ 5,400
Feb 2005 04-3016 Creekside in Orono 0 7 7 20.0 ac 2.9 ac 20 ac x $2700/ac $ 54,000 2 $ 7,714
March 2005 03-2961 Spring Hill Estates 1 2 3 23.9 ac 8.0 ac 31ots x 4.0 ac @$2700 $ 32,400 2 $ 10,800
July 2006 OS-3131 Glendale Cove 1 8 9 5.6 ac 0.6 ac 5.6 ac x $4,275/ac $ 23,940 0.5 $ 2,660
July 2006 08-3363 Fox Island 1 5 6 57 +ac 9.5 ac 23.1b ac(4 lots @ 4.0 ac+ 1 lot at 2.62 ac+ 1 lot at 2.16 ac+2.38 ac $ 64,153 2 $ 10,692
road&driveway outlots)x $2770/ac
Nov 2006 OS-3161 Sherri Lakeview Estates 2 3 5 3.85 ac 0.8 ac 3.85 ac @ $4160/ac $ 16,016 0.5 $ 3,203
March 2007 06-3169 Diesen Development 1 1 2 13.79 ac 6.9 ac 1 lot of 6.14 ac$$2280/ac plus 1 lot of 7.0 ac @$2280/ac $ 29,959 5 $ 14,980
Sept 2007 07-3275 Graham Hill 0 13 13 40.1 ac 3.1 ac 40.1 ac @$3050/ac $122,305 2 $ 9,408
Sept 2008 07-3312 Rolling Meadows Fourth 1 1 2 5.0 ac 2.5 ac 5.0 ac @$3050/ac $ 15,250 2 $ 7,625
Oct 2008 08-3385 Majestic Spruce Add. 1 1 2 12.3 ac 6.1 ac 21ots of 4.0 ac at $3200/ac $ 25,600 2 $ 12,800
June 2009 09-3409 Wyndmere 2°d Addition 1 1 2 7.57 ac 3.8 ac 21ots totaling 7.57 ac @ $3330/ac $ 25,208 2 $ 12,604
August 2010 10- 3478 Kintyre Two 0 6 6 16.7 ac 2.8 ac 16.7 ac @ $3330/ac $ 55,611 2 $ 9,269
August 2012 12-3562 Willow Hill 0 3 3 9.71 ac 3.2 ac 9.71 ac @$3660/ac $ 35,539 2 $ 11,846
Apri12012 11-3531 Wolverton Place RLS 1 1 2 10.1 ac 5.0 ac 10.1 ac @ $2660/ac less 50%reduction for Cons. easements $ 13,433 5 $ 6,717
May 2012 12-3550 Graham Hill Preserve 2nd 1 1 2 7.6 ac 3.8 ac 1 lot of 2.37 ac x $3660/ac (Homestead lot of 4.78 ac not charged) $ 8,674 2 $ 8,674
June 2013 13-3607 Bayside Meadows 0 5 5 13.72 ac 2.7 ac 13.72 ac @ $3840/ac $ 52,685 2 $ 10,537
Oct 2013 12-3579 Pineview 1 3 4 15.01 ac 3.8 ac 21ots of 4.0 ac max x $3360/ac+2 lots totaling 4.08 ac x $3360/ac $ 40,589 2 $ 10,147
March 2014 14-3659 Bohn's Point West 0 2 2 4.89 ac 2.4 ac 4.89 ac @ $5000/ac $ 24,450 1 $ 12,225
Sept 2014 14-3685 Oliver Hill 0 7 7 4.92 ac 0.7 ac 4.92 ac @ $5765 /ac $ 28,364 0.5 $ 4,052
Oct 2014 14-3687 Northern Oaks 0 6 6 4.89 ac 0.8 ac 4.89 ac @$5765 /ac $ 28,191 0.5 $ 4,699
14-3694 (4565 Bayside) 1 1 2 10.17 ac 5.1 ac 1 lot of 2.57 ac @$3840/ac (Homestead lot of 7.1 ac not charged) $ 9,869 2 $ 9,869
13-3622 (1645 Shadywood) 0 2 2 2.50 ac 1.3 ac 2.50 ac @$5765 /ac $ 14,413 0.5 $ 7,206
$857,215
Peach shading indicates subdivisions in which one or more existing residences were expected to remain in place on one of the new lots.
Yellow shading=prelim plat approved, final subdivision pending
Average Per-Lot Fees Paid: 5-acre zone: $43,392=41ots=$10,848 per lot; 2-acre zones: $678,449=691ots=$9,833 per lot; 1-acre zone: $24,450=21ots=$12,225 per lot; 1/2-acre zones: $110,924=29 lots=$3,825 per lot
�
r
COUNCIL MEETiNG
�E� 0 9 2015
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
C1TY QF pRONO
DATE: February 9, 2015
ITEM NO: ��
Department Approval: � Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Adam T. Edwards Public Works Directorl
Title Public Works Director City Engineer's Report
Item Description: Navarre Light Pole Decorations
Exhibits
A. Navarre Light Pole Specification.
1. Purpose. The purpose of this memorandum is to solicit Council direction on decorations for the
Navarre Light Poles.
2. Background. The Navarre Lighting project is nearly complete. All that remains to complete are a
few punch list items and site remediation that will take place in the spring. The streetlight posts the City
had installed come with several attachments for decorative items. The poles can support banners, holiday
lights and flags. (Exhibit A) Thirty-two of the light poles can support decorations. Ten Light poles have
hanging flower basket attachments.
3. Decorations Options. There are numerous options for light pole decorations. The following are
estimated costs for a sam lin of ossible o tions.
Item Banners Holiday Lights Flags 24"flower
(Example 4' LED � basket+
Snowflake) maintenance
. �
1`
�`� �
Customizable
Cost $50-100 $450 $90 $90
Each
Cost for $1,600-$3,200 $14,400 $2,880 $900
32
Remarks Life limited by Replaced
exposure. annually
�2-3 Years
Display February- November—February Memorial Day— June-September
Period November Labor Da
4. Funding. Light pole decorations are not currently budgeted. Funding options include soliciting
decoration sponsorship from business/residents of the Navarre community or including in the City budget
for 2016.
�
�
5. Recommendation. I recommend Council provide guidance on a decorating scheme that best
represents the Navarre area. I further recommend that the decoration plan be kept simple with only a few
changes throughout a normal year in order to reduce costs of installation and wear and tear to the light
poles and attachments.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Provide initial guidance on light pole decorations for Navarre.
r
�
O
M
� US ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTING:
XBC-1(2 7�8 TENON�- DSAP25-VL-II-120V
LED-MT-NW-525MA-BRONZE
=� BANNER ARMS(OPTIONALJ
d� -
���-`� ' ' yA i BANNER SAVER PRO 2000 BREAKAWAY
� : � BRACKET &ARM WITH HARDWARE.
��,
�''� BEFORE INSTALLING, CUT FIBERGLA55
���'. '�� � ARM TO REQUIRED LENGTH.
r.��.��. (BANNER BY OTHERS�
,..
�!�'� ;��
k����,;t�,. �;:�ry�,� MGFS 35 GFCCI (OPT�oNA�J
{i�' �����`t�'��'� 15A FLUSH MOUNT OUTLET (40A302
1,a6' �h{; "�
� C`'�` �` �`�� MTG PLATE� O DEGREES
o p
� � FLAG HOLDER (OPTIONAL�
N
1" X 6" LG PIPE AT 180 DEGREES, PER
SKA672 (WITH DRAIN HOLE�
MILLERBERND POLE:
Q 8-XS D N H-250-002
,
a
�
y;
1 �
COUNCiL MEETING
F�a o9 za�5
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
CITY QF pRONO
DATE: February 9, 2015
ITEM NO: � '
Department Approval: � Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Adam Edwards Public Works Director/
Title Public Works Director/City Engineer City Engineer's Report
Item Description: Navarre Street Light and Sid k 'ect—Engineering Fee Change
Request
List of Exhibits
A- Request from Bolton & Menk, February 2, 2015
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain Council consideration of Bolton and
Menk's engineering fee change request.
2. Summary. The Council authorized Bolton and Menk to oversee the construction of the
Navarre lighting and sidewalk project for a fee not to exceed $54,050. Construction is now
complete on the project less site restoration and minor punch list items. However Bolton and
Menk is requesting an additional $4,050 above the previously authorized not to exceed fee due to
changed project conditions and timeline. If the Council approves the additional fee, the overall
project is still projected to come in under budget. See Exhibit A.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Consider Bolton and Menk's Engineering Fee change request.
r
• , � BO I_TON 8� M � N K , I N C�
� Consulting Engineers & Surveyors
�� ; 2638 Shadow Lane, Suite 200•Chaska, MN 55318-1172
Phone(952)448-8838• Fax(952)448-8805
www.bolton-menk.com
Februazy 2, 2015
City of Orono
Attn: Adam Edwards
PO Box 66
Orono,MN 55323
RE: Navarre Lighting and Sidewalk Rehabilitation Project
Dear Adam:
Although the project is not completed, we have reached our not-to-exceed limit($54,050)for engineering
fees for the Navarre Lighting and Sidewalk Rehabilitation Project. With that in mind> we respectively
request authorization for an additional $4,050 for construction administration services that will be
required to oversee the project to completion. This amount accounts for time already spent on the project
and the time estimated to oversee punch list completion and final documentation in the spring.
There are several factors,which we believe were beyond our control, that have influenced the time
necessary to administer this project:
1. The construction contract for the project provided for a substantial completion date of September
5"', which assumed that work activities for the sidewalk rehabilitation and the lighting
replacement portions of the project would overlap. Although the sidewalk rehabilitation work
began in July,the light poles were not delivered until September, which caused the overall
construction schedule to extend into November. This additional contract time was not anticipated
at the time our fee estimate was prepared.
2. The delay in pole delivery created additional project administration time associated with multiple
communications and meetings with the contractor to discuss project progress and changes to the
project schedule.
3. The original scope of work for the sidewalk rehabilitation portion of the project was prepared by
City staff and the City's previous City Engineer/Public Works Director. At the time of
construction,the City Engineer/Public Works Director position was vacant, which led to
increased time associated with determining sidewalk removal areas which needed to be marked
for the contractor.
4. Due to the inexact nature of the sidewalk removals, unanticipated time was spent monitoring
project quantities to ensure that sidewalk rehabilitation azeas were maximized without exceeding
the overall construction contract amount.
5. During construction,it was discovered that there were multiple Hennepin County storm sewer
structures that were causing sidewalk settlements in areas that had been marked for replacement.
This situation led to multiple communications with City staff and Hennepin County to determine
how to proceed. Ultimately,it was determined that some of the sidewalk repairs were not the
City's responsibility.
r
�- Navarre Lighting and Sidewalk Improvements
' February 2, 2015
� � Page 2
Although the engineering fees for this project have exceeded the original fee estimate, we have worked
hard to efficiently administer the project on behalf of the City. To that end,we are projecting that the
final construction costs for the project will underrun by approximately$23,000. Therefore, if approved,
this request will not cause an increase to the original project budget.
Thank you for considering this request. Please let me know if you have questions or need additional
information.
Sincerely,
BOLTON &MENK, INC.
�� � ��
David P. Martini,P.E.
Principal Engineer
COUNCIL MEETINC
FEa 0 9 2015
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ���Ty p�ORONO
DATE: February 9, 2015
ITEM NO: � �
Department Approval: � Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Adam Edwards Public Works Director/
Title Public Works Director/City Engineer City Engineer's Report
Item Description: Navarre Street Light and Sid k ject—Engineering Fee Change
Request
List of Exhibits
A- Request from Bolton & Menk, February 2, 2015
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain Council consideration of Bolton and
Menk's engineering fee change request.
2. Summary. The Council authorized Bolton and Menk to oversee the construction of the
Navarre lighting and sidewalk project for a fee not to exceed $54,050. Construction is now
complete on the project less site restoration and minor punch list items. However Bolton and
Menk is requesting an additional $4,050 above the previously authorized not to exceed fee due to
changed project conditions and timeline. If the Council approves the additional fee, the overall
project is still projected to come in under budget. See Exhibit A.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Consider Bolton and Menk's Engineering Fee change request.
�
• , = BO L_TON � M �N K , I N C�
• Consulting Engineers & Surveyors
�� t 2638 Shadow Lane,Suite 200•Chaska, MN 55318-1172
Phone(952)448-8838•Fax(952)448-8805
www.bolton-menk.com
February 2, 2015
City of Orono
Attn: Adam Edwards
PO Box 66
Orono,MN 55323
RE: Navarre Lighting and Sidewalk Rehabilitation Project
Dear Adam:
Although the project is not completed, we have reached our not-to-exceed limit($54,050)for engineering
fees for the Navarre Lighting and Sidewalk Rehabilitation Project. With that in mind, we respectively
request authorization for an additional $4,050 for construction administration services that will be
required to oversee the project to completion. This amount accounts for time already spent on the project
and the time estimated to oversee punch list completion and final documentation in the spring.
There are several factors,which we believe were beyond our control,that have influenced the time
necessary to administer this project:
l. The construction contract for the project provided for a substantial completion date of September
5`'', which assumed that work activities for the sidewalk rehabilitation and the lighting
replacement portions of the project would overlap. Although the sidewalk rehabilitation work
began in July, the light poles were not delivered until September, which caused the overall
construction schedule to extend into November. This additional contract time was not anticipated
at the time our fee estimate was prepared.
2. The delay in pole delivery created additional project administration time associated with multiple
communications and meetings with the contractor to discuss project progress and changes to the
project schedule.
3. The original scope of work for the sidewalk rehabilitation portion of the project was prepared by
City staff and the City's previous City Engineer/Public Works Director. At the time of
construction,the City Engineer/Public Works Director position was vacant, which led to
increased time associated with deternuning sidewalk removal areas which needed to be marked
for the contractor.
4. Due to the inexact nature of the sidewalk removals, unanticipated time was spent monitoring
project quantities to ensure that sidewalk rehabilitation areas were maximized without exceeding
the overall construction contract amount.
5. During construction,it was discovered that there were multiple Hennepin County storm sewer
structures that were causing sidewalk settlements in areas that had been marked for replacement.
This situation led to multiple communications with City staff and Hennepin County to determine
how to proceed. Ultimately, it was determined that some of the sidewalk repairs were not the
City's responsibility.
�
;
� Navarre Lighting and Sidewalk Improvements
� February 2, 2015
� � Page 2
Although the engineering fees for this project have exceeded the original fee estimate, we have worked
hard to efficiently administer the project on behalf of the City. To that end, we are projecting that the
final construction costs for the project will underrun by approximately$23,000. Therefore,if approved,
this request will not cause an increase to the original project budget.
Thank you for considering this request. Please let me know if you have questions or need additional
information.
Sincerely,
BOLTON &MENK, INC.
�� � ��
David P. Martini,P.E.
Principal Engineer
V
` REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL MEETING
DATE: February 9��'6'iQ 9 2015
ITEM NO: � ������0
Department Approval: � Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Adam T. Edwards Public Works Director/
Title Public Works Director City Engineer's Report
Item Description: Utility Mapping Improvements for Sanitary Sewer, Water Distribution and
Storm Sewer.
Exhibits
A. Bolton and Menk Utility Mapping Accuracy Improvements Proposal, January 20, 20l 5.
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain Council approval to authorize Bolton and Menk to
update the City GIS system.
2. Issue. The current mapping which is available to Staff for our City's utilities in most areas can be
considered schematic at best. In other areas utility mapping is not depicted digitaily requiring staff to
depend on historical drawings and maps.
3. Background. The City's GIS application is hosted by Bolton and Menk. Since 201 l the City and
our consultants have been actively collecting GPS points on our sanitary sewer and water systems. Prior
to Bolton and Menk the GIS system was administered by Boonestro. The City originally converted to
digital mapping in 2008 as part of an effort to modernize the planning and zoning management in the
City. The GIS portion of that process cost$18K.
4. Proposal.Now that this data has been collected it needs to be integrated into the GIS application.
The GPS data will need to be mapped and old data removed. At the same time the attributes, such as pipe
size or installation dates, associated with the points will be updated. Some GPS points have been
collected on the storm system, but the system is not completely or thoroughly mapped. Bolton and Menk
and Public Works will continue collection efforts this summer. In addition to routine planning and
maintenance the storm system mapping will be used for the MS4 permitting process. In the future GPS
collections and updates on any of our utilities will occur as they happen,monthly at a minimum, so as to
prevent future backlogs of data.
5. Funding. Bolton and Menk provided the following not to exceed estimated fees. Also identified
below is the ro osed fundin source.
Task Fee Fundin source Remarks
Sanita Sewer Ma in $7,500 Sewer Fund
Water Distribution s stem $8,500 Water fund
Storm Sewer Coilection $6,480 Storm Water Fund Collection will be augmented with
Public Works Personnel.
Storm Sewer Ma in $7,000 Storm Water Fund
TOTAL $29,480
6. Recommendation. I recommend Council authorize Bolton and Menk to complete the GIS
improvements. The GIS Mapping system is one of the most important tools the City has for using in
planning,responding, and decision making. Its accuracy is crucial to the successful development and
maintenance of the city's infrastructure.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Move to authorize Bolton and Menk to update the City GIS system.
. �
BC�L.._.TC�N 8� M �N K , 1 NC�
• ' � Consulting Engineers & Surveyors
� 2638 Shadow Lane, Suite 200•Chaska, MN 55318-1172
Phone(952)448-8838•Fax(952)448-8805
www.bolton-menk.com
January 20,2015
Adam Edwards
Director of Public Works
City of Orono
2750 Kelley Parkway
Orono,MN 55356
RE: City of Orono, 2015 Utility Mapping Accuracy Improvements for
Sanitary Sewer,Water Distribution, Storm Sewer
Dear Mr. Edwards,
Bolton&Menk,Inc. is pleased to submit this letter proposal to the City of Orono for completing Utility
Mapping Accuracy Improvements. The City of Orono has long been utilizing GIS and mapping in their
day to day activities. Bolton&Menk has been managing GIS data and hosting a web based GIS
application for the City of Orono since 2012.
The current utility mapping which is available to staff can be considered schematic in most areas and
incomplete in others.The City has identified that it is critical to have accurate locations of their utility
infrastructwe in order to efficiently respond to maintenance and service needs as they occur. City Staff
has been actively collecting GPS locations of Sanitary and Water infrastructure since 2011. As this GPS
field work nears completion,we would like to assist the city by integrating the GPS collected information
into existing utility mapping. This process will create a more reliable resource for locating and
identifying infrastructure for all city staff.
We would also like to assist the city by conducting a GPS collection and mapping update of the
stormwater system. Currently,there is very little information available which documents the location of
storm sewer infrastructure. This will also be a necessary step moving forward in the MS4 permitting
process.
The following describes our project approach and scope of services for the proposed GIS work.
PROJECT TASKS
Task 1—Sanitary Sewer System Mapping Improvements
Upon project initiation, Bolton&Menk will work with city staff to verify all GPS collected points have
been provided.Bolton&Menk will review all collected points and replace existing schematic
infrastructure locations with those that have been collected through GPS.We will then initiate the utility
N:�Proposals\Orono\GIS Utility Map Updates 011915\UtilityMapUpdates.docx
r
.
� Mr.Adam Edwards
� 4^ January 20,2015
� � ' Page 2
mapping process to generate the pipe network for the sanitary sewer system. This will include using
existing GIS Mapping as a guide to how the pipe networks are inter connected with the GPS collected
structure locations. All pipe attribute information that is available in the existing GIS including pipe size,
material type and year installed will be included as pipe attributes during the mapping process. All pipes
will be drawn based on the perceived direction of flow and will be topologically correct. All GIS data
will be created in an ESRI compliant Geodatabase and be available immediately in the Orono web GIS
application.
Task 2—Water Distribution 5ystem Mapping Improvements
Upon project initiation,Bolton&Menk will work with city staff to verify all GPS collected points have
been provided.Bolton&Menk will review all collected points and replace existing schematic
infrastructure locations with those that have been collected through GPS. We will then initiate the utility
mapping process to generate the pipe network for the water distribution system. This will include using
existing GIS Mapping as a guide to how the pipe networks are inter connected with the GPS collected
structure locations. All pipe attribute information that is available in the existing GIS including pipe size,
material type and year installed will be included as pipe attributes during the mapping process. All pipes
will be drawn based on the perceived direction of flow and will be topologically correct. All GIS data
will be created in an ESRI compliant Geodatabase and be available immediately in the Orono web GIS
application.
Task 3—Storm Sewer System GPS Collection & Mapping
Bolton&Menk will complete a GPS data collection of the storm sewer system using a Trimble sub-foot
mapping grade GPS data collector.Bolton&Menk will use existing schematic utiiity mapping when
available as a guide during the collection. In the absence of mapping however,all city owned streets will
be inspected to determine whether storm sewer infrastructure exists.All attempts will be made to collect a
GPS location for infrastructure which can be identified from the ground surface and that falls within city
owned right of way. Structure types that should be a part of this collection and identified accordingly
would include manholes, catch basins,inlets,outlets and other storm system components. Based on
current estimates we expect approximately 800 storm structures.
Bolton&Menk will provide trained staff and equipment for the collection of the storm sewer structure
locations.We will also provide maps showing collected points for City Staff to review and for quality
assurance. Bolton&Menk will also complete all post processing of the collected GPS data.
Following the completion of the GPS collection,Bolton&Menk will initiate the utility mapping process
to generate the pipe network. At this time there is no storm sewer mapping which can be used as
reference. In order to generate the pipe network it will require record plan research as well as cooperation
of city staff for field verification. All GIS data will be created in an ESRI compliant Geodatabase and be
available immediately in the Orono web GIS application.
. �
�, Mr.Adam Edwards
; � �'•,,� � January 20,2015
�� Page 3
PR(3JECT COST
Compensation for tasks shall be on the hourly not to exceed basis based on the estimated hours for
personnel assigned to the project. Any tasks over and above the proposed scope of work will be charged
based on the firm's hourly fee schedule.
The hourly not to exceed estimated fees for the City of Orono are as follows:
Task 1—Sanitary Sewer 5ystem Mapping $ 7,500.00
Task 2—Water Distribution System Mapping $ 8,500.00
Task 3—Storm Sewer System
• Starm Sewer GPS Collection $ 6,480.00
• Storm Sewer Mapping $ 7,000.00
TOTAL COST $ 29,480.00
There is no yearly maintenance fee or annual software cost for use of the application.Any future charges
are based on annual or as-needed map updates or additions and will follow Botton&Menk's current
hourly fee schedule.
PROJECT TIMEFRAME
The project completion schedule for tasks 1 and 2 will be approximately 16 weeks from project initiation.
The project schedule for task 3 will begin with GPS collection on or around June 15�and task completion
by September 1$`.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this proposal for services.If you have any questions
regarding this proposal,please feel free to either Dave or myself.
Thank you,
BOLTON & MENK, INC.
� '�,�/, ��`j��..- --_ � _
�
_ � - - �--� -�.
John D. Shain*GISI' David P.Martini,P.E.
GIS Project Manager Principal Engineer
REQUEST ���Q)�$�1[N(�CTION
FE� 0 9 2015 DATE: February 9, 2015
C1TY OF ORONO - ITEM NO: � 3
Department Approval: � Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
IVame Adam T. Edwards ;1/ Public Works Director/
Title Public Works Director City Engineer's Report
Item Description: Public Works Steel Toe Boot Reimbursement
1. Purpose. The purpose of this Counci] action is to gain Council approval to raise the m�imum annua)
reimbursement for steel toed boots to$175 for public works employees.
2. Issue. The current maximum annual reimbursement of$125 per annum is insufficient to cover the
current price of quality steel toe safety work boots.
3. Background. Safety boots are a critical piece of safety equipment required by MN OSHA for wear
by Public Works employees in the completion of the assigned duties. The City uses a reimbursement
mechanism to provide boots for its public works employees.
a. OSHA 29CFR 1910.136 addresses foot protection as part of personal protective equipment. The
general reyuirement is that the employer must ensure that each affected employee uses protective
footwear when working in areas where there is a danger of foot injuries due to falling or rolling objects,
or objects piercing the sole, and where such employee's feet are exposed to electrical hazards.
b. MN Statute 182.655 Subd. ]Oa. Protective equipment
Where appropriate, standards shall prescribe suitable protective equipment, if feasible
engineering and administrative methods of protection alone do not provide adequate protection,
and this equipment shall be made available by and at the cost of the employer.'
c. Per the City's employee handbook : Steel Toe Boots Reimbursement
Public Works employees and the Golf Course Superintendent shall receive an annual
- reimbursement as established by resolution for the purchase of steel toe boots. The employee
must submit the standard reimbursement form along with a receipt for the purchase. The
reimbursement shall not exceed the annual amount established by City Council resolution.z
d. The last Council action related to boots,taken March 28,2005 raised the annual reimbursement
from $I 00, set in 1998,to$125. Currently the average cost of a pair of steel toed work boots is $178.
The average for a pair of insulated work boots is$215.3
4. Funding. The boots are included in the Clothing and Personal Equipment line of the Public Works
Budget. The budgeted amount for 2015 is$3500. The budget can absorb the potential additional
expenditures.
5. Recommendation. I recommend approval of the$175 Steel Toe Boot Reimbursement.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Move to raise the maximum annual steel boot reimbursement to $175 per year.
' https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=182.655
Z Page 29, Employee Handbook,City of Orono,2011.
3 Based pricing for the 1 O55 steel toed boots offered at Steel-toe shoes.com
Comparables from other Organizations
I yueried our surrounding communities to see how their Personal Protective Equipment(PPE)
Policies provided Safety Boots. Below is a list from those who responded.
Or anization Polic
S rin Park 100%reimbursement for all PPE
Victoria $150/ for boots
Lon Lake develo in olic
Medina $400/ r for clothin to include boots
Orono Police �$200/ r for boots
' COUNCIL M����N�
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION FE8 O� ����
DATE: Februa�4��
. ITEM NO: ��
Department Approv 1: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Ron Olson City Administrator's Report
Title Finance Directo
Item Description: 2014 General Fund Budget Information
The 2014 preliminary year-end budget information is attached. 2014 Closing journal entries and
invoices aze still being processed, so the numbers will change. Any changes should be minor.
This is for informational purposes and no action is required.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
No action required.
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and Council
From: Ron Olson, Finance Direct r�(,�l(�
Subject: Budget Update �
Date: February 9, 2015
Attachments:
1) Revenue Summary
2) Expenditure Summary
3) Revenue Detail
4) Expenditure Detail
5) Investment Listing
The 4th quarter General Fund summaries are included with this memo. The summaries represent
revenues and expenditures incurred through December 31 St. Because we are still receiving and
processing some transactions from 2014, the amounts should be considered preliminary. It is not
anticipated that the amounts included in this report will change significantly prior to the closing
of the year. Current projections have revenues 104.64% of budget and expenditures at 97.97%
of budget. In net dollars, revenues aze projected to exceed expenditures by $319,577.
General Fund Revenues
Attached with this memo are both the General fund revenue summary by category, and the
revenue line item detail. Property taxes represent 53.8% of the tatal revenues and are the single
most important revenue source. Current year property tax collections (Current Ad Valorem,
Fiscal Disparities, and Personal Property) are at 100%. The collection of delinquent t�es,
penalties, and interest bring the total property tax revenue for the year to 101.7%. Licenses and
Permits finished the year at 117.42% of budget. The Building Permit line item came in at
$296,041 which is 113.9%of budget. Other Governmental Revenues finished the year at
120.2% of budget; a major portion of the overage is the result higher than anticipated Police
State Aid. Charges for Service were at 107.6%. The primary reason for this are the
construction related revenue lines which were all over 100% of budget. These four revenue
categories represent 95.1% of the revenue budget. Other minor categories that were over 100%
of budget are other Sources & Transfers at 108.8% and the Golf Course at 120%of budget.
Fine revenue only reached 77.5% of budget. A major reason for this was the lack of a
distribution from the drug task force in 2013. This line item was budgeted for$30,000. We did
however receive a Federal disbursement of$40,000, but due to requirements associated with the
payment; this amount was credited to the Permanent Improvement Revolving (PIR) Fund.
Investment interest will be over budget for the year. This is the result of a Government
Accounting Standards Board (GASB)requirement to mark our investments to the current market
value. Increasing interest rates at the end of 2013 resulted in a mark down of investment value
of$207,434. This year's markdown is only $47,909.96. On the City's books,the change in the
markdown will be recorded as interest earned or$159,524. Because the City holds its
investments to maturity, these GASB adjustments are book entries only and do not reflect real
earnings or losses. In real dollars, the City's investments earned a total of$154,795.97 in 2013.
This compares to an amount of$141,921 in 2013. A listing of investments at year end is
included for your review.
Exqenditures
The overall General Fund expenditure amounts are currently at 98.02%of budget. This figure is
based on actual expenditures to date, with an estimated amount added for expenditures that have
not yet been processed. Expenditure Four departments are over their expenditure budgets but
their overall budgets with revenues have a positive variance. At 260.6% of budget, the Special
services department was significantly over budget. However, this department is used to
account for expenditures that are largely passed through to the parties that received the service.
The offsetting revenue lines for Police Special Services and Engineering & Legal fees are cover
the expenditures. The Golf Course is slightly over budget at 100.5%. If the line items for
purchases for resale are excluded, the department would be under budget for the year. The
associated revenues lines more than offset the overage. The Building and Zoning department is
at 101.2% of budget. Two changes that were made after the adoption of the budget and an
increase in building activity account for the variance. The wage line items include a Building
Inspector position which was eliminated at the end of 2013. The new Community Development
Director position was added in 2014. In the Professional Services category, the expenditures for
Inspection Services were not budgeted for, with the understanding that they would be offset by
the savings from the Building Inspector position. The final department that is over budget is the
Parks Department at 103.4%. The overages are in the Supplies and Maintenance areas and are
the result of a greater focus on parks. The remaining departments were either at or below
budgeted amounts.
Budget adjustments for the departments that are over budget will be prepared for the Council's
approval as part of the February 23rd meeting. The overall expenditure budget will not be
increased; the increases to the individual department budgets will be offset by budget reductions
other departmental budgets.
Attachment 1-Revenue Summary
City of Orono
Revenue Summary with Comparison to Budget
For The 12 Months Ending December 31,2013-14
2014 2013
Source Dec 31 Budget Balance Percent Dec 31 Budget Percent Percent
Taxes * 4,012,319 3,946,260 (66,059) 101.67� 3,963,389 3,946,260 100.43% 100.43�
Licenses&Permits 389,377 331,600 (57,777) 117.42% 375,394 339,700 110.5190 110.51�0
Other Governmental ** 244,241 203,220 (41,021) 120.19% 278,388 208,220 133.70% 133.70%
Charges for Service 2,683,819 2,494,650 (189,169) 107.58� 2,572,453 2,496,050 103.06% 103.06�
Fines 130,205 160,500 30,295 81.12� 120,409 156,500 76.94% 76.94%
Miscellaneous 1,530 1,000 (530) 153.00% 1,520 13,000 11.69% 11.69�
Golf Course 143,884 120,000 (23,884) 119.909� 100,093 125,000 80.07% 80.07%
Interest 35,263 45,500 10,237 77.50% 35,301 40,500 87.169� 87.16�
Other Sources&Transfers 33,626 30,900 (2,726) 108.829� 44,586 23,400 190.54°6 190.54%
7,674,264 7,333,630 (340,634) 104.64% 7,491,533 7,348,630 101.949� 101.94%
* Amount from detail has been adjusted to reflect the 2nd haif settlement
** Amount of FEMA grant removed from the detail total
Attachment 2- Expenditure Summary ,
City of Orono
2014 General Fund Summary
by Department
Adjusted
Y-T-D 2014 Y-T-D Y-T-D
12/31/2014 Bud�et Dec 31,2014 Adiustments 12/31/2014 Balance Percent
Mayor&Council 96,780 90,780 96,780 (7,025) 89,755 1,025 98.87%
Administration 251,506 264,667 251,506 7,524 259,030 5,637 97.87�
Elections 18,165 23,425 18,165 - 18,165 5,260 77.55%a
Assessing 203,773 155,000 203,773 (50,000) 153,773 1,227 99.21%
Finance 302,394 329,440 302,394 8,130 310,524 18,916 94.269'0
Law/Legal Services 97,341 98,500 97,341 (1,250) 96,091 2,409 97.55%
Central Services 225,722 242,394 225,722 392 226,114 16,280 93.28�0
Human Services 9,500 9,500 9,500 - 9,500 - 100.00�o
Police 3,655,943 3,886,580 3,655,943 72,203 3,728,146 158,434 95.9290
Fire Protection Services 292,955 385,000 292,955 86,626 379,581 5,419 98.59%
Building&Zoning 592,350 613,546 592,350 28,566 620,916 (7,370) 101.20�0
Engineering 13,390 30,000 13,390 6,500 19,890 10,110 66.309�0
Street Maintenance 474,299 465,036 474,299 (42,266) 432,033 33,003 92.90�0
Parks 65,759 68,227 65,759 4,818 70,577 (2,350) 103.44%
Golf Course 159,372 159,585 159,372 1,041 160,413 (828) 100.529�0
Special Services 167,180 64,160 167,180 145 167,325 (103,165) 260.79%
Special Projects-Contingencies 43,001 47,792 43,001 (145) 42,856 4,936 89.67�0
Transfers to Other Funds - 400,000 - 400,000 400,000 - 100.00�0
Total General Fund Expenditures 6,669,428 7,333,632 6,669,428 515,259 7,184,687 148,945 97.979�
. Aa��,�h,...:,-�� 3
• CITY OF ORONO
REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET
FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31,2014
GENERALFUND
PERIOD DECEMBER 31,20 BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT
TAXES
101-31010 CURRENT AD VALOREM TAXES 1,998,167 48 1,998,167 48 3,946,260 00 1,948,092.52 50 6
101-31020 DELINQUENT AD VALOREM TAXES 44,942 43 44,942.43 .00 ( 44,942 43) .0
101-31040 FISCAL DISPARITIES 15,764 00 15,764.00 00 ( 15,764 00) .0
101-31050 PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX 15,110 67 15,110 67 00 ( 15,110 67) 0
10131080 FORFIETED TAX SALE APPORTIONNfT 00 00 00 00 .0
101-31070 RENT CREDIT 00 00 00 00 0
101-31900 PENALTIES AND INTEREST-TAXES 14,010 71 14,010 71 00 ( 14,010.71) 0
TOTAL TAXES 2,087,995.29 2,087,985.29 3,946,260 00 1,858,264 71 52.9
LICENSES&PERMITS
101-32100 BUSINESS LICENSES 00 00 00 00 0
101-32110 BEER&LIQUOR LICENSES 6,600 00 6,600 00 7,000 00 400.00 94 3
101-32120 CIGARETTE LICENSES 375 00 375 00 900 00 525 00 41 7
101-32130 COMMERCIAL DOCK LICENSES 00 00 00 00 0
101-32140 SET UP LICENSES 00 00 00 00 0
101-32150 SEPTIC LICENSES 00 .00 00 00 0
101-32170 GARBAGE HAULERS LICENSES 1,155 00 1,155 00 1,200.00 45 00 96.3
101-32180 OTHER BUSINESS LICENSE/PERMIT 5,365.00 5,365.00 5,500.00 135.00 87.6
101-32240 DOG LICENSES 4,069.00 4,069.00 2,000.00 ( 2,069.00) 203.5
101-32510 BUILDING PERMITS 296,041.25 296,041.25 260,000.00 ( 38,041.25) 113.9
101-32520 ZONING PERMIT 2,550.00 2,550.00 .00 ( 2,550.00) 0
101-32530 MECHANICAUSEPTIC/OTHER 49,141.45 49,141.45 35,000.00 ( 14,14145) 140.4
101-32590 PLUMBING PERMIT 24,080.08 24,080.08 20,000.00 � ( 4,080.08) 120.4
TOTAL LICENSES&PERMITS 388,376.78 389,376 78 331,600 00 ( 57,776.78) 117.4
OTHER GOVERNMENTS
101-33220 FEDERAL GRANT-EMRGNCY PREP 00 00 00 .00 0
101-33390 FEDERAL GRANT-OTHER 00 00 00 .00 0
101-33410 HACAAID 00 00 00 00 .0
101-33415 MARKET VALUE CREDIT 273 42 273.42 .00 ( 273.42) 0
101-33420 POLICE STATE AID 196,746 27 186,746.27 180,000.00 ( 16,746.27) 109 3
101-33430 POLICE TRAINING REIMBURSEMENT 9,332.49 9,332 49 6,000 00 ( 3,332.49) 155 5
101-33440 MUNICIPAL STATE AID-STREETS 00 00 00 00 0
101-33450 LOCALGOVERNMENTAID 00 .00 00 00 0
101-33460 PERA STATE AID 7,219 00 7,219 00 7,220 00 1 00 100 0
101-33490 STATE GRANT-OTHER 171,363 29 171,363.29 10,000 00 ( 161,383.29) 1713 6
101-33810 COUNTY GRANT-RECYCLING 00 00 00 .00 0
101-33890 GRANTS/AIDS FROM OTHER GOVTS 00 00 00 .00 .0
TOTAL OTHER GOVERNMENTS 384,934 47 384,934.47 203,220.00 ( 181,714 47) 189.4
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100%OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 02/05/2015 07 19PM PAGE 1
CITY OF ORONO .
REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET
FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31,2014
GENERALFUND
PERIOD DECEMBER 31,20 BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
101-34200 ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES FOR SVC 81,600.00 81,600.00 80,000.00 ( 1,600.00) 102.0
101-34210 GENERAL TAXABLE SALES/SERVICE 1,485 05 1,485.05 1,500 00 14.95 98 0
101-34220 ASSESSMENTS SEARCHES 260 00 260.00 00 ( 260 00) 0
101-34230 FILING FEES-ELECTIONS/PLATS 9,629.00 9,629.00 1,300 00 ( 8,329.00) 740.7
101-34410 PLAN CHECK/SITE EXAM FEES 184,857 26 184,857.26 125,000.00 ( 59,857.26) 147 9
101-34420 COND USE-VARIANCE-DEV FEES 41,779 00 41,778.00 30,000.00 ( 11,779.00) 139.3
101-34430 ENGINEERING&LEGAL FEES 85,658.56 85,658 58 25,000.00 ( 60,858.56) 342.6
101-34440 BLDG PERMITS-MAIL IN FEES 841 81 841 61 550.00 ( 291 61) 153.0
101-34450 ON-SITE SEPTIC PROGRAM FEES 44,555.00 44,555.00 44,000.00 ( 555 00) 101.3
101-34460 COOP AGREEMENT-INSPECTION 33,532.31 33,532 31 10,000 00 ( 23,532 31) 335 3
101-34610 COOP AGREEMENT-POLICE 2,099,767 47 2,089,767 47 2,093,400.00 ( 6,387 47) 100 3
101-34820 COOP AGREEMENT-ANIMAL CONTROL 00 00 00 00 0
101-34630 POLICE SPECIAL SERVICES 91,509 60 91,509 60 75,000 00 ( 16,509 60) 122 0
101-34640 FALSE ALARM FEES 2,600 00 2,600 00 4,000 00 1,400 00 65 0
101-34850 POLICE REPORTS 808.50 808.50 800 00 91.50 89 8
101-34670 POLICE RESERVE RECEIPTS 900.00 900 00 500 00 ( 400 00) 180.0
101-34880 EXPLORERS PROGRAM 1,038 00 1,038.00 00 ( 1,038 00) 0
101-34810 COOP AGREEMENT-PUBLIC WORKS 2,887 63 2,997.63 3,500 00 502 37 85.7
101-34815 INTERDEPARTMENTAL SERVICES-PW 00 00 00 00 .0
101-34820 RECYCLING PROGRAM FEES 00 .00 .00 00 0
TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICES 2,683,818.99 2,683,818.99 2,494,850 00 ( 188,168 99) 107 6
FINES
101-35104 OTHER FINES 00 .00 00 00 0
101-35105 ADMIN CITATIONS 15,693 55 15,693 55 00 ( 15,693 55) .0
101-35400 COURT FINES 108,098 81 108,098 81 130,000 00 21,901 19 83 2
101-35410 DRUG TASK FORCE 00 .00 30,000 00 30,000.00 0
101-35420 DOG IMPOUND FEES 530 00 530.00 500.00 ( 30.00) 106 0
101-35820 ADMINISTRATIVE 30%SHARE .00 .00 00 .00 0
TOTAL FINES 124,322.38 124,322 36 160,500.00 36,177 64 77.5
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100%OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 02/05/2015 07.19PM PAGE 2
. CITY OF ORONO
REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET
FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31,2014
GENERAIFUND
PERIOD DECEMBER 31,20 BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT
MISCELLANEOUS
101-37698 UTILITY PENALTIES 1,530 00 1,530 00 1,000 00 ( 530 00) 153 0
101-37910 GREEN FEES 85,703.24 85,703.24 80,000 00 ( 5,703.24) 107.1
101-37920 RENTAL-GOLF CARTS 8 CLUB 27,257 00 27,257.00 31,000.00 3,743.00 87.9
101-37830 BEER SALES 6,644 00 6,644.00 3,000.00 ( 3,644 00) 221 5
101-37935 POP SALES 3,133 80 3,133 90 4,000.00 866.10 78 4
101-37940 CONCESSIONS-TAXABLE 2,057.79 2,057 79 2,000 00 ( 57 78) 102 9
101-37950 CONCESSIONS-NONTAXABLE .00 .00 00 00 0
101-37960 GOLF BALL SALES 1,704.25 1,704 25 .00 ( 1,704.25) 0
101-37970 PRO SHOP-TAXABLE 1,078 18 1,078 16 00 ( 1,078.16) .0
101-37980 PRO SHOP-NONTAXABLE 1,428.50 1,428 50 00 ( 1,428 50) 0
101-37985 GOLF COURSE PRINTS .00 00 00 00 .0
101-37990 OTHER GOLF COURSE RECEIPTS 15,105 74 15,105.74 .00 ( 15,105.74) .0
101-37999 CASH OVER/SHORT ( 229.04) ( 228 04) 00 229 04 0
TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS 145,413.54 145,413.54 121,000.00 ( 24,413 54) 120 2
OTHER SOURCES&TRANSFERS IN
101-39310 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 00 00 45,000 00 45,000 00 .0
101-39315 INVESTMENT DISCOUNTSlPREMIUMS 00 00 00 .00 0
101-39350 INTEREST-NOW ACCOUNT 622.59 822 59 500 00 ( 122.59) 124 5
101-39810 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 3,262.25 3,262 25 7,500 00 4,237 75 43 5
101-39620 RENT INCOME 5,400.00 5,400 00 5,400 00 00 100 0
101-39630 CONTRIBUTIONS&DONATIONS 00 00 00 00 0
101-39840 REFUNDS&REIMBURSEMENTS 2,305.60 2,305.60 00 ( 2,305 60) 0
101-39650 PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES 00 00 00 00 0
101-39870 SALE OF LAND .00 00 .00 00 0
101-38680 SALE OF EQUIPMENT 22,661.64 22,661 64 18,000.00 ( 4,661.84) 125 9
101-39920 RESIDUAL EQUITY TRANSFERS IN 00 00 00 00 0
TOTAL OTHER SOURCES&TRANSFERS IN 34,252 08 34,252.08 78,400 00 42,147.92 44.8
TOTAL FUND REVENUE 5,850,113.51 5,850,113.51 7,333,630.00 1,483,516.49 79.8
FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100%OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 02/05/2015 07:19PM PAGE 3
Attachment 4-Expenditure Detail
City of Orono '
2014 Line Item Budget
Mayor&Council
Adjusted
2014 Y-T-D Y-T-D
Budget Dec 31,2014 Adiustments Dec 31,2014 Balance Percent
Personal Services
101-41110-101 101 Full-Time Employees Regular 18,200 17,033 0 17,033 1,167 93.59%
101-41110-122 122 FICA 1,390 1,303 0 1,303 87 93.74%
101-41110-151 151 Worker's Comp Insurance Prem 90 90 0 90 0 100.00%
Total Personal Services 19,680 18,426 0 18,426 1,254 93.63%
OtherExqenses
101-41110-433 433 Memberships 69,800 77,095 (7,025) 70,070 (270) 10039%
101-41110-437 437 Training&Development 500 0 0 0 500 0.00%
101-41110-439 439 Meeting Expenses 800 1,258 0 1,258 (458) 157.29%
101-41110-489 489 Other Miscellaneous Charges 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
Total Other Expenses 71,100 78,353 (7,025) 71,328 (228) 10032%
City Council Total 90,780 96,780 (7,025) 89,755 1,025 98.87�
Page 1
Attachment 4-Expenditure Detail
City of Orono
2014 Line Item Budget
Administration
Adjusted
2014 Y-T-D Y-T-D
Budget Dec 31,2014 Adiustments Dec 31,2014 Balance Percent
Personal Services
101-41300-101 101 Full-Time Employees Regular 165,300 168,851 6,840 175,691 (10,391) 106.29�
101-41300-102 102 Full-Time Employees Overtime 1,300 (70) 0 (70) 1,370 -5.38%
101-41300-103 103 Part-Time Employees 15,090 12,153 0 12,153 2,937 80.54�
101-41300-104 104 Temporary Employees Regular 450 3,153 0 3,153 (2,703) 700.56%
101-41300-121 121 PERA 13,170 12,933 482 13,415 (245) 101.86%
101-41300-122 122 FICA 13,930 13,989 488 14,477 (547) 103.92%
101-41300-135 135 City Benefit Contribution 35,040 19,206 0 19,206 15,834 54.819�
101-41300-142 142 Unemployment Benefit Payments 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
101-41300-151 151 Worker's Comp Insurance Prem 1,127 1,127 0 1,127 0 100.009'0
Total Personal Services 245,407 231,340 7,810 239,150 6,257 97.45�
Supplies&Maintenance
101-41300-208 208 Books&Periodicals 260 572 (286) 286 (26) 110.00�
Total Supplies&Maintenance 260 572 (286) 286 (26) 110.009'0
Professional Services
101-41300-319 319 Professional Services 6,000 6,385 0 6,385 (385) 106.42%
Total Professional Serivices 6,000 6,385 0 6,385 (385) 106.42�
Page 2
Attachment 4-Expenditure Detail
City of Orono '
2014 Line Item Budget
Administration cont.
Adjusted
2014 Y-T-D Y-T-D
Budget Dec 31.2014 Adiustments Dec 31,2014 Balance Percent
OtherExpenses
101-41300-331 331 TravelExpenses 5,000 4,850 0 4,850 150 97.009�
101-41300-340 340 General Advertising 0 420 0 420 (420) N/A
101-41300-433 433 Memberships 1,500 1,350 0 1,350 150 90.00�
101-41300-437 437 Training&Development 3,500 2,866 0 2,866 634 81.88%
101-41300-439 439 Meeting Expenses 500 679 0 679 (179) 135.729�
101-41300-489 489 Other Miscellaneous Charges 2,500 3,044 0 3,044 (544j 121.76%
Total Other Expenses 13,000 13,209 0 13,209 (209) 101.60�
Administration Total 264,667 251,506 7,524 259,030 5,637 97.87%
Page 3
Attachment 4-Expenditure Detail
City of Orono
2014 Line item Budget
Elections
Adjusted
2014 Y-T-D Y-T-D
Budget Dec 31,2014 Adiustments Dec 31,2014 Balance Percent
Personal Services
101-41410-102 102 Full-Time Employees Overtime 3,242 2,834 0 2,834 408 87.42�
101-41410-104 104 Temporary Employees Regular 15,000 10,011 0 10,011 4,989 66.74%
101-41410-121 121 PERA 235 200 0 200 35 85.2596
101-41410-122 122 FICA 248 194 0 194 54 78.03%
Total Personal Services 18,725 13,239 0 13,239 5,486 70.70%
Suaplies&Maintenance
101-41410-208 208 Books&Periodicals 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
101-41410-221 221 Equipment Parts&Accessories 2,000 2,192 0 2,192 (192) 109.58%
101-41410-240 240 Small Tools and Minor Equip 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
Total Supplies&Maintenance 2,000 2,192 0 2,192 (192) 109.58�
OtherExpenses
101-41410-319 319 Professional Services 0 1,050 0 1,050 (1,050) N/A
101-41410-322 322 Postage 650 533 0 533 117 82.01�0
101-41410-331 331 Travel Expenses 100 87 0 87 13 87.08%
101-41410-340 340 General Advertising 900 214 0 214 686 23.80�
101-41410-412 412 Building Rentals 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
101-41410-415 415 Other Equipment Rentals 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
101-41410-437 437 Training&Development 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
101-41410-439 439 Meeting Expenses 1,000 523 0 523 477 52.33�
101-41410-489 489 Other Miscellaneous Charges 50 327 0 327 {277) 654.66%
Total Other Expenses 2,700 2,735 0 2,735 (35) 101.299�0
Elections Total 23,425 18,165 0 18,165 5,260 77.55%
Page 4
Attachment 4-Expenditure Detail
City of Orono �
2014 Line Item Budget
Assessing
Adjusted
2014 Y-T-D Y-T-D
Budget Dec 31.2014 Adiustments Dec 31,2014 Balance Percent
Assessins Services
101-41550-302 302 Assessing Services 155,000 203,773 (50,000) 153,773 1,227 99.21�
Total Assessing Service 155,000 203,773 (50,000) 153,773 1,227 99.21%
Assessing Total 155,000 203,773 (50,000) 153,773 1,227 99.21%
Page 5
Attachment 4-Expenditure Detail
City of Orono
2014 Line Item Budget
Finance Department
Adjusted
2014 Y-T-D Y-T-D
Budget Dec 31,2014 Adiustments Dec 31,2014 Balance Percent
Personal Services
101-41500-101 101 Full-Time Employees Regular 214,880 211,877 6,902 218,779 (3,899) 101.81�0
101-41500-102 102 Full-Time Employees Overtime 200 0 0 0 200 0.009'0
101-41500-103 103 Part-Time Employees 25,400 20,715 683 21,398 4,002 84.24%
101-41500-104 104 Temporary Employees Regular 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
101-41500-121 121 PERA 17,420 16,569 545 17,114 525 98.24%
101-41500-122 122 FICA 18,380 16,753 0 16,753 1,627 91.iS�o
101-41500-135 135 City Benefit Contribution 50,220 34,166 0 34,166 16,054 68.03�0
101-41500-151 151 Worker's Comp Insurance Prem 1,460 1,460 0 1,460 0 100.00%
Total Personal Services 327,960 301,539 8,130 309,669 18,509 94.42%
Supplies&Maintenance
101-41500-208 208 Books&Periodicals 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
Total Supplies&Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
Professional Services
101-41500-301 301 Auditing and Acct'g Services 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
Total Professional Services 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
OtherExpenses
101-41500-331 331 TravelExpenses 150 39 0 39 111 26.13%
101-41500-433 433 Memberships 330 325 0 325 5 98.48%
101-41500-437 437 Training&Development 1,000 490 0 490 510 49.03%
Total Other Expenses 1,480 854 0 854 626 57.74%
Finance Total 329,440 302,394 8,130 310,524 19,135 94.26�
Page 6
Attachment 4-Expenditure Detail
City of Orono '
2014 Line Item Budget
Law/Legal Services
Adjusted
2014 Y-T-D Y-T-D
Budget Dec 31.2014 Adiustments Dec 31,2014 Balance Percent
Professional Services
101-41600-305 305 Legal-Retainer 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
101-41600-306 306 Legal-Prosecution 38,500 37,549 0 37,549 951 97.53%
101-41600-307 307 Legal-Consulting 45,000 46,847 (2,000) 44,847 153 99.66%
101-41600-308 308 Code Enforcement 5,000 4,659 0 4,659 341 93.18%
101-41600-309 309 Jail Charges 10,000 8,285 750 9,035 965 9035%
Total Professional Services 98,500 97,341 (1,250) 96,091 2,409 97.55%
Law/Legal Services Total 98,500 97,341 (1,250) 96,091 2,409 97.55%
Page 7
Attachment 4-Expenditure Detail
City of Orono
2014 Line Item Budget
Central Services
Adj usted
2014 Y-T-D Y-T-D
Budget Dec 31,2014 Adiustments Dec 31,2014 Balance Percent
Supplies&Maintenance
101-41900-201 201 Office supplies 11,083 14,389 (600) 13,789 (2,706) 124.42�0
101-41900-221 221 Equipment Parts&Accessories 3,888 483 0 483 3,405 12.439�
101-41900-223 223 Bldg/Grounds Maint.Supplies 3,830 4,311 0 4,311 (481) 112.55�0
101-41900-401 401 Repairs/Maint-Office Equip 24,131 18,870 0 18,870 5,261 78.20�0
101-41900-403 403 Repairs/Maint-Misc. Equip 697 469 0 469 228 67.25�0
101-41900-404 404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds 20,000 13,588 2,600 16,188 3,812 80.94%
101-41900-407 407 Janitorial Services 20,054 18,584 0 18,584 1,470 92.67�0
Total Supplies&Maintenance 83,683 70,694 2,000 72,694 10,989 86.879�
Professional Services
101-41900-301 301 Auditing and Acct'g Services 20,000 20,000 0 20,000 0 100.00%
101-41900-310 310 LOGIS-Applications 0 1,158 (1,158) 0 0 N/A
101-41900-311 311 Data Processing Communication 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
101-41900-319 319 Professional Services 15,000 10,339 0 10,339 4,661 68.93�
101-41900-370 370 Insurance Agent of Record 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
Total Professional Services 35,000 31,497 (1,158) 30,339 4,661 86.68�
Insurances
101-41900-361 361 General liability Ins 10,000 10,000 0 10,000 0 100.00%
101-41900-362 362 Umbrella Liability Ins 5,000 5,000 0 5,000 0 100.00%
101-41900-363 363 Bonds Insurance 800 800 0 S00 0 100.00�
101-41900-365 365 Boiler&Machinery Ins 2,000 2,000 0 2,000 0 100.00�
101-41900-366 366 Property Insurance 5,000 5,000 0 5,000 0 100.00�0
101-41900-367 367 Equipment Floaters Ins 2,400 2,400 0 2,400 0 100.00�0
101-41900-368 368 Automotive Insurance 5,000 5,000 0 5,000 0 100.009�0
Totallnsurances 30,200 30,200 0 30,200 0 100.009'0
Page 8
Attachment 4-Expenditure Detail
City of Orono '
2014 Line Item Budget
Central Services cont.
Adjusted
2014 Y-T-D Y-T-D
Budget Dec 31.2014 Adiustments Dec 31,2014 Balance Percent
OtherExpenses
101-41900-312 312 Bank Fees 5,000 3,856 0 3,856 1,144 77.12%
101-41900-321 321 Telephone 5,643 7,986 (2,000) 5,986 (343) 106.08�
101-41900-322 322 Postage 11,000 10,697 0 10,697 303 97.24%
101-41900-329 329 Internet/Other Communications 4,650 3,771 1,550 5,321 (671) 114.43�
101-41900-352 352 Printing&Publishing 15,560 13,246 0 13,246 2,314 85.13%
101-41900-381 381 Gas&Electric 29,370 31,747 0 31,747 (2,377) 108.095'0
101-41900-382 382 Water Utilities 2,800 2,134 0 2,134 666 76.23%
101-41900-413 413 Office Equipment Rental 19,000 17,645 0 17,645 1,355 92.87�
101-41900-440 440 Special Equipment Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
101-41900-489 489 Other Miscellaneous Charges 488 2,248 0 2,248 (1,760) 460.65�
Tota)Other Expenses 93,511 93,331 (450) 92,881 630 99.33�
Capital OutlaV
101-41900-512 512 Spec Assmts on Land&Int 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
101-41900-750 750 Interest on Special Assmnts 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
Total Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
Central Services Total 242,394 225,722 392 226,114 16,280 93.28�0
Page 9
Attachment 4-Expenditure Detail
City of Orono
2014 Line Item Budget
Human Services
Adjusted
2014 Y-T-D Y-T-D
Budget Dec 31.2014 Adiustments Dec 31,2014 Balance Percent
OtherExqenses
101-41800-490 490 Contributions to Civic Org's 9,500 9,500 0 9,500 0 100.00%
Total Other Expenses 9,500 9,500 0 9,500 0 100.00%
Human Services Total 9,500 9,500 0 9,500 0 100.00�
Page 10
Attachment 4-Expenditure Detail
City of Orono '
2014 Line Item Budget
Police Department
Adjusted
2014 Y-T-D Y-T-D
Budget Dec 31.2014 Adiustments Dec 31,2014 Balance Percent
Personal Services
101-42110-101 101 Full-Time Employees Regular 2,222,020 2,179,773 67,631 2,247,404 (25,384) 101.14%
101-42110-102 102 Full-Time Employees Overtime 60,000 21,131 1,061 22,192 37,808 36.999�
101-42110-103 103 Part-Time Employees 43,070 83,890 1,048 84,938 (41,868) 197.21%
101-42110-104 104 Temporary Employees Regular 0 0 0 0 N/A
101-42110-121 121 PERA 326,850 321,507 10,672 332,179 (5,329) 101.63%
101-42110-122 122 FICA 42,470 42,785 1,313 44,098 (1,628) 103.83%
101-42110-135 135 City Benefit Contribution 377,880 290,986 0 290,986 86,894 77.00�
101-42110-142 142 Unemployment Benefit Payments 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
101-42110-151 151 Worker's Comp Insurance Prem 68,325 68,325 0 68,325 0 100.00�0
Total Personal Services 3,140,615 3,008,396 81,725 3,090,121 50,494 98.399�0
Supplies&Maintenance
101-42110-201 201 Office supplies 17,917 12,273 0 12,273 5,644 68.50%
101-42110-208 208 Books&Periodicals 996 0 0 0 996 0.00%
101-42110-212 212 Motor Fuels&Lubricants 99,594 117,211 (15,000) 102,211 (2,617) 102.63�
101-42110-221 221 Equipment Parts&Accessories 8,272 4,498 0 4,498 3,774 54.38%a
101-42110-223 223 Bldg/Grounds Maint.Supplies 1,363 230 0 230 1,133 16.90�
101-42110-226 226 Clothing&personal equipment 26,997 24,891 0 24,891 2,106 92.20%
101-42110-228 228 Training Supplies 15,400 8,916 0 8,916 6,484 57.90�0
101-42110-229 229 Explorers Program expenses 3,970 981 0 981 2,989 24.72�
101-42110-240 240 Small Tools and Minor Equip 7,672 1,435 0 1,435 6,237 18.71�
101-42110-401 401 Repairs/Maint-Office Equip 14,322 14,414 0 14,414 (92) 100.64%
101-42110-402 402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip 56,020 49,879 0 49,879 6,141 89.04�
101-42110-403 403 Repairs/Maint-Misc. Equip 7,329 6,437 0 6,437 892 87.82%
101-42110-404 404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds 7,529 3,120 0 3,120 4,409 41.44�
101-42110-407 407 Janitorial Services 12,811 13,457 0 13,457 (646) 105.049�0
Total Supplies&Maintenance 280,192 257,743 (15,000) 242,743 37,449 86.639�
Page 11
Attachment 4-Expenditure Detail
City of Orono
2014 Line Item Budget
Police Department cont.
Adjusted
2014 Y-T-D Y-T-D
Budget Dec 31,2014 Adiustments Dec 31,2014 Balance Percent
Professional Services
101-42110-304 304 Engineering-Consulting 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
101-42110-307 307 Legal-Consulting 6,500 5,981 0 5,981 519 92.01%
101-42110-310 310 LOGIS-Applications 78,950 52,078 9,026 61,104 17,846 77.40%
101-42110-311 311 Data Processing Communication 5,000 3,284 0 3,284 1,716 65.69%
101-42110-317 317 Animal Care 1,750 85 0 85 1,665 4.85%
101-42110-319 319 Professional Services 11,952 12,479 0 12,479 (527) 104.41�
101-42110-370 370 Insurance AgentofRecord 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
Total Professional Services 104,152 73,907 9,026 82,933 21,219 79.63�0
Insurances
101-42110-361 361 General Liability Ins 25,000 25,000 0 25,000 0 100.00%
101-42110-362 362 Umbrella Liability Ins 9,100 9,100 0 9,100 0 100.00�0
101-42110-366 366 Property Insurance 3,300 3,300 0 3,300 0 100.009�
101-42110-367 367 Equipment Floaters Ins 500 S00 0 500 0 100.00�o
101-42110-368 368 Automotive Insurance 6,600 6,600 0 6,600 0 100.00�0
101-42110-379 379 Insurance Deductibles 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
Totallnsurances 44,500 44,500 0 44,500 0 100.00�
Page 12
Attachment 4-Expenditure Detail
City of Orono "
2014 Line Item Budget
Police Department cont.
Adjusted
2014 Y-T-D Y-T-D
Budget Dec 31.2014 Adiustments Dec 31,2014 Balance Percent
OtherExpenses
101-42110-321 321 Telephone 23,225 21,673 0 21,673 1,552 93329�
101-42110-322 322 Postage 1,600 223 0 223 1,377 13.95�0
101-42110-329 329 Internet/Other Communications 6,380 9,160 (3,548) 5,612 768 87.97�
101-42110-331 331 Travel Expenses 280 89 0 89 191 31.86�
101-42110-340 340 General Advertising 0 132 0 132 (132) N/A
101-42110-352 352 Printing&Publishing 1,899 1,692 0 1,692 207 89.10%
101-42110-381 381 Gas&Electric 14,290 14,125 0 14,125 165 98.84�0
101-42110-382 382 Water Utilities 1,500 781 0 781 719 52.09%
101-42110-413 413 Office Equipment Rental 2,711 2,578 0 2,578 133 95.09�
101-42110-414 414 EDP/Communications Equip Rent 23,179 23,782 0 23,782 (603) 102.60�
101-42110-433 433 Memberships 3,000 2,110 0 2,110 890 7033�
101-42110-436 436 Towing Charges 0 53 0 53 (53) N/A
101-42110-437 437 Training&Development 35,000 32,676 0 32,676 2,324 93.36%
101-42110-439 439 Meeting Expenses 1,982 1,890 0 1,890 92 95389�
101-42110-440 440 Special Equipment Replacement 5,000 228 0 228 4,772 4.579�0
101-42110-441 441 Licenses&Taxes 1,300 1,172 0 1,172 129 90.12%
101-42110-489 489 Other Miscellaneous Charges 4,000 188 0 188 3,812 4.71%
Total Other Expenses 125,346 112,553 (3,548) 109,005 16,341 86.96�
Capital Outlav
101-42110-550 S50 Automotive Equipment 139,233 139,914 0 139,914 (681) 100.49�
101-42110-560 560 Furniture and Fixtures 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
101-42110-570 570 Office Equip and Furnishings 7,300 7,500 0 7,500 (200) 102.74%
101-42110-575 575 IT Hardware&Applications 24,469 11,430 0 11,430 13,039 46.71�
101-42110-580 580 Other Equipment 20,773 0 0 0 20,773 0.00%
Total Capital Outlay 191,775 158,845 0 158,845 32,930 82.83�
Police Total 3,886,580 3,655,943 72,203 3,728,146 158,434 95.92�0
Page 13
Attachment 4-Expenditure Detail
City of Orono
2014 Line Item Budget
Fire Protection Services
Adjusted
2014 Y-T-D Y-T-D
Budget Dec 31.2014 Adiustments Dec 31,2014 Balance Percent
Professional Services
101-42260-318 318 Fire Services 385,000 292,955 86,626 379,581 5,419 98.59%
101-42260-319 319 Professional Services 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
Total Professional Services 385,000 292,955 86,626 379,581 5,419 98.59%
Fire Protection Services Total 385,000 292,955 86,626 379,581 5,419 98.59�
Page 14
Attachment 4-Expenditure Detail
City of Orono "
2014 Line Item Budget
Building&Zoning
Adjusted
2014 Y-T-D Y-T-D
Budget Dec 31,2014 Adiustments Dec 31,2014 Balance Percent
Personal Services
101-42400-101 101 Full-Time Employees Regular 405,570 372,544 12,956 385,500 20,070 95.05%
101-42400-102 102 Full-Time Employees Overtime 200 65 0 65 136 32.25�
101-42400-103 103 Part-Time Employees 15,010 12,153 0 12,153 2,857 80.969�0
101-42400-104 104 Temporary Employees Regular 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
101-42400-121 121 PERA 30,510 27,318 937 28,255 2,255 92.61%
101-42400-122 122 FICA 32,190 29,538 970 30,508 1,682 94.78�
101-42400-135 135 City Benefit Contribution 67,980 47,170 0 47,170 20,810 69.39�
101-42400-142 142 Unemployment Benefit Payments 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
101-42400-151 151 Worker's Comp Insurance Prem 2,636 2,636 0 2,636 0 100.00%
Total Personal Services 554,096 491,424 14,863 506,287 47,809 91.37�
Supplies&Maintenance
101-42400-208 208 Books&Periodicals 1,500 0 0 0 1,500 0.00%
101-42400-212 212 Motor Fuels&Lubricants 500 0 S00 500 0 100.00%
101-42400-221 221 Equipment Parts&Accessories 0 50 0 50 (SO) N/A
101-42400-226 226 Clothing&personal equipment 250 97 (97) 0 250 0.19�
101-42400-240 240 Small Tools and Minor Equip 400 0 0 0 400 0.00�
101-42400-402 402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip 1,000 43 0 43 957 4.29�
101-42400-403 403 Repairs/Maint-Misc. Equip 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
Total Supplies&Maintenance 3,650 190 403 593 3,057 16.26%
Professional Services
101-42400-304 304 Engineering-Consulting 2,500 1,979 2,000 3,979 (1,479) 159.16�0
101-42400-307 307 Legal-Consulting 16,000 19,879 3,500 23,379 (7,379) 146.12�
101-42400-310 310 Inspection Services 0 71,620 7,500 79,120 (79,120) N/A
101-42400-319 319 Professional Services 30,000 2,455 0 2,455 27,545 8.18%
Total Professional Services 48,500 95,933 13,000 108,933 (60,433) 224.60�
Page 15
Attachment 4-Expenditure Detail
City of Orono
2014 Line Item Budget
Building&Zoning cont.
Adjusted
2014 Y-T-D Y-T-D
Budget Dec 31,2014 Adiustments Dec 31,2014 Balance Percent
OtherExpenses
101-42400-331 331 Travel Expenses 1,500 1,900 300 2,200 (700) 146.64�
101-42400-340 340 General Advertising 0 25 0 25 (25) N/A
101-42400-415 415 Other Equipment Rentals 350 0 0 0 350 0.00�
101-42400-433 433 Memberships 600 475 0 475 125 79.17%
101-42400-437 437 Training&Development 4,200 1,744 0 1,744 2,456 41.53�
101-42400-439 439 Meeting Expenses 500 626 0 626 (126) 125.249'0
101-42400-441 441 Licenses&Taxes 150 32 0 32 118 21.339�
Total Other Expenses 7,300 4,802 300 5,102 2,198 69.899�
Building&Zoning Total 613,546 592,350 28,566 620,916 (7,370) 101.20�
Page 16
Attachment 4-Expenditure Detail
City of Orono �
2014 Line Item Budget
Engineering
Adjusted
2014 Y-T-D Y-T-D
Budget Dec 31,2014 Adiustments Dec 31,2014 Balance Percent
Professional Services
101-43170-303 303 Engineering-Retainer 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
101-43170-304 304 Engineering-Consulting 30,000 13,390 6,500 19,890 10,110 66.30%
Total Professional Services 30,000 13,390 6,500 19,890 10,110 66.30%
Engineering Total 30,000 13,390 6,500 19,890 10,110 66.30�
Page 17
Attachment 4-Expenditure Detail
City of Orono
2014 Line Item Budget
Public Works Department
Adjusted
2014 Y-T-D Y-T-D
Budget Dec 31,2014 Adiustments Dec 31,2014 Balance Percent
Personal Services
101-43000-101 101 Full-Time Employees Regular 207,300 236,409 (37,253) 199,156 8,144 96.07�
101-43000-102 102 Full-Time Employees Overtime 11,000 9,733 1,579 11,312 (312) 102.83%
101-43000-121 121 PERA 15,830 16,015 (3,150) 12,865 2,965 81.2796
101-43000-122 122 FICA 16,700 17,045 (3,442) 13,603 3,097 81.45%
101-43000-135 135 City Benefit Contribution 38,260 29,378 0 29,378 8,882 76.79%
101-43000-142 142 Unemployment Benefit Payments 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
101-43000-151 151 Worker's Comp Insurance Prem 14,926 14,926 0 14,926 0 100_OO�o
Total Persona)Services 304,016 323,506 (42,266) 281,240 22,776 92.51%
Supplies&Maintenance
101-43000-208 208 Books&Periodicals (9) 159 0 159 (168) -1762.229�
101-43000-212 212 Motor Fuels&Lubricants 43,393 35,694 0 35,694 7,699 82.26�0
101-43000-221 221 Equipment Parts&Accessories 14,541 15,606 0 15,606 (1,065) 10733%
101-43000-222 222 Vehicle Equipment&Parts 7,500 7,828 0 7,828 (328) 10438%
101-43000-224 224 Street Maint. Materials/Supply 34,112 33,496 0 33,496 616 98.199�
101-43000-226 226 Clothing&personal equipment 4,358 2,527 0 2,527 1,832 57.97%
101-43000-240 240 Small Tools and Minor Equip 859 978 0 978 (119) 113.90%
101-43000-402 402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip 4,681 7,059 0 7,059 (2,378) 150.81�
101-43000-403 403 Repairs/Maint-Misc. Equip 4,769 2,594 0 2,594 2,175 54.40%
101-43000-404 404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds (269) 708 0 708 (977) -263.29%
101-43000-408 408 Contracted Street Maint. 16,297 14,280 0 14,280 2,017 87.62�
Total Supplies&Maintenance 130,232 120,930 0 120,930 9,302 92.869�
Professional Services
101-43000-304 304 PW Engineering-Consulting 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
101-43000-319 319 Professional5ervices 0 0 0 0 0 NJA
Total Professional Services 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
Page 18
Attachment 4-Expenditure Detail
City of Orono '
2014 Line Item Budget
Public Works Department cont.
Adjusted
2014 Y-T-D Y-T-D
Budget Dec 31,2014 Adiustments Dec 31,2014 Balance Percent
OtherExqenses
101-43000-331 331 Travel Expenses 0 63 0 63 (63) N/A
101-43000-381 381 Gas&Electric 4,787 3,397 0 3,397 1,390 70.96�
101-43000-386 386 Street Lighting 21,690 22,790 0 22,790 (1,100) 105.07%
101-43000-415 415 Other Equipment Rentals 961 409 0 409 552 42.53�0
101-43000-433 433 Memberships 400 618 0 618 (218) 154.50�
101-43000-437 437 Training&Development 2,500 1,798 0 1,798 702 71.93�
101-43000-441 441 Licenses&Taxes 200 747 0 747 (547) 373.50%
101-43000-489 489 Other Miscellaneous Charges 250 40 0 40 210 16.20�
Total Other Expenses 30,788 29,863 0 29,863 925 97.009'0
Public Works Total 465,036 474,299 (42,266) 432,033 33,003 92.90�
Page 19
Attachment 4-Expenditure Detail
City of Orono
2014 Line Item Budget
Parks
Adjusted
2014 Y-T-D Y-T-D
Budget Dec 31,2014 Adiustments Dec 31,2014 Balance Percent
Personal Services
101-45200-101 101 Full-Time Employees Regular 19,800 10,264 6,000 16,264 3,536 82.14%
101-45200-102 102 Full-Time Employees Overtime 0 202 0 202 (202) N/A
101-45200-103 103 Part-Time Employees 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
101-45200-121 121 PERA 1,440 759 630 1,389 51 96.45�
101-45200-122 122 FICA 1,520 791 688 1,479 41 97.3390
101-45200-135 135 City Benefit Contribution 3,808 1,825 0 1,825 1,983 47.92%
101-45200-151 151 Worker's Comp Insurance Prem 809 809 0 809 0 100.00�
Total Personal Services 27,377 14,651 7,318 21,969 5,408 80.25%
Supplies&Maintenance
101-45200-212 212 Motor Fuels&Lubricants 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
101-45200-221 221 Equipment Parts&Accessories 1,000 2,247 0 2,247 (1,247) 224.66%
101-45200-223 223 Bldg/Grounds Maint.Supplies 1,500 3,222 0 3,222 (1,722) 214.79%
101-45200-403 403 Repairs/Maint-Misc.Equip 500 176 0 176 324 35.28�0
101-45200-404 404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds 31,000 38,643 (2,500) 36,143 (5,143) 116.59%
Total Supplies&Maintenance 34,000 44,288 (2,500) 41,788 (7,788) 122.91%
Professional Services
101-45200-319 319 Professional5ervices 0 405 0 405 (405) N/A
Total Professional Services 0 405 0 405 (405) N/A
Page 20
Attachment 4-Expenditure Detail
City of Orono
2014 li�e Item Budget
Parks cont.
Adjusted
2014 Y-T-D Y-T-D
Budget Dec 31,2014 Adiustments Dec 31,2014 Balance Percent
OtherExpenses
101-45200-331 331 TravelExpenses 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
101-45200-381 381 Gas&Electric 550 406 0 406 144 73.75%
101-45200-415 415 Other Equipment Rentals 3,400 3,242 0 3,242 158 95.34%
101-45200-439 439 Meeting Expenses 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
101-45200-441 441 Licenses&Taxes 0 290 0 290 (290) N/A
101-45200-489 489 Other Miscellaneous Charges 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
101-45200-490 490 Contributions to Civic Org's 2,900 2,478 0 2,478 422 85.46�
Total Other Expenses 6,850 6,416 0 6,416 434 93.66�
Parks Total 68,227 65,759 4,818 70,577 (2,350) 103.44�
Page 21
Attachment 4-Expenditure Detail
City of Orono
2014 Line Item Budget
Golf Course
Adjusted
2014 Y-T-D Y-T-D
Budget Dec 31,2014 Adiustments Dec 31,2014 Balance Percent
Personal Services
101-45210-101 101 Full-Time Employees Regular 47,860 33,251 967 34,218 13,642 71.50�
101-45210-103 103 Part-Time Employees 25,000 35,323 0 35,323 (10,323) 141.299�
101-45210-104 104 Temporary Employees Regular 0 2,095 0 2,095 (2,095) N/A
101-45210-121 121 PERA 3,402 408 0 408 2,994 12.00%
101-45210-122 122 FICA 4,030 3,082 74 3,156 874 78.31�
101-45210-135 135 City Benefit Contribution 10,980 5,297 0 5,297 5,683 48.259�0
101-45210-142 142 Unemployment Be�efit Payments 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
101-45210-143 143 OPEB Expense 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
101-45210-151 151 Worker's Comp Insurance Prem 1,548 1,548 0 1,548 0 100.00�
Total Personal Services 92,820 81,005 1,041 82,046 10,774 88.39%
Supplies&Maintenance
101-45210-201 201 Office supplies 300 215 0 215 85 71.61�0
101-45210-212 212 Motor Fuels&Lubricants 3,500 4,763 0 4,763 (1,263) 136.09�0
101-45210-221 221 Equipment Parts&Accessories 1,500 2,309 0 2,309 (809) 153.909'0
101-45210-223 223 Bldg/Grounds Maint.Supplies 3,500 4,958 0 4,958 (1,458) 141.66%
101-45210-226 226 Clothing&personal equipment 125 0 0 0 125 0.009�0
101-45210-240 240 Small Tools and Minor Equip 100 0 0 0 100 0.009'0
101-45210-401 401 Repairs/Maint-Office Equip 300 0 0 0 300 0.00�'0
101-45210-402 402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip 400 0 0 0 400 0.009'0
101-45210-403 403 Repairs/Maint-Misc. Equip 5,000 1,365 0 1,365 3,635 27.309�
101-45210-404 404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds 12,160 17,033 0 17,033 (4,873) 140.08�
Total Supplies&Maintenance 26,885 30,643 0 30,643 (3,758) 113.98%
Page 22
Attachment 4-Expenditure Detail
City of Orono �
2014 Line Item Budget
Golf Course cont.
Adjusted
2014 Y-T-D Y-T-D
Budget Dec 31,2014 Adiustments Dec 31,2014 Balance Percent
Insurances
101-45210-361 361 General Liability Ins 7,500 7,500 0 7,500 0 100.00%
101-45210-362 362 Umbrella Liability Ins 1,500 1,500 0 1,500 0 100.00�
101-45210-365 365 Boiler&Machinery Ins 300 300 0 300 0 100.00�
101-45210-366 366 Property Insurance 2,300 2,300 0 2,300 0 100.00�
101-45210-367 367 Equipment Floaters Ins 300 300 0 300 0 100.00�0
101-45210-368 368 Automotivelnsurance 370 370 0 370 0 100.00%
101-45210-369 369 Dram Shop Insurance 560 1,123 0 1,123 (563) 200.54%
Totallnsurances 12,830 13,393 0 13,393 (563) 10439�
OtherExpenses
101-45210-312 312 Bank Fees 1,000 2,315 0 2,315 (1,315) 231.50%
101-45210-319 319 Professional Services 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
101-45210-321 321 Telephone 2,000 2,158 0 2,158 (158) 107.89%
101-45210-331 331 TravelExpenses 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
101-45210-340 340 General Advertising 1,000 715 0 715 285 71.47%
101-45210-352 352 Printing&Publishing 100 58 0 58 42 58.009�
101-45210-381 381 Gas&Electric 8,000 7,874 0 7,874 126 98.429�0
101-45210-415 415 Other Equipment Rentals 7,300 8,399 0 8,399 (1,099) 115.05%
101-45210-433 433 Memberships 250 0 0 0 250 0.00%
101-45210-437 437 Training&Development 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
101-45210-440 440 Special Equipment Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
101-45210-441 441 Licenses&Taxes 500 522 0 522 (22) 104.47�
101-45210-489 489 Other Miscellaneous Charges 0 56 0 56 (56) N/A
Total Other Expenses 20,150 22,096 0 22,096 (1,946) 109.66%
Page 23
Attachment 4-Expenditure Detail
City of Orono
2014 Line Item Budget
Golf Course cont.
Adjusted
2014 Y-T-D Y-T-D
Budget Dec 31,2014 Adiustments Dec 31,2014 Balance Percent
Purchasesfor Resale
101-45210-090 090 PURCHASES FOR RESALE 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
101-45210-091 091 Beer For Resale 1,400 3,675 0 3,675 (2,275) 262.48%
101-45210-092 092 Soft Drinks For Resale 2,500 3,355 0 3,355 (855) 134.22�0
101-45210-093 093 Concessions For Resale-Txbl 1,500 1,205 0 1,205 295 80.34�
101-45210-094 094 Concessions For Resale-NonTax 0 1,020 0 1,020 (1,020) N/A
101-45210-095 095 Pro Shop Items For Resale 1,500 2,979 0 2,979 (1,479) 198.609�
101-45210-099 099 Other For Resale 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
Total Purchases for Resale 6,900 12,234 0 12,234 (5,334) 177.31%
Golf Course Total 159,585 159,372 1,041 160,413 (828) 100.52�
Page 24
Attachment 4-Expenditure Detail
City of Orono �
2014 Line Item Budget
Special Services-Consulting&Police
Adjusted
2014 Y-T-D Y-T-D
Budget Dec 31,2014 Adiustments Dec 31,2014 Balance Percent
Personal Services
101-43280-102 102 Full-Time Employees Overtime 25,000 42,265 0 42,265 (17,265) 169.069�
101-43280-121 121 PERA 3,800 5,986 0 5,986 (2,186) 157.53%
101-43280-122 122 FICA 360 544 0 544
(184) 151.18%
101-43280-135 135 City Benefit Contribution 0 17 0 17 (17) N/A
Total Personal Services 29,160 48,813 0 48,813 (19,653) 167.40�0
Professional Services
101-43280-304 304 Engineering-Consulting 25,000 53,305 145 53,450 (28,450) 213.80%
101-43280-307 307 Legal-Consulting 10,000 24,013 0 24,013 (14,013) 240.13%
101-43280-319 319 Professional Services 0 41,049 0 41,049 (41,049) N/A
101-43280-800 800 Special Projects,Contingency 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
Total Professional Services 35,000 118,368 145 118,513 (83,513) 338.61�0
Special Services-Consulting&Police Total 64,160 167,180 145 167,325 (103,165) 260.799�
Page 25
Attachment 4-Expenditure Detail
City of Orono
2014 Line Item Budget
Special Projects-Contingencies
Ad j u sted
2014 Y-T-D Y-T-D
Budget Dec 31,2014 Adiustments Dec 31,2014 Balance Percent
Personal Services
101-43290-101 101 Full-Time Employees Regular 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
Total Personal Services 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
Professional Services
101-43290-304 304 Engineering-Consulting 0 145 (145) 0 0 N/A
101-43290-319 319 Professional Services 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
Total Professional Services 0 145 (145) 0 0 N/A
OtherExpenses
101-43290-489 489 Other Miscellaneous Charges 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
Total Other Expenses 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
Capital&Transfers
101-43290-510 510 Land 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
101-43290-720 720 Operating Transfers 400,000 0 400,000 400,000 0 100.00%
Total Capital&Transfers 400,000 0 400,000 400,000 0 100.009�
Contin�encv Items
101-43290-800 800 Special Projects,Contingency 47,792 43,001 0 43,001 4,791 89.989�
Total Contingency Items 47,792 43,001 0 43,001 4,791 89.98�
Special Projects-Contingencies Total 447,792 43,146 399,855 443,001 4,791 98.93%
GENERAL FUND TOTAL 7,333,632 6,669,573 515,259 7,184,832 149,018 97.979'0 .
Page 26
City of Orono Attachment 5
GASB 31 -As of 12/31/14 '
Invest Name Type Broker Purchase Maturity Rate Cost Par Value Value Market Value ,
Date Date Dec 30 Over(Under) �
Bank West-SF CA CD Dain Rauscher 9/14/2011 9/21/2015 1.35% $249,000.00 $249,000.00 $250,424.28 $1,424.28
Enerbank CD Dain Rauscher 12/15/2011 12/15/2015 1.10% $249,000.00 $249,000.00 $250,558.74 $1,558.74
Sauk Valley Bank CD Dain Rauscher 12/14/2011 12/14/2015 0.90% $249,000.00 $249,000.00 $249,622.50 $622.50
Firstbank P R Santurce CD Dain Rauscher 10/19/2012 4/17/2015 1.00°k $249,000.00 $249,000.00 $249,684.75 $684.75
Flushing Svgs Bk NY CD Dain Rauscher 7/27/2012 7/27/2016 1.00% $249,000.00 $249,000.00 $251,114.01 $2,114.01
Comenity Cap Bak Utah CD Dain Rauscher 9/2/2014 9/2/2016 0.80°/a $249,000.00 $249,000.00 $247,881.99 ($1,118.01)
BAAVU Bk North Amer UT CD Dain Rauscher 10/26/2012 10/26/2016 1.30% $98,000.00 $98,000.00 $98,553.70 $553.70
Community 1st Bk Fairview CD Dain Rauscher 6/26/2012 6/26/2017 1.10°� $249,000.00 $249,000.00 $247,219.65 ($1,780.35)
Essa Bk Stoudsburg PA CD Dain Rauscher 6l28/2012 6/28/2017 1.10% $248,000.00 $248,000.00 $246,216.88 ($1,783.12)
1 st Bk Lubbock Tx CD Dain Rauscher 6/28/2012 6/28/2017 1.00% $249,000.00 $249,000.00 $252,393.87 $3,393.87
State Bk Pinhurst GA CD Dain Rauscher 7/2/2012 7/3/2017 1.05�0 $249,000.00 $249,000.00 $251,818.68 $2,818.68
State BK India NY CD Dain Rauscher 9/11/2014 9/11/2017 1.40% $248,000.00 $248,000.00 $246,070.56 ($1,929.44)
Goldman Sachs NY CD Dain Rauscher 10/24/2012 10/24/2017 1.50°� $98,000.00 $98,000.00 $97,945.12 ($54.88)
Third Fed Svgs&Loan CD Dain Rauscher 3/21/2014 12/21/2017 1.10% $248,000.00 $248,000.00 $246,663.28 ($1,336.72)
Western St Bk Devils Lake CD Dain Rauscher 7/11/2012 1/11/2018 1.35% $249,000.00 $249,000.00 $246,714.18 ($2,285.82)
Cmmty 1st Bk Roseville CA CD Dain Rauscher 10/30/2012 10/30/2018 1.15% $249,000.00 $249,000.00 $241,091.76 ($7,908.24)
Worlds Foremost Sydney CD Dain Rauscher 11/20/2013 11/20/2015 0.75% $200,000.00 $200,000.00 $200,320.00 $320.00
Money Market MM Dain Rauscher $926,577.04 $926,577.04 $926,812.40 $235.36
$4,805,577.04 $4,805,577.04 $4,801,106.35 ($4,470.69)
Ally Bank UT CD Smith Bamey 5/7/2014 5/9/2016 1.35% $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $149,706.00 ($294.00)
1st Niagra Bank CD Smith Barney 3/25/2014 3/27/2015 0.30% $249,000.00 $249,000.00 $248,917.83 ($82.17)
Everbank,Jacksonville CD Smith Bamey 3/25/2014 3/31/2015 0.35% $249,000.00 $249,000.00 $248,942.73 ($57.27)
Cole Taylor Bank, IL CD Smith Bamey 3/25/2014 4/1/2015 0.30°� $249,000.00 $249,000.00 $248,912.85 ($87.15)
Bank China NY CD Smith Barney 8/27/2014 4/1/2015 0.35% $249,000.00 $249,000.00 $249,027.39 $27.39
GE Cap Draper UT CD Smith Barney 6/29/2012 7/6/2015 1.20% $245,000.00 $245,000.00 $245,847.70 $847.70
Doral Bank,PR CD Smith Barney 2/27/2014 9/4/2015 0.30% $249,000.00 $249,000.00 $248,633.97 ($366.03)
Synovus Bank,GA CD Smith Barney 2/27/2014 9/4/2015 0.30% $249,000.00 $249,000.00 $248,716.14 - ($283.86)
Cit Bank Saft Lake CD Smith Barney 6/27/2012 12/27/2016 1.35% $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $151,420.50 $1,420.50
Amex Centurion Salt Lake CD Smith Barney 2/20/2013 2/29/2016 0.75°k $97,000.00 $97,000.00 $97,252.20 $252.20
Discover Bk Greenwood CD Smith Barney 2/20/2013 2/29/2016 0.75% $97,000.00 $97,000.00 $97,253.17 $253.17
Goldman Sachs Ny NY CD Smith Bamey 2/20/2013 2/29/2016 0.75°� $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $150,031.50 $31.50
GE Cap Salt Lake CD Smith Barney 8/22/2013 3/1/2016 0.90°k $248,000.00 $248,000.00 $248,473.68 $473.68
BMW Bank, UT CD Smith Bamey 2/27/2014 2/14/2017 1.00�o $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $149,565.00 ($435.00)
Discover Bank,Greenwood CD Smith Barney 2/27/2014 3/6/2017 1.00% $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $149,482.50 ($517.50)
Cit Salt Lake CD Smith Bamey 8/22/2013 8/28/2017 1.45% $99,000.00 $99,000.00 $99,335.61 $335.61
Wells Fargo Sioux Falls CD Smith Bamey 2/20/2013 2/28/2018 0.95�0 $247,000.00 $247,000.00 $246,115.74 ($884.26)
Money Market MM Smith Bamey $236,995.05 $236,995.05 $236,995.05 $0.00
$3,513,995.05 $3,513,995.05 $3,514,629.56 $634.51
Ciry of Orono Attachment 5
GASB 31 -As of 12/31/14
invest Name Type Broker Purchase Maturity Rate Cost Par Value Value Market Value ,
Date Date Dec 30 Over(Under) �
FF�B-Sbp GB Wells Fargo 12/30/2014 12/30/2019 1.50% $300,000.00 $300,000.00 $300,000.00 $0.00
FFII.B-Step GB Wells Fargo 12/30/2014 12/30/2019 2.00% $950,000.00 $950,000.00 $949,876.50 ($123.50)
Federd Farm Crodit GB Wells Fargo 12/30/2014 12/30/2019 2.00% $300,000.00 $300,000.00 $299,469.00 ($531.00)
FNMAStep GB WeIlsFargo 12/17/2012 6/17/2020 1.05% $1,000,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $976,290.00 ($23,710.00)
FHLM Step GB Wells Fargo 10/23/2012 10/23/2020 1.00% $875,000.00 $875,000.00 $875,157.50 $157.50
FHLB-Sisp GB Wells Fargo 12/28/2012 12/28/2020 1.00% $624,687.50 $625,000.00 $611,787.50 ($12,900.00)
Fl�LB-S�sp GB WeIlsFargo 12/12/2014 12/12/2022 2.00% $500,000.00 $500,000.00 $502,145.00 $2,145.00
First Bank Highland Park GB Wells Fargo 7/30/2014 7/30/2019 2.00% $245,000.00 $245,000.00 $242,363.80 ($2,636.20)
Sallie Mae Bank GB Wells Fargo 8/13/2014 8/13/2019 2.10% $247,000.00 $247,000.00 $245,757.59 ($1,242.41)
American Express Bank GB Wells Fargo 8/14/2014 8/14/2019 2.05% $247,000.00 $247,000.00 $245,322.87 ($1,677.13)
CapIIN Ons BaNc USA-VA CD Wells Fargo 10/16/2014 10/16/2019 2.15�a $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $99,479.00 ($521.00)
1st FinanciN-SD CD Wells Fargo 11/7/2014 11/7/2019 2.15% $95,000.00 $950,000.00 $94,059.50 ($940.50)
Bt►dsys Btnk-DE CD Wells Fargo 12/17/2014 12/17/2019 2.05�a $245,000.00 $245,000.00 $242,322.15 ($2,677.85)
Money Market MM Wells Fargo $306,000.05 $306,000.05 $306,000.05 $0.00
$6,034,687.55 $6,890,000.05 $5,990,030.46 ($44,657.09)
MnStColleges GB UBS 6/27/2012 10/1/2017 1.35�0 $554,850.15 $555,000.00 $555,960.15 $1,110.00
Money Maricet MM UBS $20,579.32 $20,579.32 $20,579.32 $0.00
$575,429.47 $575,579.32 $576,539.47 $1,110.00
Money Market MM 4M Fund $2,269,549.59 $2,269,549.59 $2,269,549.59 $0.00
$2,269,549.59 $2,269,549.59 $2,269,549.59 $0.00
Total $17,199,238.70 $18,054,701.05 $17,151,855.43 $47,383.27
, COUNCIL MEETING
FE8 0 9 2015
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ���'��ORONO
Date: February 9, 2015
Item No. /�
Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section:
Name:Ron Olson City Administrator's
Title: Finance Director " Report
Item Description: ClaimsBills
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 102137 to
102223,totaling $1,600,925.30.
Noteworthy payments include:
Purchase of a new truck box need to extend
Aspen Equipment $14,597.00 the life of a truck. Funding was from FEMA
storm funds.
This payment includes December 2014
Bolton & Menk $66,018.56 invoices and clears up some outstanding
billin a ent issues.
These payment are the debt service on the
Bond Trust Services $481,496.88 2010 and 2014 bonds. The Funds were
$368,275.42 wired on 1/30/2015.
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 1/27J2015-2/9/2015 Feb 05,2015 04 10PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Descnption Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
2ND WIND EXERCISE INC 02/09/2015 102137 22024390 101-42110-570 fitness equipment Police Department 793 00
Total 102137. 793 00
ACCURINT 02/09/2015 102138 1297291-201 101-42110-311 Dec contract fee Police Department 115 00
Total 102138. 115 00
Advanced imaging Solutions 02/09/2015 102139 64469 101-42110-401 pnnter maint contract 12/10/14 to 1/9/15 and overag Police Department 133 93
Advanced Imag�ng SoluUons 02/09/2015 102139 64469 101-41900-401 printer maint contrad 12/1oH4 to 1/9/15 and overag Central Services 107 14
Advanced Imaging Solutions 02/09/2015 102139 64469 602-49450-401 pnnter maint contract 12/10l14 to 1/9i15 and overag Sewer 26 78
Total 102139: 267 85
ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 02l09/2015 102140 271149734 101-41900�13 copier lease 1/20/15 to 2/20/15 Central Services 1,284 00
Total 102140: 1,284 00
ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 02/09/2015 102141 270538713 101-42110-413 pd cop�er lease 1/15 to 2/15 Police Department 201 50
Total 102141 201 50
ALL STAR ELECTRIC 02/09/2015 102142 1325 101-43000-403 drill press repair Public Works Department 90 00
Total 102142: 90 00
APPLIED CONCEPTS INC 02/09/2015 102143 264261 101-42110�40 Radar unit Police Department 2,467 50
Total 102143: 2,467.50
ASPEN EQUIPMENT 02/09/2015 102144 10144786 405�8500-550 #431 box and spreader replacement-FEMA funding 14,597.00
Total 102144: 14,597 00
B&t TRUCK REPAIR INC 02/09/2015 102145 9613 101-43000-402 #425 spring repair Public Wotks Department 2,865.75
Total 102145
2,865.75
BAYSIDE FLORAL 02/09/2015 102146 24353 101-41300-489 flowers C Mattson Admmistration 59 95
City of Orono Check Register-COUNCIL REPORT Page 2
Check Issue Dates 1/27/2015-2/9/2015 Feb 05,2015 04 10PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account DesCription Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 102146 59 95
BCA FORENSiC SCIENCE LAB 02/09/2015 102147 12752 101-42110-311 CJDN connect and operation charge Police Department 510 00
Total 102147 510 00
BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF 02/09/2015 102148 12015 101-21706 Jan-Feb Health insurance 8,955.40
Total 102148 8,955 40
BOLTON&MENK INC. 02J09/2015 102149 161287 402-48056-304 Watertown Rd Watertown Road 3,816.50
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 168604 101-42400-304 68Z assistance Building&Zoning 1,786 50
BOLTON&MENK INC. 02/09/2015 102149 168604 101-43170-304 GIS assistance Enginee�ng 165 00
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 168604 101-43170-304 Map updates Engineeri�g 159 00
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 168604 651�9910-304 Drainage issues Storm Water 1,880 00
BOLTON 8 MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 168604 435-48549-304 Orono Orchard Rd punchlist 373 00
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 168604 601-49400-304 Water fund Water 90 00
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 168604 101-43170-304 Trans�tion plan Engineenng 240 00
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 168604 101�3170-304 Misc engmeering Engineering 90 00
BOLTON&MENK INC 02l09/2015 102149 168604 651�9910-304 Wayzata CC drainage Stortn Water 120 00
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 168613 101-43280-307 1376 Baldur Park Rd Special Services 72 50
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 168614 101-43280307 2413 Carmen Special Services 72 50
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 168643 101�3280-307 SO Luce Line Ridge SpeGal Services 52 00
BOLTON&MENK INC 02I09/2015 102149 168672 651-49910-304 Storm water GIS updates Storm Water 4,002 50
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09l2015 102149 168672 601-49400-304 Water system GIS updates Water 4,875 00
BOLTON 8 MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173819 402-48053-304 Wdlow Dnve Recon Wdlow Dnve Pro)ect 122 00
BOLTON 8 MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173820 602-16500 Gree Tree Road Sewer extension 237 64
BOLTON 8 MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173821 408�8800-590 Navarre L�ghtmg 1,954.50
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173827 651�9910-304 Street sweeping Storm Water 134.00
BOLTON&MENK INC. 02/09/2015 102149 173827 651-49910-304 Kelly Ave dra�nage Storm Water 3,243 50
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173827 651-49910-304 Wayzata CC drainage Storm Water 104 00
BOLTON&MENK INC OZ/09/2015 102149 173827 101-42400-304 B&Z assistance Bwlding&Zornng 573 00
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173827 602�9450-304 Sewer air test Sewer 247.50
BOLTON&MENK INC. 02/09/2015 102149 173827 651-49910-304 Sump work Stortn Water 454 00
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173827 601-49400-304 Hydrant maps Water 764 00
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173827 101-43170.304 Resize road maps Engineering 44.00
BOLTON&MENK INC. 02/09/2015 102149 173827 101-43170-304 MSA Coordmation Engineenng 30.00
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09J2015 102149 173827 101�3170-304 GIS updates Engineenng 60 00
BOLTON 8 MENK INC. 02/09/2015 102149 173830 101-43280-304 14-3691 Lakeview Special Services 3,435.50
Crty of Orono Check Register-COUNCIL REPORT Pag�� 3
Check issue Dates 1/27/2015-2/9/2015 Feb O5,2015 04 10PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Descnption DepaRment Invoice
Payee issue Date Number Number Amount
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173831 101-43280-304 2014-01230 3850 Watertown Rd Speaal Services 446.00
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173832 101-43280-304 2014-01308 1225 Orono Oaks Rd Speual Services 72 50
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173835 101-43280-304 2012-00270 3925 Cherry Ave retairnng wall Special Services 72 50
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173836 101-43280-304 13-3591 Bayside Meadows Special Services 290 00
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173837 101-43280304 13-3626 Pineview Special Services 217 50
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173839 101-43280304 11-3498 Trads of Orono Specaal Services 145.00
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173840 101-43280-304 12-3562 Willow Hill SpeGal Services 145 00
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173843 101-43280-304 2014-01334 2490 Old Beach Rd SpeGal Services 384 50
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173845 101-43280-304 133612 4395 Northshore Dr Spec�al Services 145 00
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173846 101�3280-304 14-3694 4565 Bayside Rd Speaai Services 189 50
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173847 1011i3280-304 143684 Special Services 435 00
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173849 101-43280-304 143683 1700 Shoreline Special Services 290 00
BOLTON 8 MENK INC. 02/09/2015 102149 173850 101-43280304 14-3686 2500 Kelly Ave Speaal Services 290 00
BOLTON 8 MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173851 101-43280-304 13-3637 Oliver Hdl SpeGal Services 145 00
BOLTON&MENK INC. 02/09/2015 102149 173852 101-43280-304 2014-01377 4415 Forest Lake Landmg Speaal Services 72 50
BOLTON&MENK INC. 02/09/2015 102149 173854 101-43280-304 2013-01134 2775 Countryside SpeGal Services 104.00
BOLTON 8 MENK INC. 02/09/2015 102149 173855 101-43280-304 2014-00906 2677 Casco Pt Rd Special Services 104 00
BOITON&MENK INC 02/09l2015 102149 173856 101-43280304 2014-01157 1070 Tonkawa Rd Special Services 52.00
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173858 101-43280-304 2014-01206 3235 Graham Hill Speaal Services 52 00
BOLTON&MENK INC 02l09/2015 102149 173860 101-43280.304 2014-01228 4174 Highwood Rd Speaal Services 156 00
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09l2015 102149 173864 101-43280-304 2014-01230 4166 Highwood Rd Speaal Services 208 00
BOLTON&MENK INC. 02/09/2015 102149 173865 101-43280-304 2014-01252 1125 Pine View Dr Special Services 104 00
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173867 101-43280-304 2014-01222 1060 Tonkawa Rd Special Services 52 00
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173869 101-43280-304 14-3697 2617 Casco Pt Rd Special Services 52 00
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173871 101�3280-304 14-3698 3035 Casco Pt Rd Special Services 52 00
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173872 101-43280304 2014-01234 1310 Spruce PI Special Services 104.00
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173873 101-43280-304 2013-00811 1555 Maple Place Special Services 104.00
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173874 101-43280304 2014-01293 3710 Togo Rd Special Services 104 00
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173875 101-43280304 14-3688 520/550/630 Tonkawa Special Services 208 00
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173877 101-43280-304 2014-0'1358 4680 North Shore Special Services 156 00
BOLTON 8 MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173878 101-43280-304 2014-01383 625 Femdale Special Services 52 00
BOLTON&MENK INC. 02/09/2015 102149 173880 101-43280-304 2013-00308 1105 Ferndale Special Services 52 00
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173881 101�3280-304 2013-01171 3740 Togo Rd Special Services 52.00
BOLTON&MENK INC. 02/09/2015 102149 173882 101-43280-304 2014-00304 1535 Fairview Cottage Ln Special Services 52 00
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173883 101-43280-304 2014-00621 475 Ouford Speaal Services 52 00
BOLTON 8 MENK INC 02J09/2015 102149 173885 101-43280-304 2014-00771 195 Kintyre Ln Special Services 52.00
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173887 101-43280-304 201401392 105 Orono Orchard Rd SpeGal Services 52 00
BOLTON 8 MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173889 101-43280-304 2014-00245 1153 Elmwood Ave Special Services 52 00
BOLTON 8 MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173896 602-16500 Sandary sewer rehab 705 50
BOLTON&MENK INC 0?J09/2015 102149 173897 435-48962-304 Pavement mgmt plan 261 00
City of Orono Check Register-COUNCIL REPORT Page 4
Check Issue Dates 1/27/2015-2/9/2015 Feb 05,2015 04 10PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
BOLTON&MENK INC. 02/09/2015 102149 173898 601-16500 North system well 145.00
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173899 601-16500 Well houseM/TP improvements 7,961 42
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173900 651-49910-304 MS4 admin Storm Water 104 00
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 173902 402�8056-304 Watertown Rd Watertown Road 24,398 00
BOLTON&MENK INC 02/09/2015 102149 CM 435-48963-304 not to exceed overage Rest Point 2,122 50-
Total 102149. 66,018.56
BOND TRUST SERVICES CORP 02/09/2015 102150 11793 322-47000-620 GO 2014A bond agent fees 450 00
Total 102150. 450.00
BOND TRUST SERVICES CORP 01/31/2015 201300 24258 322-47000-611 GO 2014A 73,275 42
BOND TRUST SERVICES CORP 01/31/2015 201300 24258 322-47000-601 GO 2014A 295,000.00
Total 20130049. 368,275 42
BOND TRUST SERVICES CORP 01/31/2015 201300 24259 321�7000-611 GO 2010A bond 46,496.88
BOND TRUST SERVICES CORP 01l31/2015 201300 24259 321�7000-601 GO 2010A bond 435,000 00
Total 20130050 481,496 88
BUDGET PRINTING 02/09/2015 102151 6987 101-42110-221 shipping fees Police Department 15.27
BUDGET PRINTING 02l09/2015 102151 7048 101-42110-352 piate engraving Police DepaRment 25 36
Total 102151' 40.63
CAMP ENTERPRISES 02/09/2015 102152 2717-329G2 101�3280-307 14-3694/14-3703 4565 Bayside SpeGal Services 53426
Total 102152. 534 26
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 02/09/2015 102153 2717-OOOG1 101-41600-307 Gen Legal/staff/review Law/Legai Services 859.21
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 02/09/2015 102153 2717-OOOG1 101-42400-307 staff meetings 12/14 Building&Zoning 1,290 50
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 02/09/2015 102153 2717-OOOG1 101-42400-307 B&Z assistance Building&Zoning 130.50
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 02/09/2015 102153 2717-OOOG1 101-41600-307 Council meeLngs 12/14 law/Legal Services 623.50
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 02/09/2015 102153 2717-OOOG1 101�1600-307 ordinances Law/Legal Services 638 00
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 02/09/2015 102153 2717-004G9 1D1-42110-307 Police matters Police Department 391 50
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 02/09/2015 102153 2717-115G5 101-41600-308 Code enforcemenUordinance wolations Law/Legal Services 130 50
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 02/09/2015 102153 2717-201 G3 101-41600-307 misc recordings Law/Legal Services 432 43
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 02/09/2015 102153 2717-277G1 101-43280-307 3208-1 Orono Mim storage Special Services 64 OS
City of Orono Check Register-COUNCIL REPORT Page: 5
Check Issue Dates 1/27/2015-2/9l2015 Feb 05,2015 04 10PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee �ssue Date Number Number Amount
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 02/09/2015 102153 2717-279G1 101-43280-307 3208-3 Pine CornedJem Special Services 54.08
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 02/09/2015 102153 2717-297G8 101-41600-307 litigation Law/Legal Services 38.63
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 02/09/2015 102153 2717-327G3 101-43280-307 143691 405 North Arm Dr Special Services 202 50
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 02/09/2015 102153 2717-332G2 101�3280-307 14-3697 2617 Casco Pt Rd Special Services 112 50
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 02/09/2015 102153 2717-333G2 101�1600-307 Milliren Land Registration Law/Legal Services 193.51
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 02/09/2015 102153 2717-334G2 101-41600-307 Pyle land registration Law/Legal Services 87 00
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 02/09/2015 102153 2717-336G1 101-43280-307 14-3698 3035 Casco Pt Rd Special Sernces 67 50
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 02/09/2015 102153 2717-337G1 101-43280-307 14-3699 2605 Wayzata Blvd W Special Services 90.00
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 02/09/2015 102153 2717-338G1 101�3280-307 14-3701 460 Orchard Park Rd Special Services 90.00
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 02/09/2015 102153 2717-339G1 101-41600-307 White Dayton land registration Law/Legal Services 449.50
Total 102153 5,945 44
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/09/2015 102154 CF10215 437�8970-560 credit for retum Katom Restaurant 41.94-
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/09/2015 102154 CF12015 101-42110-201 comer guards Menard's Police Department 28.66
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/09/2015 102154 CF12315 101-42110-240 evidence room supplies-Amazon Police Department 195 12
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/09/2015 102154 CF20215 101-42110-201 Photo frames for reserve/explorer photos-Michael's Police Department 428 89
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/09/2015 102154 CF20415 101-42110-439 lunch for interview panel-Red Rooster Police Department 77.51
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/09l2015 102154 CF204156 101-42110-404 fumace filters Amazaon Police Department 295.34
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/09/2015 102154 JL12615 101-41110�39 food for work session Jimmy John's Mayor&Council 65 23
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/09/2015 102154 JL12914 101-41900-352 Comm Dev Dir ad-Craigslist Central Services 50.00
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/09i2015 102154 JL12914 101-41900-352 Comm Dev Dir ad-Career Budder Central Services 419 00
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/09/2015 102154 JL12915 101-41900-352 Comm Dev Dir ad-Linkeln CenVal Services 22425
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/09/2015 102154 R011515 101-41900-221 monitor for Council chambers Central Services 189.99
Total 102154. 1,932 05
CARQUEST#2239 02/09/2015 102155 6974-242556 602-49450-403 LS 16 generator supplies Sewer 15 44
Total 102155 15.44
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 02/09/2015 102156 12915 601-49400381 12/19 to 1/21 Water 1,315.41
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 02/09/2015 102156 12915 602-49450.381 12/19 to 1/21 Sewer 962 50
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 02/09/2015 102156 12915 101-41900-381 12/19 to 1/21 Central Services 2,920.59
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 02/09/2015 102156 12915 101-42110-381 12/19 to 1/21 Police Department 1,110 14
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 02/09/2015 102156 12915 101-45210-381 12/19 to 1121 Golf Course 381 99
Total 102156 6,690.63
CENTURY LINK 02/09l2015 102157 11915 101-45210-321 GC phone/dsl Golf Course 149 64
City of Orono Check Register-COUNCIL REPORT Page. 6
Check Issue Dates 1/27/2015-2/9/2015 Feb 05,2015 04�10PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 102157 149.64
CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 02/09/2015 102158 12440 101-42110-402 #223 otl change,brakes Pol�ce Department 509 75
CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 02/09/2015 102158 12448 101-42110-402 #235 tire repair Police Department 14.31
CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO OZ/09/2015 102158 12449 101-42110-402 #843 oil cha�ge Police Department 45 65
CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 02/09/2015 102158 12452 101-42110�02 #238 tve repa�r Police Department 14.31
CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 02/09/2015 102158 12463 101-42110-402 #224 repairs Police Department 83.43
CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 02/09/2015 102158 12465 101-42110�02 #228 oil change Police Department 45 79
CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 02/09/2015 102158 12475 101-42110-402 #233 otl change,tire rotation Police Department 74 03
CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 02/09/2015 102158 12490 101-42110-402 #227 oil change,control arm repair Police Department 449 60
CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 02/09/2015 102158 12500 101-42110-402 #238 od change,tire rotation Police Department 74 03
Total 102158 1,310 90
CITY OF LONG LAKE 02/09/2015 102159 20514 101-42260-318 4th Qtr 2014 fire contract Fue Protection Services 86,626.25
Total 102159 86,626 25
CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH 02J09/2015 102160 123114PD 101-42110-226 uniform cleaning Police Department 39 34
CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH 02/09/2015 102160 123114PD 101�2110-201 supplies Police Department 14 42
CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH 02/09/2015 102160 123114P0 101-42110-489 compliance checks Police Department 37 62
Total 102160 91 3S
CNA LTC 02/09/2015 102161 1495050 101-21715 Long term care 2/15 68 70
Total 102161 68 70
COLONIAL SUPPIEMENTAL IN 02/09/2015 102162 3128642-010 101-21714 STD 1/15 656.83
COLONIAL SUPPLEMENTAL IN 02/09/2015 102162 3128642-020 101-21714 STD 2/15 656.83
Total 102162 1,313.66
CRABTREE COMPANIES INC 02/02/2015 102134 127686 101-41900-416 imagmg software annual support Central Services 4,014 75
CRABTREE COMPANIES INC 02/02/2015 102134 127686 101-42110�16 imaging software annual support Police Department 1,338 25
Total 102134 5,353 00
DNR WATERS 02/09/2015 102163 1970-1351 601�9400-441 2014 Water fee Water 885 34
City of Orono Check Register-COUNCIL REPORT Page 7
Check Issue Dates 1/27/2015-2/9/2015 Feb O5,2015 04 10PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Descnption Department Invoice
Payee Iss�e Date Number Number Amount
DNR WATERS 02J09/2075 102163 1970-1351 601-49400�41 2014 Water fee Water 218.22
Total 102163: 1,103 56
E J.MAYERS INC 02/09/2015 102164 128 602-49450-406 LS 6 power fadure Sewer 4,900 00
Total 102164 4,900.00
EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TE 02/09/2015 102165 11515-3 101�3000-222 plow truck sander lights Public Works Department 309.04
Total 102165: 309 04
ESS BROTHERS 8 SONS 02/09/2015 102166 8439 651-49910-227 replacement grate Storm Water 127 00
Totai 102166: 127 00
G 8 K SERVICES 02/09/2015 102167 1006663467 101�3000-221 towels Public Works Department 2 63
G&K SERVICES 02/09/2015 102167 1006663467 101-43000-226 uniforms Public Works Department 26 39
G&K SERVICES 02/09/2015 102167 1006663467 601-49400-226 unrtorms Water 13.20
G&K SERVICES 02/09/2015 102167 1006663467 602-49450-226 uniforms Sewer 13 19
G&K SERVICES 02/09/2015 102167 1006686453 101-43000-226 u�dorms Public Works Department 27.70
G&K SERVICES 02/09/2015 102167 1006686453 601�9400-226 undorms Water 13.86
G&K SERVICES 02/09/2015 102167 1006686453 602-49450-226 uniforms Sewer 13 85
G&K SERVICES 02/09/2015 102167 1006697851 101�3000-226 uniforms Public Works Department 23 39
G&K SERVICES 02/09/2015 102167 1006697851 601-49400-226 uniforms Water 11 70
G&K SERVICES 02/09/2015 102167 1006697851 602-49450-226 uniforms Sewer 11 70
G 8 K SERVICES 02/09/2015 102167 1006697851 101-41900-404 mats Central Services 22 54
G&K SERVICES 02/09/2015 102167 1006720697 101-43000-226 unrforms Public Works Department 23.39
G&K SERVICES 02/09l2015 102167 1006720697 601-49400-226 umforms Water 11 70
G&K SERVICES 02/09/2015 102167 1006720697 602-49450-226 uniforms Sewer 11 70
G&K SERVICES 02/09/2015 102167 1006720697 101-43000-221 towels Public Worics Department 8.62
G&K SERVICES 02/09/2015 102167 100674964 101-43000-226 uniforms Public Works Department 26.39
G&K SERVICES 02/09/2015 102167 100674964 601-49400-226 uniforms Water 13.20
G&K SERVICES 02/09/2015 102167 100674964 602-49450-226 uniforms Sewer 13.20
G&K SERVICES 02/09/2015 102167 100674964 101-43000-221 towels Public Works Department 2.62
G&K SERVICES 02J09/2015 102167 1006987053 101-43000-226 uniform credit Public Works Department 125 39-
G&K SERVICES 02/09/2015 102167 1006987053 601-49400-226 uniform credit Water 62.70-
G&K SERVICES 02/09/2015 102167 1006987053 602-49450-226 uniform credit Sewer 62 69-
City of Orono Check Register-COUNCIL REPORT Page 8
Check Issue Dates 1/27/2015-2/9/2015 Feb 05,2015 04�10PM
Check Check InvoiCe Invoice GL Account Descnption Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date N�mber Number Amount
Total 102167 40 19
GARY S DIESEL SERVICE INC 02/09/2015 102168 24646 101-43000�02 #426 fuel leak repair Public Works Department 205.43
Total 102168 205 43
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 02/09/2015 102169 257183 101-42110-402 supplies Police Department 33 OS
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 02/09/2015 102169 258340 101-42110-402 wiper blades Police Department 27 11
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 02/09/2015 102169 258584 101�3000-222 supplies Public Works Department 69 37
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 02/09/2015 102169 258833 602-49450-403 battery Sewer 110 86
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 02/09/2015 102169 259108 601�9400-403 repair parts Water 44 75
Total 102169 285.17
GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 02/09/2015 102170 129977 601-49400-489 locates Water 50.00
GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 02/09/2015 102170 129977 602119450-489 locates Sewer 50.00
Total 102170 100 00
HD SUPPLY WHITE CAP 02/09/2015 102171 5000222614 101-43000-240 battery pack Public Works Department 174 38
HD SUPPLY WHITE CAP 02/09/2015 102171 5000222614 101-43000-240 battery pack Public Works Department 326.36
Total 102171 500 74
HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TE 01/31/2015 102081 1000051478 101-41900-319 technical support Central Services 45 00-
HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TE 01/31/2015 102081 1000051479 101-41900-319 nehvork support Central Services 45.00-
Total 102081 90 00-
HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TE 02/09/2015 102172 1000051478 101-41900-319 network support Central Services 45 00
Total 102172 45 00
HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASUR 02/09/2015 102173 38-2015-1 235-45690-352 TIF adm costs 589 39
Total 102173 589 39
INTEGRA TELECOM 02/09/2015 102174 12694746 101-42110-321 Phone service Police Department 232 53
INTEGRA TELECOM 02/09/2015 102174 12694746 101-41900-321 Phone Service Central Services 325 55
City of Orono Check Register-COUNCIL REPORT Page: 9
Check Issue Dates 1/27/2015-2/9l2015 Feb O5,2015 04 10PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Accou�t Descnption Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
INTEGRA TELECOM 02/09/2015 102174 12694746 601-49400-321 Phone Service Water 54 26
INTEGRA TELECOM 02/09/2015 102174 12694746 602-49450-321 Phone Service Sewer 162 77
Total 102174 775.11
INTL ASSOC OF CHIEFS OF PO 02/09J2015 102175 2015 101-42110�33 2015 membership C.Farniok Police Department 150 00
Total 102175' 150 00
JACKIE YOUNG 02/09/2015 102176 12815 101-42400-319 PC meeting 1/20 Bwlding&Zoning 190 00
JACKIE YOUNG 02/09/2015 102176 12815 101-41300-319 Park Commission 1/5/15 Administration 190.00
JACKIE YOUNG 02/09/2015 102176 12815 101-41300319 CC meeting 1/12,1/26 Administration 355 00
TOtal 102176' 735.00
KENNETH N POTTS PA 02/09/2015 102177 20115 101-41600-306 prosecuUon services Jan Law/Legal Services 3,000 00
Total 102177 3,000 00
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS 02/09/2015 102178 220983 101-42110-221 mobde vision application software Police Department 750.00
Total 102178. 750 00
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES 02/09/2015 102179 211931 101-42110-437 patrol subscnption fee Police Department 2,465 00
Total 102179 2,465 00
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TR 02/09/2015 102180 31396 703-49960-379 wind energy lawsuit deductible 2,500 00
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TR 02/09/2015 102180 31814 703-49960-379 due process lawsuit deductible 2,500 00
Total 102180 5,000 00
LOGIS 02/09/2015 102181 39432 101-42110-401 police switches Police Department 792 00
LOGIS 02/09/2015 102181 39463 101-42110-310 mtemet 12/14 Police Department 386 00
LOGIS 02/09/2015 102181 39463 101-41900310 mtemet 12/14 Central Services 386 00
LOGIS 02/09/2015 102181 39463 101-42110-329 police records 12/14 Police Department 5,092 00
LOGIS 02/09/2015 102181 39529 101-42110-221 10 Gig Gbics Police Department 37 33
Total 102181 6,693 33
City of Orono Check Register-COUNCIL REPORT Page. 10
Check Issue Dates 1l27/2015-2/9/2015 Feb 05,2015 04 10PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 02/09J2015 102182 8238903 101-43000-221 supplies Public Works Department 6 20
LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 02/09/2015 102182 6239747 101�3000-221 supplies Public Works Department 13 76
LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 02/09/2015 102182 6240008 101-43000-221 supplies Public Works Department 58 39
LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 02/09/2015 102182 8240135 101-41900-223 boot tray Central Services 8 99
LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 02l09/2015 102182 8240735 101�2110-201 supplies Police Department 27 34
LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 02/09l2015 102182 8240858 101-43000-222 #424 parts Public Works Department 1 98
LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 02/09/2015 102182 6242169 101-41900-221 garage door battenes Central Services 25 96
Total 102182. 142 62
MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 02/09/2015 102183 206788 101-43000-212 Diesel Public Works Department 714.86
MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 02/09/2015 102183 206789 101�2110-212 Fuel PD Poiice Department 3,818 37
Total 102183: 4,533.23
MATT SILTALA 02/09/2015 102184 11115 101�2110-437 training meals reimb Police Department 4.29
MATT SILTALA 02/09/2015 102184 11115 101�2110-226 clothing reimb Police Department 213 90
Total 102184. 218.19
MEDIACOM 02/09/2015 102185 12615 101-45210-415 GC cable Golf Course 7 34
Total 102185� 7�
MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTA 02/09/2015 102186 1040500 602-49450.383 Mar wastewater service Sewer 40,608 92
Total 102186: 40,608.92
MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMP 02/09/2015 102187 171116835 101-42110-221 oxygen Police Department 28 88
MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMP 02/09/2015 102187 17116834 101-42110-221 oxygen Police Department 16 38
Total 102187 45.26
MINNETONKA SPORTSMEN IN 02/09/2015 102188 2015 101�2110-433 2015 membership Orono PD Police Department 185 00
Total 102188 185 00
MN APA 02/02/2015 102135 12815 101-41900-352 adverUsement-Community Development Directore Central Services 25.00
City of Orono Check Register-COUNCIL REPORT Page 11
Check Issue Dates 1/27/2015-2/9/2015 Feb O5,2015 04 10PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice Gl Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 102135 25 00
MN NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS 02/09/2015 102189 6732215 101-21710 Pera life 2/15 224 00
Total 102189
224.00
NAVARRE HARDWARE 02/09/2015 102190 281810 101-42110-402 supplies Police Department 16.77
NAVARRE HARDWARE 02/09/2015 102190 281923 101-42110-223 supplies Police Department 91.54
NAVARRE HARDWARE 02/09/2015 102190 281927 101-45200-223 chain for parks Parks 42 47
NAVARRE HARDWARE OZ/09/2015 102190 251943 101-43000-224 credit for recalled heater Public Works Department 25 99-
NAVARRE HARDWARE 02/09/2015 102190 282049 602-49450-406 LS 6 repairs Sewer 11 98
NAVARRE HARDWARE 02/09/2015 102190 282083 601-49400-226 supplies Water 16 99
NAVARRE HARDWARE 02/09/2015 102190 282192 101-43000.224 mad box repair parts Public Works Department 10 68
Total 102190
164.44
NORTH MEMORIAL HEALTH CA 02/09/2015 102191 735 101-42110-437 first repsonder refresher Police Department 50.00
Total 102191: 50 00
NOVA COMMUNICATIONS 02/09/2015 102192 86763 101-41900�01 Phone maintenance Central Services 315 00
Total 102192: 315 00
OFFICE DEPOT 02/09/2015 102193 7459461780 101-42110-201 PD office supplies Police Department 256 55
OFFICE DEPOT 02J09l2015 102193 7480570400 101-42110.201 PD office supplies Police Department 243 36
OFFICE DEPOT 02/09/2015 102193 7499671950 101-42110-201 PD office supplies Police Department 273.97
OFFICE DEPOT 02/09/2015 102193 7526592760 101�2110-201 PD office supplies Police Department 163 74
Total 102193 937.62
OFFICE DEPOT 02/09/2015 102194 7498487860 101-41900-201 credit for retum Central Services 7 65-
OFFICE DEPOT 02/09/2015 102194 7498603730 101-41900-201 office supplies Central Services 185 34
OFFICE DEPOT 02/09/2015 102194 7498603730 101-41900-201 office suppl�es Central Services 10 08
OFFICE DEPOT 02/09/2015 102194 7498603730 101-41900-201 office supplies Central Services 9 76
OFFICE DEPOT 02/09/2015 102194 7498604320 101�1900-201 office supplies Central Services 13.99
OFFICE DEPOT 02/09/2015 102194 7498604330 101-41900-201 office supplies Central Services 50 99
OFFICE DEPOT 02/09/2015 102194 7510404930 101�1900-201 office supplies Central Services 42 52
OFFICE DEPOT 02/09/2015 102194 7510420001 101-41900-201 office supplies Central Services 98 76
City of Orono Check Register-COUNCIL REPORT Page 12
Check Issue Dates 1/27/2015-2/9/2015 Feb 05,2015 04.10PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account DescripUon Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
OFFICE DEPOT 02/09l2015 102194 7512114790 101-41900-201 office supplies Central Services 136 78
OFFICE DEPOT 02/09/2015 102194 7512114910 101-41900-201 o�ce supplies Central Services 9 99
Total 102194 550 56
PAUL HOOPER 02l09/2015 102195 11615 101-42110-226 reimb clothing Police Department 375 78
Total 102195. 375 78
PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR 02/09/2015 102196 16022 101-42110-402 #225 tow Police Department 65.00
PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR 02/09/2015 102196 16029 101-42110-402 #227 tow Police Department 65 00
Total 102196 130.00
PETER ZIMMERMAN 02/09/2015 102197 12215 101�1500-331 mileage reimb Finance Department 25 14
Total 102197 25 14
RACHEL DODGE 02/09/2015 102198 12115 101-41300-433 reimb notary filing fee Administration 20 00
RACHEL DODGE 02l09/2015 102198 12915 101�1900-201 reimb cardstock Central Services 34 31
Total 102195' S4.31
ROOT 0 MATIC 02/09/2015 102199 37713 101-42110-404 PD sewer cleanout Police Department 255 00
Total 102199. 255 00
SCHARBER&SONS 02/09/2015 102200 27359 101-43000-240 safety suppiies Public Works Department 26 95
SCHARBER&SONS 02/09/2015 102200 27407 101-45200-221 chains for chainsaws Parks 37 16
Total 102200� 64 11
SECOND NATURE GRAPHICS 02/09/2015 102201 142 101�1900-201 business cards Central Services 904 00
Total 102201 904.00
SECURITY&SOUND CO 02/09/2015 102202 14500 437-48970-520 electncal worlc PD garage project 9,372 80
Total 102202. 9,372 80
City of Orono Check Register-COUNCIL REPORT Page 13
Check Issue Dates 1/27/2015-2/9/2015 Feb O5,2015 04 10PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Descnption Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
SEH 02/09/2015 102203 292942 601-49400-304 Spnnt upgrades Water 2,547 89
Total 102203: 2,547.89
SELECT ACCOUNT 02/09/2015 '102204 20515 101-21719 2/05/15 FLEX 469 95
Total 102204: 489 95
SELECTACCOUNT 02l09/2015 102205 12915 101-21719 1/29/15FLEX 1,183.36
Total 102205: 1,183.36
SEIECTACCOUNT 01/31/2015 201300 11215 101-21720 HRA contribution-1st half 8,125 00
Total 20130051. 8,125 00
SEW LIKE NEW 02/09/2015 102206 123114 101�2110-226 uniform repairs Police Department 84.49
Total 102206: 84.49
SIMPLEX GRINNELL 02/09/2015 102207 80902050 101�1900-404 pamc button setup Central Serv�ces 150 00
Total 102207. 150 00
SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 02J09/2015 102208 20115 101-21710 Life Insurance Feb 1,282.95
SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 02/09/2015 102208 20115 101-15998 Cobra Life Insurance Feb 25
Total 102208� 1,283 20
TACTICAL SOLUTIONS 02/09/2015 102209 4736 101�2110-550 radar unit Police Department 2,074 00
Total 102209 2,074 00
TASC 02109/2015 102210 481677 101-41900319 COBRA admin fee Central Services 72 00
Total 102210. 72.00
THE HOME DEPOT 02/09J2015 102211 020315 101-43000-224 tool boxes for shop tools Public Works Department 308 93
THE HOME DEPOT 02/09/2015 102211 020315 101-45200-223 tool boxes for shop tools Parks 308.89
THE HOME DEPOT 02/09/2015 102211 020315 651�9910-227 tool boxes for shop tools Storm Water 308.89
Ciry of Orono Check Register-COUNCIL REPORT Page. 14
Check Issue Dates 1l27/2015-2/9/2015 Feb 05,2015 04 10PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Accou�t Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
THE HOME DEPOT 02/09/2015 102211 020315 601-49400-227 tool boxes for shop tools Water 308 89
THE HOME DEPOT 02/09/2015 102211 020315 602-49450-227 tool boxes for shop tools Sewer 308.89
Total 102211 1,544 49
UNITED FARMERS COOPERATI 02/09/2015 102212 25344 101�3000-224 LP cylinder Public Works Department 37 90
Total 102212 37 90
US BANK CM-9703 02/09/2015 102213 9133898 101-41900319 HSA account maintenance fee Central Services 171 75
Total 102213 171.75
US BANK WIRE 01/31/2015 201300 13115 319-47000-611 GO Street Recon Senes 2008A 64,101 25
US BANK WIRE 01/31/2015 201300 13115 319-47000-601 GO Street Recon Series 2008A 190,000 00
Total 20130052 254,101.25
US BANK WIRE 01/31/2015 201300 131158 320�7000-611 GO Imp Refund Bond 2009A 3,312 50
US BANK WIRE 01/31/2015 201300 13115B 320-47000-601 GO Imp Refund Bond 2009A 175,000.00
Tot21 20130053: 178,312 50
VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTE 02/09/2015 102214 36432 101-41900-407 Janitorial service Central Services 1,435 50
VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTE 02/09/2015 102214 36432 101-42110�07 Janitorial serv�ce Police Department 1,039.50
Total 102214 2,475.00
VERIZON WIRELESS 02/09/2015 102215 973839854 101-42110-321 12/07 to 1/06 Police Department 1,474.55
VERIZON WIRELESS 02J09/2015 102215 973839854 101-41900-321 12/07 to 1/O6 Central Services 111 35
VERIZON WIRELESS 02/09/2015 102215 973839854 101-45210-321 12/07 to 1/06 Golf Course 30 20
VERIZON WIRELESS 02/09/2015 102215 973839854 601-49400-321 12/07 to 1/06 Water 61 33
VERIZON WIRELESS 02/09/2015 102215 973839854 602-49450-321 60249450321 Sewer 61 33
Total 102215 1,738 76
VINTAGE WASTE SYSTEMS IN 02/09/2015 102216 12615 101-41900�04 Jan service Central Services 155 00
Total 102216: 155 00
City of Orono Check Register-COUNCIL REPORT Page 15
Check Issue Dates 1/27/2015-2/9/2015 Feb O5,2015 04 10PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Descnption Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
WEIBEL,ELOISE 02/09/2015 102217 12115 999-10015 refund UB overpayment 14 20
Total 102217 14 20
WESTONKA COMMUNITY 8 CO 02/09/2015 102218 12315 101-42110�33 2015 Membership Police Department 65 00
Total 102218: 65 00
WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE 02/09/2015 102219 739291 101�3000-403 tratler tire Public Works Department 18.00
Total 102219. 18 00
WILLIAMS TOWING 02/09/2015 102220 135163 231-45650-436 15-00563 2001 Chev Silverado 175 00
Total 102220: 175 00
WINDSTREAM 02/09/2015 102221 6306048930 601-49400-321 water plant phone Water 64 96
Total 102221 64 96
XCEL ENERGY 02/09/2015 102222 443793584 101133000-386 12/29 to 1/28 Public Works Department 77 53
Total 102222 77 53
ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS 02/09/2015 102223 153076 651�9910-227 broom for JD sweeper Storm Water 592 00
Total 102223. 592 00
Grend Totals 1,600,925 30