HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-23-2015 Council Packet Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, February 23, 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. Regular Council Meeting of February 9, 2015 *
Planning Commission Comments –Denise Leskinen, 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
3. 15-3707 – Amend Zoning Ordinance Text: Add Language to 78-1405 Non-Encroachment Section
Regarding Retaining Walls – Third Review
4. Casey & Jill Hoehn - 2325 Glendale Cove Lane – Encroachment Agreement
Public Works Director/City Engineer’s Report
5. Replacement of Truck #424
6. Golf Course Seasonal Employees
7. Approve Rehabilitation of Lift Station 8 and Lift Station 15
8. Bid Award for 2015 Street Maintenance Materials
Mayor/Council Report
City Administrator's Report
9. Videotaping Planning Commission Meetings
10. Building Official Retirement/Recruitment
11. 2014 General Fund Budget Adjustments
12. Claims/Bills *
Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, February 23, 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
City Attorney's Report
Adjournment
Upcoming Events
2015
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.
04-20 – Planning Commission Meeting, 6:30 p.m. (Council Liaison – Aaron Printup)
04-20 – Council Work Session, Monday 5:00 p.m.
04-27 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m.
Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday,February 23,2015, 7:00 P.1C�UNCIL MEETING
Orono Council Chambers,2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono,MN 55356
952-249-4600/www.ci.orono.mn.us FEB 2 3 2015
T'he 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 inember 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. Regular Council Meeting of February 9, 2015 *
Planning Commission Comments—Denise Leskinen, 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
3. 15-3707—Amend Section 78-1405 (a)(5) Clarify Retaining Wall and Landscape Structure Setbacks
4. Casey&Jill Hoehn-2325 Glendale Cove Lane—Encroachment Agreement
Public Works Director/City Engineer's Report
5. Replacement of Truck#424
6. Golf Course Seasonal Employees
7. Approve Rehabilitation of Lift Station 8 and Lift Station 15
8. Bid Award for 2015 Street Maintenance Materials
Mayor/Council Report
City Administrator's Report
9. Videotaping Planning Commission Meetings
10. Building Official RetirementlRecruitment
11. 2014 General Fund Budget Adjustments
12. ClaimsBills *
Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday,February 23,2015, 7:00 P.M.
Orono Council Chambers,2780 Kelley Parkway,Orono,MN 55356
952-249-4600/www.ci.orono.mn.us
City Attorney's Report
Adjournment
2015
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 Levan�
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:OOp.m.
04-20-Planning Commission Meeting, 6:30 p.m. (Council Liaison-Aaron Printup)
04-20-Council Work Session, Monday 5:00 p.m.
04-27-Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m.
Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us—follow links for Stay Connected&Email Noti�cation
t MINUTES OF THE COl1NCIL M�ET'�NG
ORONO CITY COUNCII.MEETING
February 9,2015 F�B 2� 20�5
7:00 o'clock p.m.
ROLL CALL
T'he Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor
Lili Tod McMillan, Council Members Jim Cornick, Jr., Lizz Levang,Aaron Printup,and Dennis Walsh.
Representing Staff were City Administrator Jessica Loftus,Finance Director Ron Olson, Senior Planner
Michael Gaffron,City Planner Melanie Curtis,Public Works Director/City Engineer Adam Edwards,City
Attomey Soren Mattick,Consulting City Engineer David Martini,and Recorder Jackie Young.
Mayor McMillan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT AGENDA
Item Nos. 5, 8,and 13 were added to the Consent Agenda. Item No.2 was removed from the Consent
Agenda.
Levang moved,Cornick seconded,to approve tLe Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5,
Nays 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
2. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION OF JANUARY 26,2015
Council Member Printup stated he would like to discuss the wood build-out with logo for the Council
chambers as well as the building official position.
Printup stated to his recollection the City has done analyses in the past with respect to keeping the
position in-house versus outsourcing it and he would like to see a similar analysis done for the building
official position.
Council Member Levang noted the Council did discuss that at the work session.
City Administrator Loftus stated based on the direction at the last Council meeting,the contractor was
told to move forward on the project for the build-out.
Printup indicated he would rather see some other things done before that.
Loftus asked if she should attempt to cancel the work.
Printup stated he would not be opposed to that.
Council Member Wa1sh asked where in the process the work is.
Loftus stated the wood piece is being produced and the logo for the front lobby and the build-out are also
in the process of being completed.
Page 1 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING T
February 9,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(2. CITY COiJNCIL WORK SESSION OF JANUARY 26,2015 continued)
Levang stated she feels comfortable going ahead with the order since the City Council already discussed
it and that they felt it would be a big improvement. Levang stated the improvements would help to
readily identify the chambers for viewers.
Walsh stated if the work is already in the process of being completed,the City should go ahead with it.
Printup moved,Levang seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council work session
of January 26,2015,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
*3. REGULAR CITY COLTNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 26,2015
Levang moved,Cornick seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of
January 26,2015,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS—BRUCE LEMKE,REPRESENTATIVE
Representative Lemke stated he had nothing to report but would be available for questions.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Penny Rogers, 1380 Rest Point Road, stated it was her understanding the Council would be discussing the
City Ordinance regulating wind turbines at this meeting. Rogers indicated she lives next door to someone
who has four wind turbines on their property and that she would request the City Council to act on this as
soon as possible.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT
4. #14-3664 DAVID SC�IlVIID AND ANGELA CILIBERTO,3309 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD
AMEND VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVALS FOR REVISED
RETAINING WALL—RESOLUTION NO. 6483
Senior Planner Gaf&on stated the applicants are requesting an amendment to their approved site plan in
order to reorient the parking space that is adjacent to Crystal Bay Road and replace the pre-existing block
and stone retaining walls with a boulder wall. The applicants' original plan included removal of the
underground garage at the northeast comer of the property and construction of some new retaining walls
to allow for a straight-in garage orientation. Since that time the applicants have removed the existing
retaining wall system and are now proposing a boulder wall system that would create a parallel parking
stall rather than a straight-in parking stall.
The Planning Commission and City Engineer have looked at this change and have determined that it is a
better solution. Tonight's request is an amendment to the conditional use permit and variances to allow
this type of orientation to occur. Gaffron stated one of the important factors is that the proposed retaining
wall will not be higher than four feet,which will eliminate the retaining wall above the parking area
having approximately an eight-foot drop.
Staff recommends approval of the request.
Page 2 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
' ORONO CITY COUNCII,MEETING
February 9,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(4. #14-3664 DAVID SCffiV�AND ANGELA CILIBERTO,3309 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD
AMEND VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVALS FOR REVISED
RETAINING WALL—RESOLLJTION NO.6483 continuec�
Levang asked if the existing cavity was filled with clean fill.
Ciliberto indicated it was.
Levang asked what will be on the surface beyond the boulders next to the road. Levang asked whether
asphalt will be laid there or whether it will be sod or dirt.
Gaffron displayed a picture of the property prior to the work being done.
Ciliberto stated it will either be asphalt or gravel but that at this point they have not come to a decision.
Ciliberto indicated they would be open to Council input if they have something specific in mind for that
area.
Gaffron stated in his view it would be difficult to grow grass in that area and that it is an area that either
needs to be paved or gravel.
Walsh noted it will be hardcover either way.
Levang stated it is a much better plan and asked how they came to that decision.
Ciliberto stated they knew if they kept it the way it was,they would need to back in and back out since it
is a really tight space. Ciliberto stated to her recollection the Council provided some comments in that
regard and that their neighbors also have some pull-up garages that are easier to access and park.
Ciliberto stated they are attempting to make it easier to access and that they do not want people coming
down the back since it is more of a private driveway.
Walsh stated in his view it is a better plan and would help to eliminate cars parking on the road.
McMillan stated aesthetically it looks very nice.
Levang moved,Walsh seconded,to adopt RESOLUTION NO.6483,a Resolution Amending
Resolution No.6407,for the property located at 3309 Crystal Bay Road. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
*5. #14-3704 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY SERVICES—3880 SHORELINE DRIVE—
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW—RESOLUTION
NO.6484
Levang moved,Cornick seconded,to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6484,a Resolution Approving a
Site Plan and a Hardcover Variance,and a Conditional Use Permit for a Building Addition
Pursuant to Orono Zoning Code Chapter 78,Division 4,and Sections 7&348 and 78-1700,for the
property located at 3880 Shoreline Drive. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
Page 3 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING �
February 9,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
6. #14-3707 AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT: ADD LANGUAGE TO 78-1405 NON-
ENCROACHMENTS SECTION REGARDING RETAINING WALLS—SECOND REVIEW
Gaffron noted at the January 26 meeting the 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. The Council requested Staff provide
additional information on the impacts of this City Ordinance amendment and tabled the matter.
Gaffron noted other cities' codes regarding construction of retaining walls are widely varied and that a
number of them do not require any permit for those less than four feet in height. Others, similar to Orono,
require a land alteration permit for walls less than four feet high. For retaining walls at or above four feet
in height,Orono requires engineering and a building permit,which appears to be common among cities.
In addition, some cities require a permit for those less than four feet in height if they support fill above the
wall.
The sections of the City Code that establish a 5-foot setback evolved over time and have to do with land
alteration. Gaffron indicated those sections can be confusing and difficult to interpret. Gaffron stated
items or activities that are typical of any retaining wall installation aze typically prohibited,but there are
some exceptions that are allowed for normal and customary grading in the area of an existing or newly
constructed building or any earth movement under 500 cubic yards which does not adversely impact the
existing drainage.
The City Code also talks about those exceptions having the characteristic of an unusual land alteration
and requiring a conditional use peimit. Gaffron stated there were a number of things that were defined
over the years as being unusual land alterations. One of them was grading or alteration that would
propose any changes in elevation within five feet of an adjacent residentiallot line except for drainage
swales and ditches. The result of that is the City Code contains language stating that someone is not
allowed to conduct grading within five feet of the lot line.
Gaffron indicated Staff also looked at the definition of a retaining wall since one of the questions asked
by the Council was whether a retaining wall should be defined. Staff's report contains a number of
different dictionary definitions and they basically talk about a wall that is built to resist lateral pressure
other than wind pressure or to prevent earth or water from moving forward.
In addition,the Council questioned whether a raised planter bed would be considered a retaining wall.
Gaffron indicated Sketch A shows a retaining wall that is on the upside of the lot line with a 5-foot
setback. Gaffron stated when the retaining wall is above the property next door;it needs to be maintained
at some point in the future and the ability to maintain it without going on the adjoining property may not
be possible without a 5-foot setback. Retaining walls also need to be designed and located so as to not
impede the drainage along the property lines and across adjoining properties,which is another reason for
a 5-foot setback. From a safety perspective,retaining walls need to be located so as to not create unsafe
conditions for neighboring properties.
Sketch B depicts a retaining wall located below the property boundary and is probably not as critical as
the situation depicted in Sketch A in terms of the safety aspect. Gaffron stated with a 5-foot setback, it is
unlikely that someone will be walking in that area. Gaffron stated visually retaining walls can have the
same impact as an accessory structure by limiting sightlines. Gaffron noted the City currently allows a
4-foot retaining wall without engineer review,but a retaining wall that is higher than that needs to be
reviewed by an engineer.
Page 4 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
� ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 9,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(6. #14-3707 AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT: ADD LANGUAGE TO 78-1405 NON-
ENCROACHMENTS SECTION REGARDING RETAINING WALLS—SECOND REVIEW
continued)
Gaffron stated the Council should also discuss the 10-foot retaining wall setback from a traveled
right-of-way. The existing City Code talks about a 10-foot setback from the traveled roadway and states
as follows: "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.
The intent of that language in the proposed City Ordinance is to clarify that it is not acceptable to have
retaining walls directly abutting the road right-of-way without City approval.
Gaffron indicated Sketch C depicts a raised planter bed that is less than five feet. Gaffron stated the
impacts would depend on the drainage and the individual site. Gaffron stated while everyone likely
accepts the fact that they can have a 1 or 2-foot high retaining wall next to the property line,technically
the City Code as drafted would not allow that.
Staff requests the Council discuss the issues and provide Staff direction as to any desired revisions to the
draft City Ordinance.
Printup asked how retaining walls compare with fences in terms of setback from a property line.
Gaffron indicated fences can be right up to the lot line but not over it,which raises some issues with
maintenance. In addition,fences can be anywhere between three to six feet high. Gaf&on stated it is
likely the neighbor would let someone on their property to maintain a fence since they also have to look at
it. Gaffron stated the issue with an accessory structure being five or ten feet from the property line is the
height of the structure and the visual impacts that can have. Gaffron stated a fence can also be built so it
does not affect drainage;whereas,a retaining wall will likely impact drainage
McMillan asked what process would need to be followed if a retaining wall needs to be within five feet of
the property line. McMillan asked whether that would require a variance under the proposed City
Ordinance.
Gaffron indicated it would require a variance and potentially a conditional use pernut depending on the
amount of land being moved and whether it is near the shoreline.
McMillan asked if a retaining wall would be considered an encroachment if it needs to be constructed
within the right-of-way.
Gaffron stated there would likely be an encroachment agreement required,but that it could require a
variance or a conditional use permit depending on where it is located. Gaffron indicated an encroachment
ageement is something that Staff can do administratively,but if it requires fill, Staff would likely bring it
before the City Council as either a variance or a conditional use permit request.
Walsh asked if there is akeady something in the City Code about not allowing runoff into the neighbor's
property.
Gaffron stated to the extent the person can avoid doing that,that would be desired,but that the City Code
says whatever drains off a property should not impact the neighbors.
Page 5 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING �
February 9,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(6. #14-3707 AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT: ADD LANGUAGE TO 78-1405 NON-
ENCROACHMENTS SECTION REGARDING RETAINING WALLS—SECOND REVIEW
continued)
Walsh stated to his understanding under the City Ordinance even one wheelbarrow full of dirt will require
permission from the City.
Gaffron stated technically that is true today. Gaffron noted the City Council recently approved an
increase in the amount of fill allowed within the 0-75 foot zone from 10 cubic yards,which is essentially
one dump truck load,to 50 cubic yards,which is approximately five dump truck loads to allow for top
dressing or maintenance of that area. Gaffron stated technically the City Code talks about any grading or
any fill from 0 cubic yards on up requiring an administrative permit. Gaffron stated depending on the
amount,it could require a conditional use permit. Gaffron stated Staff has to use some reasonableness in
determining whether an administrative permit or a conditional use permit is required since there are things
that people do to merely maintain their yard but that technically the City does require a permit.
Walsh stated in his view there should be reasonable limits set that would cover 90 percent of the people
and that he does not want to penalize everyone and be over reaching.
McMillan stated the minor projects should not require a permit but that as the projects become bigger and
more impactful,then more limits should be set. McMillan stated the question is what those thresholds
should be,and that in her view it is not possible to have one size fit all.
Walsh noted that currently someone cannot dramatically alter the land. Walsh asked if the threshold
should be 0 to 10 cubic yards where someone would be allowed to do it,but then if there is a problem,
Staff will need to figure out how to handle it. Walsh stated if someone stands on someone else's
property,that person is technically trespassing,and that when he installs an electrical substation,he is
required to have a minimal amount of clearance to work with that.
Walsh stated he could see the situation where the City allows up to a foot of height to do a wall or a
planter bed,but that there need to be at least two or three feet from the property line to allow someone to
maintain that without going into someone else's yard. Walsh stated the City should set those types of
standards. Walsh stated on the narrow lots,if a person is required to leave five feet untouched on each
side,the lot becomes very narrow and that the person should have the right to use their property. Walsh
stated he would like to see it narrowed down somehow to address the 80 to 90 percent of the population
that follows the rules in order to give some leeway for the xninor projects.
McMillan stated the City wants to have reasonable rules and only require permits on the more impactful
items. McMillan stated if the Council is comfortable in providing some thresholds that would give Staff
some idea on what would be allowed. McMillan stated currently 4-foot retaining walls are the threshold
for engineering.
Public Works Director/City Engineer Edwards stated that primarily relates to safety.
McMillan asked if that applies to the tiered walls.
Page 6 of 26
, MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 9,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(6. #14-3707 AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT: ADD LANGUAGE TO 78-1405 NON-
ENCROACHMENTS SECTION REGARDING RETAINING WALLS—SECOND REVIEW
continued)
Edwards stated currently the City considers multiple walls to be a single wall if the distance between the
two walls is not greater than twice the height of the upper wall. Edwards stated if the walls are really
close together and staggered,they would still be considered one wall as far as the engineer requirement is
concerned. Staff is primarily concemed about the wall failing and slumping and causing damage.
Walsh stated if someone has a 3-foot high deck,they are required to have railings,which relates to safety.
Walsh stated once you start getting to two to three feet in height,you could impact someone's sightlines.
He does not want to prohibit someone from constxucting a 1-foot high retaining wall or planter box.
Walsh stated his recommendations would be at least two feet from the properiy line and 12 inches high
without the need for a permit. In addition,the person could go up to 20 cubic yards of dirt as long as it is
not altering the slope and changing the runoff.
Printup stated he likes the idea of a starting point in order to keep the process moving forward. Printup
asked how long this process will take. Printup stated he has a concem for people who may want to have
some work done due to the high water issues experienced last yeaz.
Gaffron stated he anticipates that Staff will have a draft ready in a couple of weeks for the Council to
review. Gaffron stated unless the Council needs to see the draft three or four times,it should be done
before spring.
Levang asked if Staff would like some guidance on the retaining wall definitions and which ones the
Council would prefer.
Gaffron stated the definitions are different but yet basically the same. Gaffron stated most of the
definitions talk about supporting earth and not supporting another material.
City Attorney Mattick stated the situation gets complicated in part if a retaining wall is there for simply
decorative purposes. Mattick stated from a definition standpoint,a planter box would seem to be the
same as a retaining wall or other landscape feature. Mattick stated regardless of what it is,if it is 12
inches or higher from an existing grade,the City should set a threshold for regulating it.
Walsh stated in his view that approach makes sense if the City chooses to define it.
Mattick stated a planter box that is four feet tall might be just as offensive as a 4-foot tall retaining wall
and that he would approach it from a performance standard and not a definition standpoint.
McMillan stated she would be in favor of a 2-foot high retaining wall and 20 cubic yards of fill not
requiring a permit. McMillan stated anything within the right-of-way would need to be approved by Staff
regardless of height due to the fact that snow needs to be plowed and the impact it could have on
sightlines.
Gaffron stated from a side lot line or a rear lot line,the City Code has been at five feet. Gaffron stated it
should be set at the point where the person can still walk around and maintain it.
Page 7 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING �
February 9,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(6. #14-3707 AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT: ADD LANGUAGE TO 78-1405 NON-
ENCROACHMENTS SECTION REGARDING RETAINING WALLS—SECOND REVIEW
continued)
Walsh stated in his view two to three feet would allow some room. Walsh stated as it relates to the 10-
foot issue that could take up a lot of room on a narrow lot,and that people should know that if something
has to be removed within the right-of-way, it has to be removed. Walsh stated he is not sure the City has
to regulate the footage within the right-of-way any more than they currently do with the 5-foot.
Gaffron stated the original language does not talk about front yards. Currently the City allows very few
encroachments in someone's front yard and that people are allowed to do more in their side or rear yards.
The current City Code does not allow anything in the front yard that encroaches. Gaffron stated it is
likely there will be a situation where someone would like to construct a retaining wall in their front yard
and that the City Council should discuss that. Gaffron stated if it is in the right-of-way, an encroachment
agreement will be required.
Walsh stated if the City starts regulating all ki.nds of planter boxes and stepping stones,that does not seem
reasonable.
McMillan noted oftentimes the road is not exactly in the middle and that it can vary,which is another
factor. McMillan stated the City needs room for snow plowing and storage and that she would like the
Council to look at the right-of-way issue a little further. McMillan stated she is not sure at this point
whether ten feet is too much.
Walsh stated if someone is pernutted to plant a bush within the right-of-way,it can get into the issue of
why can I do this but not this. Walsh noted he has hedges that are five feet high right on the street,which
he is allowed to do.
McMillan stated if something is in the right-of-way, a utility company could remove it if necessary and
that a retaining wall is more of a permanent structure than a bush or hedge or tree. McMillan stated
retaining walls also tend to be more costly than a shrub or a tree.
Walsh stated the homeowner is taking that risk and that they should be aware of that risk.
McMillan stated the City needs to do whatever is necessary to plow the snow.
Walsh suggested the City Council look closer into what type of setback is necessary in the right-of-way.
McMillan stated the question is what the thresholds should be that trigger an encroachment agreement.
McMillan noted people will use boulders as a decorative feature and they are not designed for retaining
the dirt.
Walsh stated if the standard is set too low and it causes problems,the City can request it be removed or
relocated. Walsh stated in his view the City needs to set up a standard to start with.
Page 8 of 26
, MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 9,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(6. #14-3707 AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT: ADD LANGUAGE TO 78-1405 NON-
ENCROACHMENTS SECTION REGARDING RETAINING WALLS—SECOND REVIEW
continued)
McMillan stated in her view there are a few separate issues to deal with and they include the right-of-way,
property lines,possibly reducing the setback to two to three feet,and a limited height for a planter wall or
retaining wall. McMillan indicated she is inclined to allow a structure less than two feet in height to be
located two to three feet from the property line.
Printup stated as long as it does not impact the runoff to the neighbor's property.
Walsh noted that is akeady covered in an existing City Ordinance.
McMillan stated in her view it does not hurt to explain that in the new City Ordinance as well.
Gaffron noted Staff does not know what people are doing if they aze not required to obtain a permit for
something, such as a fence. Gaffron asked whether someone should obtain a permit for something that
meets these standards. Gaffron indicated he is okay with the idea that a person can do certain things
without a permit,but that there should be a threshold set for when an administrative permit is required or
a variance.
Walsh stated it could also impact hardcover.
Gaffron stated that is correct. Gaffron stated the amount of fill or grading should also be considered.
Mattick stated the City wants to be accommodating but that something as simple as a retaining wall could
take someone over on hardcover. Mattick stated if there is no City review,the property owner may not
realize that.
Walsh asked if retaining walls still count towards hardcover.
City Planner Curtis stated they need to be beyond the 75-foot setback.
Walsh noted anything within the 0-75 foot zone would need to come before the City Council,which
would cover the issue with the hardcover.
Walsh stated the Planni.ng Commission approved the draft City Ordinance 6-1 and that he was in
attendance at that meeting. Walsh stated in his view it is important to see someone discuss applications
like this and the passion that they have when they are talking about it. Walsh stated videotaping the
Planning Commission meetings would allow that.
Gaffron stated Staff will draft something for the Council to review in a couple of weeks based on
tonight's discussion.
Levang moved,Cornick seconded,to table Application No. 14-3707,Amend Zoning Ordinance
Text: Add Language to 78-1405 Non-Encroachment Section Regarding Retaining Walls. VOTE:
Ayes 5,Nays 0.
Page 9 of 26
MINUTES OF THE ,
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 9,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
7. #15-3714 CREATE SECTION 14-142 WELLHEAD PROTECTION ORDINANCE—
ORDINANCE NO. 135
Edwards stated the purpose of this City Ordinance is to create Section 14-142 to provide for wellhead
protection by prohibiting new private wells where public water supply is available. In October of 2013,
the City adopted its Wellhead Protection Plan. The WHPP is a requirement of the Minnesota Department
of Health under Minnesota State Statutes and is a method of preventing contamination of a public water
supply well by effectively managing potential contaminant sources in the area wluch contributes water to
a public water supply well.
Edwards stated part of the plan was a series of improvements the City agreed to do to protect its wells.
One of those requirements was to establish a City Ordinance to protect the wells by prohibiting new
private wells within protection zones,which corresponds with the City's water distribution system. If a
person has a fully functioning well,they 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. If 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 Department of Health. At
the time connection to the public water supply is completed,all existing private wells no longer in use
shall be capped by a licensed well contractor.
Printup asked if that means that if a private well fails,the property owner cannot drill another one or
whether they are allowed to drill on an alternate site.
Edwards concurred that there are numerous alternate sites for drilling another well on any particular
property.
Walsh asked if this is a mandate or a suggestion they would like the City to follow.
Edwards stated it is a suggestion.
Walsh stated he would want to be able to drill another well and that he dces not want someone to cap
their wells if they aze able to fix it. Wa1sh stated that should be an option as well as allowing a person to
be able to drill a new well for irrigation. Walsh stated in his view it seems like a land grab by the
government to push people on City water and that he is not in favor of that.
Edwards stated in his view the City Ordinance would allow people to make repairs to their well but that it
would prohibit someone from getting a new well permit from the State and drilling a new well.
Walsh indicated he would not be in agreement with that and that people should be able to drill a new well
if they want to.
Printup asked if a person could drill deeper if their well runs dry.
Edwards stated the resident would be allowed to do maintenance on their well,but that if they need to
drill a new well,the City Ordinance would require them to obtain a permit from the state. Edwards stated
the City Ordinance would prohibit someone from getting that permit to get a new well.
Page 10 of 26
, MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CTTY COUNCIL MEETING
February 9,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(7. #15-3714 CREATE SECTION 14142 WELLHEAD PROTECTION ORDINANCE—
ORDINANCE NO. 135 continue�
Consulting City Engineer Martini stated one thing to consider is the financial piece of expanding the City
infrastructure. Martini stated it would be feasible to have that infrastructure if everyone hooks up.
Martini stated the City makes assumptions as to how many users there will be when planning the
infrastructure. Martini stated the property owner would not need to hook up now if they have a
functioning well but that at some point in the future they will have to if their well fails.
Walsh stated a resident can have a fair amount of money invested into a well.
McMillan stated in general most people want to hook up to city water and that the important piece of the
City Ordinance is wellhead protection to prevent contaminating city water and identify the areas that
impact the City's municipal water and the aquafer.
Walsh stated the regulations for a new well are very specific and that if a well fails a person has to fill
them with cement and cap them. Walsh stated in his view this City Ordinance is taking away someone's
rights to drill a new well.
Printup stated his hang up is the idea of forcing someone to do it. Printup asked if there is a provision in
the City Ordinance regarding a supplemental well.
Edwards stated that is another exemption. Edwards stated if the municipal water supply cannot provide
the adequate amount of flow or pressure for whatever that need was,then there would be an exception to
allow them to a supplemental well.
Council Member Cornick asked what the approximate hookup cost would be in general and what costs
are associated with capping a well.
Walsh stated to his knowledge it cost about$1,000 to cap a well five yeazs ago because it has to be
certified and there are a limited number of companies that can do it.
Edwards said the State does have a grant program as part of the Wellhead Protection Program for capping
old wells. Edwards indicated he is not exactly sure what the City's hookup charges are but that it depends
on the length of the line.
Cornick asked if it is more than$5,000 to hook up.
Martini stated it potentially could be and that it is site specific. Martini stated providing a shutoff and a
service line could make it cost over$5,000.
Cornick asked if there would be any sources of relief for a homeowner who had to hook up but did not
have the money for it.
Mattick stated one option would be for the City to assess the property if it is for a public project but that
typically the City does not act as a bank for private projects.
Page 11 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIi.MEETING �
February 9,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(7. #15-3714 CREATE SECTION 14-142 WELLHEAD PROTECTION ORDINANCE—
ORDINANCE NO. 135 continue�
McMillan asked whether the old well needs to be capped if a new well is drilled.
Martini indicated that is correct.
Walsh stated he knows people on the lake that are heating and cooling their entire house through their
well.
McMillan stated to her lrnowledge that is a separate piece.
Edwards stated in those situations they are not drawing ground water and are self-contained.
McMillan asked if there is any public comment regazding this item.
There was no public comment.
Printup stated he has a concem about the cost for a homeowner if they are forced to hook up to City
water.
Levang stated someone does not know how far down they will have to go with a new well,which is also
costly.
Printup stated that is a good point but that it is up to the homeowner to decide. Printup stated in his view
very few people would not want to hook up to city water.
Levang stated the City Ordinance is important because of the potential contamination issue and backing
up the City's wellhead protection plan.
Edwards stated the principle behind the Wellhead Protection Plan is to protect the City's water and that a
zone around each of the City's wells has been identified. Edwards stated the issue with private wells has
to do with the fact that the more holes that go into the ground and into the aquifer,the more opportunity
for the aquifer to become contaminated. Edwards indicated this is just one of many items that make up
the City's WHPP and that it is all about trying to keep contaminates out of the aquifers.
Walsh asked how many wells have contaminated the aquifer. Walsh stated in his view this is just a straw
man argument with no facts.
McMillan noted Spring Park is experiencing some contamination.
Edwards stated Spring Park has two of three wells that have become contaminated.
Walsh stated the cost for the residents on Green Trees to hook up to City water was $16,000 apiece.
Levang noted it was their choice in that situation.
Page 12 of 26
, MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 9,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(7. #15-3714 CREATE SECTION 14-142 WELLHEAD PROTECTION ORDINANCE—
ORDINANCE NO. 135 continuedj
McMillan noted Green Trees was for connection to City sewer and not water.
Levang moved,McMillan seconded,to adopt ORDINANCE N0. 135,an Ordinance for Protecting
the City's Wetlheads by Prohibiting New Private Wells Where Public Water Supply is Available.
VOTE: Ayes 3,Nays 2,Walsh and Printup Opposed.
*8. #15-3715 AMENDMENT TO MUNICIPAL CODE SETION 14-134: SERVICE PIPES—
ORDINANCE NO. 137
Levang moved,Cornick seconded,to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 137,an Ordinance Amending the
Municipal Code by Revising the Responsibilities for Water Service Repairs. VOTE: Ayes 5,
Nays 0.
9. STORM WATER AND DRAINAGE TRUNK FEE REVIEW
Gaffron noted the City Council first looked at this issue back in May of 2014 at a work session. In 2002
the City adopted a surface water management plan that serves as a guide for developing and management
of the surface water system of the City. That surface water plan was updated in January of 2011.
An element of the plan is an inventory of the existing surface water systems,which includes a variety of
stormwater facilities such as storm sewer pipes,drainage ways,ponding areas,etc. In addition,the 2002
plan identified long-term system improvements that would be needed as the City becomes more fully
developed to deal with stormwater management as it relates to water quality and water quantity. The
2002 had an estimated cost of nearly$11 million in 1998 dollars.
The update of the surface water plan in 2011 acknowledged that there are difficulties in funding surface
water management needs. The CIP categorizes planned expenditures in four specific areas. It talks about
activities associated with meeting the City's obligations towards its NPDES or National Pollution
Dischazge Elimination System permit,which includes educational materials,cleanup days, inspection
programs for illicit sewer and septic system discharges,etc.
A second element of the plan included capital improvement projects, such as implementation of the plan
itself,water quality and water quantity projects for developing areas, wetland restorations,priority
projects for developed areas,and ongoing operations and maintenance of the storm sewer system. It also
included implementation of official controls,which are City Ordinances.
Gaffron stated the annual planned City expenditures in these four areas total approximately$250,000 to
$350,000 a year. Gaffron indicated there are a small number of funding sources to accomplish these
goals and noted the level of funding needed for planned Capital Improvement projects is not fully covered
by the stormwater utility or permit fees. Gaffron noted the City will likely have some issues with
phosphorus reduction requirements since it is likely the total maximum daily load studies will suggest
there are certain bodies of the water within the City that are going to require projects.
Page 13 of 26
MINUTES OF THE .
ORONO CTl'I'COUNCIL MEETING
February 9,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(9. STORM WATER AND DRAINAGE TRUNK FEE REVIEW continuea�
Gaffron stated the funding sources for these projects are broken down into four components:
1. The stormwater and drainage trunk fee,which the Council is discussing tonight,that is chazged to new
developments.
2. The stormwater and drainage trunk fee that is charged to redevelopment or expansion. Gaffron noted
the City has chosen in the past not to implement that because of the onerous aspects of it.
3. The stormwater utility fees which are collected quarterly from every property owner in the City that is
part of the Stormwater Utility Program;
4. Grant monies that could be secured from various agencies. Gaffron noted the City received a grant
from the Watershed District for a project on ivy Place and another grant to conduct a project off of
Tonkawa Bay Road for Stubbs Bay.
Gaffron stated the stormwater and drainage trunk fee established in 2002 was considered a reasonable
basis for establishing a dollar figure per acre that should be collected from new developments. That
figure at the time was$2,670 per acre based on all property within a development.
Methods for reducing that fee were also put in place. Gaffron noted the Council had some issues at the
time with charging on a per acre basis for a 5-acre lot when a 5-acre lot is the least of the City's concerns
since it has a larger area that can absorb runoff. For the 5-acre zone,the City had established a reduction
of up to 50 percent of the stormwater fee based on the percentage of the site that was put into drainage
way buffer easements or perimeter easements where the buffer areas had to remain in a natural state.
Gaffron noted that reduction only applied to the 5-acre zone and not the 2-acre zone and that it is the 2-
acre properties that have brought the issue back to the forefront in the past year. Gaffron stated for the 5-
acre zone,it was also established that any lot that was developed in that 5-acre zone only has to pay for
five acres,and in the 2-acre zone any lot that exceeds four acres has to pay for four acres.
Gaffron stated conceptually the City Ordinance also talks about potential reduction of the stormwater fee
based on providing stormwater facilities that provide additional treatment benefits beyond what is
required to serve that new development. The City has not formally established policies for that purpose
but at least on one occasion in Stone Bay the City did give a rebate essentially for oversizing the pond
along Highway 12. Gaffron stated there are a number of issues that have been identified and are as
follows:
1. The lack of clarity for dealing with new development activity.
2. The City Ordinance as written requires payment of the fee for all of the acreage and there have
been questions as to whether or not they should be paying for areas that are considered wetlands
or areas that are stormwater ponding.
3. There are inequities in the calculation of the fee for redevelopment. The Council should 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.
Page 14 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
� ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 9,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(9. STORM WATER AND DRAINAGE TRITNK FEE REVIEW continuea�
4. Provisions should be established and documented in the City Code with regard to past and future
payments of the SW&DT fees. The Council should 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. The need to analyze whether the triggers for charging the SW&DT fee for both new development
and redevelopment are clear and appropriate.
Staff is working on a number of options for the Council to consider in the future. In early January of
2014, Staff, in conjunction with the Planning Commission,looked at a number of questions that need to
be answered. However,the Planning Commission did not spend much time on this. The analysis being
prepared by Staff should be available in late February or early Mazch for Council review. At this time the
Council should provide input and direction on the materials included in their packets this evening.
McMillan asked if Staff is looking for Council input on the direction the City should pursue.
Gaffron indicated that is correct. Gaffron requested the Council review the Planning Commission memo
and documents. Gaffron stated Staff hopes to have a potential solution or option to each of the elements
to make it easier for developers to accept as it relates to new homes and remodels.
Gaffron noted the City would have ended up under the current City Code with X number of dollars
towards these CIP projects in the future as the development happens. Gaffron stated if the Council's goal
is to collect fewer dollars that will need to be a conscious decision. Another option that can be looked at
is collecting the same number of dollars but devising a different system of collection. Gaffron stated the
biggest question is how much revenue the City would like to collect from this source.
McMillan stated it appears the City Council is looking at land that is being subdivided;vacant lots,which
is land that is not subdivided; a redeveloped lot,such as a tear down and rebuild; and an addition to the
structure. McMillan noted currently the City does not charge a stormwater fee on a redeveloped lot or a
remodel.
Gaffi-on asked if the City Council has a priority or whether she would like to look at them together.
McMillan stated she realizes the City is experiencing some pressure on this issue with regard to
subdivisions but that she would like to look at the other ones as well. McMillan indicated she would like
to add the 50 percent reduction credit to subdivided land and that she would place the vacant land and
redeveloped lots in the same category. McMillan indicated she is not interested in charging a stormwater
fee on additions unless they are doubling the size of the house.
Levang stated she likes those four categories,but as it relates to an addition,if it adds more bedrooms,
that could result in an increase of usage and have an impact on the stormwater system. Levang stated in
her view there should be a threshold established and that the City should look at what the stormwater
impact is likely to be from that piece of land.
Page 15 of 26
MINUTES OF THE ,
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 9,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(9. STORM WATER AND DRAINAGE TRLTNK FEE REVIEW continue�
Levang stated the Council also needs to figure out how they are going to get to the $11 million and that if
the Council gives a 50 percent credit and allows the 2-acre lots to be calculated the same as the 5-acre
properties,the City will be losing money.
Loftus stated the fees were originally calculated based on a need.
Printup stated in his view generating$11 million in stormwater fees is probably unattainable.
Levang asked if it was determined to be unattainable at the time the City set the$11 million figure.
Gaffron stated the Council should look at the time necessary to collect the$11 million and that Staff
could look at the remaining land to be developed and the fees that will be generated from those
developments. Gaffron indicated the calculation was based on potential future properties and what it
would cost to do stormwater management for those developments. Gaffron stated to lus understanding
the previous Council never determined that those fees would arrive at$11 million. Gaffron noted since
2002,the City has collected$850,000 in stormwater fees.
Levang noted the amount of land available for development is also shrinking.
Gaffron stated the City is probably 80 to 90 percent developed at this point as it relates to undeveloped
land.
McMillan stated the City has two sources of revenue currently as it relates to stormwater fees: the
subdivided land and the annual stormwater fee that is charged to the residents.
Levang stated if the City looks at adding vacant lots,tear downs, and an addition at a certain threshold,
the City would be adding two to three more sources,but if the 50 percent credit is given, it might be
evening it out.
Gaffron stated there is a lot of math involved in balancing that. Gaffron stated he agrees with the concept
that if someone is doing an addition and adding 10 percent hardcover as opposed to doubling it,
somewhere in between there might be a threshold point.
Walsh stated in his mind the question about how much money the City needs and how much money the
City should charge in stormwater fees are two separate questions. Walsh stated the questions the City
should be asking is what a fair fee to be charged is and is the current system working. Walsh stated if the
Council feels it is not working,then they should start over, and that in his view the City should start over.
Walsh stated a fairly simple solution might be to have the fee be hardcover based. Walsh stated the City
could have its standard fee for one or two acre lots based on 25 percent hardcover. The standard fee for a
one acre lot could be set at$5,000,and if the person is over the 25 percent hardcover,they would pay
more, and if they are under the 25 percent hardcover,they would pay less. Walsh stated the rates would
then be$2,500 for a half acre,$5,000 for one acre,$7,500 for two acres, $10,000 for three acres, $12,500
for four acres,and anything above five acres would be$15,000. Walsh stated ifthe property has less than
25 percent hardcover;the fee would be less based on the percentage of hardcover.
Page 16 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
� ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 9,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(9. STORM WATER AND DRAINAGE TRUNK FEE REVIEW continue�
Walsh stated the same formula could be used for someone who adds a deck or an addition based on the
amount of hardcover they are adding. Walsh stated in his mind this is really a hardcover issue and that
the fee should be based upon that.
Walsh stated after that formula is set,the City can then look at how much money is being raised and have
another conversation about how much money is needed in the fund and how should the funds be raised.
Walsh stated what the City is doing now is trying to get as much money as possible from people who are
developing a lot or subdividing a lot. Walsh stated his solution would be having a sliding scale based
upon the current lunit of 25 percent hardcover.
McMillan noted there are people who are currently over 25 percent. McMillan asked if Council Member
Walsh is talking about when the lot gets developed and not subdivided.
Walsh indicated he is. Walsh stated the water is not being displaced simply because the lot is subdivided.
Levang noted that would delay money coming into the fund.
Printup stated it sounds like the conversation has turned towards money and how the City needs this
revenue. Printup stated in the coming weeks he would like to see a comparison of the four-tier
breakdown and Council Member Walsh's approach. Printup indicated he would like the discussion to
keep moving forward since the Council is all in agreement that something needs to be done with the
stormwater. Printup asked how much is currently in the fund.
Olson stated he does not have that number currently but would mention it during the financial report.
Mattick stated the fee discussion is a policy discussion for the Council to figure out,and that when fees
are examined by outside sources,the City should not artificially create a number but rather identify the
need based on something. Mattick stated the Council cannot say that three-quarters of Orono is already
built out and so we are going to attempt to fund that with the one quarter that is left. Mattick
recommended the Council keep in mind that the stormwater fund will probably be underfunded regardless
of what system they come up with if they intend to fund all stormwater projects with only stormwater
fees. Mattick stated regardless of what number is arrived at,there should be a rationale behind that
number.
McMillan stated given the fact that some of the stormwater mandates have not gone into effect yet,it is
hard to know what the City's future demands will be. McMillan stated at this point the City needs to
determine whether the fee should be changed and the rationale for that change. McMillan noted the City
has been charging this fee for the past 13 years and that they should look at it again. McMillan stated she
is not aware of whether other cities charge a stormwater fee if someone adds a shed or a bedroom onto
their house.
Walsh stated the issue comes down to hardcover and how much of the land is covered, which directly
impacts stormwater.
Page 17 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 9,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(9. STORM WATER AND DRAINAGE TRiJNK FEE REVIEW continue�
McMillan suggested Staff check to see what other cities are doing and whether their fees are based on
hardcover.
Gaffron indicated he has looked at it from a hardcover standpoint on both a percentage and a square
footage basis and that he will be presenting that to the Council in the near future. Gaf&on stated in his
view the Council will find that basing it on square footage makes more sense. Gaffron indicated Staff
will continue to refine this based on Council's comments tonight.
McMillan stated as it relates to residential redevelopment, in Staf�s March memorandum on Page 5,the
fee is per acre and that in her view the fee should be per lot. McMillan stated if someone is redeveloping
their lot and adding up to 1,000 square feet of impervious surface,the chart could reflect what the fee is
based on square footage. In addition,redeveloped lots should be limited to principal structures and not
accessory structures or driveways. McMillan stated on some of the smaller lots,because they are small
lots with over 25 percent hardcover,they would be required to pay more and that it may get to be very
expensive.
Walsh stated the issue is the hardcover.
Levang stated a threshold would make sense based on the size of the addition.
Gaffron indicated Staff will lay out a few options for the Council to look at.
Walsh stated he would like to stay away from exemptions as much as possible since they tend to grow as
time goes on. Walsh stated he would like to keep it as simple as possible.
McMillan stated a good goal is to keep it simple,but that over time exceptions tend to start popping up,
which may mean it is time to review it again.
McMillan asked if there is any public comment on this item.
JeffBryanshank, Source Land Capital noted Pat Hiller submitted a memorandum to the Council stating
their position on this matter. In Source Land's view,the fee is fairly large and that they are looking at the
golf course in two ways: The amount of open space and conservation easements that are being created as
part of this development and the investment that involves as well as creating oversized lots,both of which
will lessen the stormwater impact.
The City Council took no formal action on this item.
PUBLIC WORKS DIItECTOR/CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT
10. NAVARRE LIGHT POLE DECORATIONS
Edwards reported the Navarre lighting project is nearly complete except for a few punch list items and
site remediation that will take place in the spring. Edwards stated the streetlight posts the City had
Page 18 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
� ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 9,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(10. NAVARRE LIGHT POLE DECORATIONS continue�
installed come with several attachments for decorative items. The poles can support banners,holiday
lights and a flag. Thirty-two of the light poles can support decorations. Ten light poles have hanging
flower basket attachments.
Edwazds noted light pole decorations are not currently budgeted and that funding options include
soliciting decoration sponsorship from business/residents of the Navarre community or inclusion in the
City Budget for 2016. Staff requests the Council provide guidance on a decorating scheme that best
represents the Navarre area.
Edwards stated he would recommend 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.
Edwards indicated he attempted to lay out a seasonal plan for the attachments and that the prices for the
various attachments are not definitive. The banners would cost$50 to$100, for a total cost estimated to
be from$1,600 to$3,200 for 32 light poles; holiday lights would cost$450 apiece; the flags would cost
$90 apiece; and the flower baskets would cost$90 apiece.
Edwards stated he believes the Public Works Department can use their existing lift that they have to
install the attachments but that it is a little more cumbersome than a bucket truck. Edwards noted if that
does not work out,the Public Works Department may have to rent a bucket truck or look at changing out
the attachments with a ladder,which would be more time consuming.
As it relates to the flower baskets,those would require watering at least three days a week and an hour
turnaround time each time. Edwards stated one option for the flower baskets would be that individual
businesses adopt a plant and maintain it.
Walsh stated it would be nice to experiment with a few things and see how they work and if there are
volunteers to take care of the planter baskets. Walsh suggested the Navarre Initiative group be contacted
to see if they are interested in perhaps maintaining the baskets. Walsh stated in his view it is a great idea
to spruce up that corridor.
Printup stated he was hesitant on the flower baskets in the beginning and noted that the banners were
bought up by the Navarre businesses rather quickly. Printup stated if the Navarre Initiative Group would
be interested in helping to maintain the baskets that would be great. Printup stated the two items that he
would support at this time would be the flags and the holiday lights, followed by the banners and the
flower baskets.
McMillan asked how high the baskets would be off the road and whether it would be easy for a pedestrian
to water.
Edwards stated the baskets would sit roughly at the bottom of the flag and that someone with a hose and a
wand would be able to water them,which is essentially what the Public Works Department would do.
Page 19 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING �
February 9,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(10. NAVARRE LIGHT POLE DECORATIONS continuer�
Levang stated she is opposed to the baskets since the City does not really have one person that could be
allocated to taking care of them all season long. Levang stated in her view the banners are a good idea
given the City's past success with those as well as the holiday lights. Levang indicated she is not sure
about switching out the flags given the cost.
Levang stated she would be in favor of the banners and the holiday lights,with just a few light poles
being lighted. Levang stated one option would be to have people adopt a light pole to maintain and
perhaps purchase the holiday lights. Levang stated she is not sure if the Navarre Initiative group will be
able to take on this project since they a.re already committed to another project at the present time,which
raises the question of who else could do it.
Printup stated the one thing that has been mentioned to him by various residents in the past was flags.
Walsh stated it is not like the City is adding people to perform this labor since they are already on staff
and they are already being paid for the day. Walsh stated if the Public Works Department has time to do
this,it would not really be an extra cost.
Edwards stated it becomes an added cost if it becomes too repetitive. Edwards stated the installations
would also be done during normal hours to avoid overtime.
Loftus stated the only out-of-pocket costs the City might incur are due to the fact that the City does not
have a bucket truck. The City currently borrows the school's lift,which is not the most effective piece of
equipment. Loftus stated the Council might eventually get a request from Public Works for a bucket
truck.
Walsh stated in his mind the flower pots will always be questionable given the amount of maintenance
that is required.
Cornick stated the flower baskets might be more susceptible to vandalism than the flags or banners.
Cornick indicated he would be opposed to the flower baskets and that he is neutral on the other items.
McMillan stated in her view the City should go ahead with the banners given the time of the year and then
pursue possible funding from the Navarre community.
Levang asked if the City would just go with a generic banner or a more customized banner. Levang
stated if the banners are customized, it may be necessary to first ask which businesses aze interested in
purchasing one.
McMillan indicated she was thinking of a generic banner.
Walsh stated if the City went with a generic banner,they would be able to purchase a few extra ones to
have on hand in case one of them gets torn.
Levang stated she would support that idea.
Page 20 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
� ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 9,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(10. NAVARRE LIGHT POLE DECORATIONS continue�
McMillan stated she personally likes the holiday lights since they are more festive and that perhaps the
City could look at that later.
Walsh suggested the Navarre Initiative be asked and the Park Commission also be approached.
Printup stated it sounds like the flower baskets are questionable and that he is okay with not having the
flower baskets. Printup asked if the Mayor is also interested in the flags as well.
McMillan stated she would like to go ahead with just the banners tonight and perhaps look at the flags
and holiday lights later.
Walsh stated the Council can always revisit this later and that it would be nice to get something going
now.
Printup stated as a starting point he is fine with the banners but that at some point he would like the
Council to consider flags.
Levang moved,Printup seconded,to purchase and display banners on 32 light poles in Navarre and
to seek support from the Navarre Initiative and the business community to supplement purchase of
the banners.
Walsh asked if the Council is interested in purchasing some extra banners.
McMillan noted Staff will be gathering estimates for the banners and that they can determine later
whether extra ones should be purchased.
VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0
11. NAVARRE STREET LIGHT AND SIDEWALK PROJECT—ENGINEERING FEE
CHANGE REQUEST
Edwards noted the Council authorized Bolton&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. As a result of changed project conditions and timeline,Bolton
&Menk is now requesting an additional$4,050 above the previously authorized not to exceed fee.
Edwards stated even with the additional fee,the overall project is still projected to come in under budget.
Walsh stated since the issues that came up were unforeseen given the transition in city engineers,he
would be in favor of approving the additional fee,but that he will be a little tougher in the future.
Martini stated in his mind there were enough issues that came up with this project that exceeded the initial
amount. Martini noted there have been other projects that have exceeded the estimated oversight time
and that Bolton&Menk has not charged for that. Martini indicated requesting additional fees aze not
something they will make a habit of.
Page 21 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING �
February 9,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(11. NAVARRE STREET LIGHT AND SIDEWALK PROJECT—ENGINEERING FEE
CHANGE REQiTEST continue�
Walsh moved,Cornick seconded,to approve the request by Bolton&Menk for an additional
$4,050 above the previously authorized not to exceed fee for the Navarre lighting and sidewalk
project. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
12. UTILITY MAPPING IlVIPROVEMENTS FOR SANITARY SEWER,WATER
DISTRIBUTION AND STORM SEWER
Edwards stated this item relates to utility mapping and improvements for the City's sanitary sewer/water
distribution and storm sewer systems. At the present time Staff utilizes a GIS system to conduct routine
planning and maintenance decisions. The system is used both by the Planning and Zoning departments as
well as Public Works. The City has been on a GIS system since 2008 and that system has been developed
and maintained by the City's consulting firms.
Edwazds stated over the last 12 to 18 months,the Public Works Department has collected and verified the
accuracy of the data and now that data needs to be put on the GIS system. Edwards stated the costly
portion is rectifying that data with a GIS technician to ensure that they are the correct data points.
Edwards noted some additional data still needs to be collected on the storm sewer system, and once that
has been collected,it will also need to be rectified into the system. Staff would recommend that this be
done on a continual basis as projects aze completed by the City.
McMillan asked if the City owns the collected information.
Edwards stated the City owns it and the consulting firm maintains it on their server.
Walsh asked if this is a 2-dimenional or 3-dimensional system.
Edwards indicated it is 2-dimensional and shows contours.
Walsh asked if it shows depths.
Edwards stated it would show land elevations but not depths.
Martini stated the as-built information for those structures are tied into the system, and that if someone
clicks on a manhole,they would have the ability to access the as-built plans,which would give the
elevations. Martini stated the mapping piece is 2-dimensional.
Edwards stated the important thing to note is that the data attributes for any particular piece of
infrastructure are provided.
Walsh stated in his view this is an important system for the Public Works Department to have in order to
see exactly what the infrastructure is rather than relying on old maps. Walsh suggested Staff look into
what it would cost to upgrade it to a 3-dimensional system.
Page 22 of 26
, MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 9,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(12• UTILITY MAPPING IlVIPROVEMENTS FOR SANITARY SEWER,WATER
DISTRIBiTTION AND STORM SEWER continue�
Cornick asked if the anticipated completion date is September 1 and whether the weather conditions will
impact that.
Martini stated in their view that is a comfortable completion date. Martini noted lack of data on the storm
sewer system is the biggest gap in the system at the current time.
Levang moved,Printup seconded,to authorize Bolton&Menk to update the City's GIS system at a
cost no to ezceed$29,480. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
*13. PUBLIC WORKS STEEL TOE BOOT REIlVIBURSEMENT
Levang moved,Cornick seconded,to raise the mazimum annual steel boot reimbursement to
$175.00 per year. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT
Edwards reported the Public Works Department has continued to clean up the parks and remove dead
and/or fallen trees and limbs.
Edwards noted the City is now entering into pothole season and that the Public Works Department has
been applying cold patch to some of the streets. Edwards noted cold patch can really only be used in big
potholes and not some of the smaller ones.
Edwards stated Staff has also been in the process of tidying up the Public Works facility.
Edwards reported Lift Station No. 6 experienced an electrical failure recently but that the City's backup
generator functioned as it was supposed to and kept the lift station functioning properly until the repairs
could be made.
MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT
Levang thanked the Public Works Department for keeping the walking path around the City Hall facilities
clear. Levang stated it is nice to have that trail available during the winter since the Dakota Trail is not
plowed as well as many of the other trails.
Levang stated she also noticed there were some trees trimmed up by the ball fields and that she
appreciates the work being done by the Public Works Department. Levang noted a trail is also available
during the winter at French Creek Preserve as well as the Highwood Nature Trail.
Levang reported that Administrator Loftus, Council Members Printup,Cornick and she attended the
follow-up session for the demonstration project,wluch then leads to a second smaller follow-up that was
attended by herself and Council Member Cornick. Levang stated the community intends to go forward
with the project but not apply for a grant at this time. The group hopes to have at least one demonstration
project in September.
Page 23 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING �
February 9,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(MAYOR/COiJNCIL REPORT continuecn
Cornick stated he attended the training by the League of Minnesota Cities and that he is thankful for the
opportunity to attend since it was well worth it.
Walsh stated he attended the Planning Commission meeting in January and that in his view it is important
to attend in person whenever possible. Walsh stated he would like to include on the next City Council
agenda the issue about videotaping the Planning Commission meetings so a decision can be made on that.
Walsh stated he realizes the City Council has reviewed a number of amendments and ordinances and that
there are still a few that have not yet been placed on the agenda. Walsh stated it would be nice to get all
of those finalized and get them in place. Walsh requested those be placed on the next agenda.
Walsh noted the proposed language for the public comment has been reviewed a couple of times now and
that he would like that to also be brought up for discussion at the next City Council meeting. Walsh
stated the language would allow people to know that they will be asked for their input on applications as
the applications are being discussed by the Council.
Walsh stated the final item he would like to discuss is the fact that the City really lacks the enforcement
mechanism necessary to collect fees for City Ordinance violations with the exception of threatening to
take them court,which then becomes the City's cost. Walsh stated in his view the City needs to have
some language in place to handle those situations. Wa1sh stated in his view if a person does not pay the
fee,it should be increased since a financial incentive is typically the biggest motive to take care of them.
Walsh stated he would like to discuss this issue at the next work session.
Mattick stated it is his understanding City Code enforcement is on the next work session agenda. Mattick
stated he can discuss a re-inspection fee and what some of the other communities are doing to address this
issue.
McMillan stated she is fine with placing the videotaping of the Planning Commission meetings on the
Council agenda. McMillan indicated she would prefer to discuss the language for the public comment
section and City Code enforcement at a work session.
Printup stated he also likes the idea of videotaping the Planning Commission meetings.
McMillan stated she received an update from Hennepin County Transportation Department a couple of
weeks ago on Navarre. Hennepin County should know in March whether they will be receiving the safety
grant for the intersections of County Roads 15 and 19. If the grant is received,the Department of
Transportation will start work on designing the intersection.
McMillan indicated she also met with two board members of the Gillespie Center to talk about City
funding. McMillan stated the Gillespie Center will be putting something together and submitting that
prior to June.
McMillan reported that Senator Osmek has been holding meetings with some of the local mayors to talk
about his legislation related to the Metropolitan Council and the Metropolitan Council Comprehensive
Plan. McMillan stated they also talked about Sunday liquor sales.
Page 24 of 26
MINUTES OF THE
4
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 9,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(MAYOR/COiTNCIL REPORT continue�
McMillan stated while she personally has not spoken to any liquor store owners, she is aware that the
mayor of Long Lake has spoken to some of the liquor store owners and they had indicated they were
really not interested in being open on Sundays since they are a small business.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
14. 4`h QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT
Finance Director Olson stated the stormwater fund balance is currently$983,000,but appro�cimately
$270,000 has tentatively been earmarked to be spent on a new street sweeper,which would leave a little
over$600,000 in that fund.
Olson stated the numbers for the 2004 fourth quarter budget are still preliminary but are pretty solid.
Olson noted there are still a few invoices coming in but that the amounts included in the report will not
change significantly.
Olson reported revenues for 2014 were up in every major category and is typically over 100 percent. The
City did experience some years where it did not meet anticipated revenues but that this is the second yeaz
in a row where revenues came in over 100 percent of taxes. Olson indicated that happened because of
some delinquent tax revenues being received in 2014. In addition,licenses and permits were well over
budget as well as building permits. Other governmental revenues finished the year at 120.2 percent of
budget,with a major portion of the overage being the result of higher than anticipated police state aid.
Olson noted fine revenue for 2014 is only at 77.5 percent of budget due to the lack of a distribution from
the drug task force in 2014. Olson reported the golf course came in$2,400 over budget for revenue.
Olson noted the golf course still lost money for the year but that amount has been reduced from$45,000
down to$16,000.
Overall General Fund expenditures are currently at 98 percent of budget or$150,000 under budget. Some
departments were over budget, such as the golf course and pazks. Olson noted pazks were slightly over
budget because the City Council had decided to pay more attention to cleaning up the parks in 2014.
While some of the departments are over budget,such as inspection services and special services,the
remaining departments were either at or below budgeted amounts. Olson noted inspection services was
almost$80,000 over budget as a result of the increased building activity in the City and special services
charges are charged back to the person requesting the service.
Olson stated at the end of the year,the City had approximately$7.6 million in CDs. Interest rates have
remained pretty steady for the past three or four years,with the majority of the City's investments
receiving one to two percent. Olson stated if the City put its money in longer-term CDs; the interest rate
would go up slightly.
Olson stated the City had$3.7 million in money market accounts last year. Olson indicated that is
slightly more than what normally would be in those accounts and was a result of the garage construction
project going on,which required the City to have a little more flexibility with its money.
Page 25 of 26
MINUTES OF THE �
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 9,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(14. 4�h QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT continuea�
The City also had$1.3 million of debt service due on February 1. The City's total investments are$17.2
million,which is approximately where they were last year at this time.
Olson stated budget adjustments for the departments that are over budget will be prepared for the
Council's approval as part of the February 23 meeting. The overall expenditure budget will not be
increased and the increases to the individual department budgets will be offset by budget reductions in
other departmental budgets.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT CONTINUED
Loftus noted many of the budget overages were offset by increased revenues and overall the 2014 Budget
is very positive.
Loftus reported the Fire Advisory Board met approximately one week ago and that they discussed the
upcoming Centennial celebration. Loflus indicated no specific plans have been set at this point. The fire
department was at 99.27 percent of expenditures for the year and was partly as a result of reduced calls in
2014.
Loftus noted the City has a couple of residents and Park Commissioners who are helping to host an
intergenerational conversation about the future in Orono. That event has been scheduled for Apri19 at
6 p.m. in the Council chambers.
Loftus stated a fair amount of time at the meeting with Hennepin County was spent talking about the
Kelly Avenue access. Hennepin County is very aware of Orono's concerns and they are looking at
intermediate short-term options. Loftus stated if the grant goes through,Hennepin County will be
redesigning that intersection.
*CLAIMSBII.LS
Levang moved,Cornick seconded,to approve payment of the All Fund Account. V01'E: Ayes 5,
Nays 0.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
Mattick stated he had nothing to report.
ADJOURNMENT
Levang moved,Cornick seconded,to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 9:36 p.m. VOTE:
Ayes 5,Nays 0.
ATTEST
Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan,Mayor
Page 26 of 26
, G�OUNCIL M�ETING
Date Application Received: NA FEB 2 � 2015
Date Application Considered as Complete: NA
60-Day Review Period Expires: NA
CITY OF ORONO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date: February 19, 2015
Item No. �
Department Approval• Administrator Approval: Agenda Section:
Name:Mike Gaffron Planning
Title: Senior Planner
Item Description: 15-3707 Amend Zoning Ordinance Text:
Add Language to 78-1405 Non-Encroachments Section Regarding Retaining Walls
- Third Review
List of Exhibits:
Exhibit A. Revised Draft Ordinance for Discussion
Exhibit B. Draft Council Minutes 2/9/15
Exhibit C. Existing Code Section 58-2 re Drainage Systems
Exhibit D. Excerpts from Code Chapter 18 - Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Places
Exhibit E. Excerpt from Code Chapter 78 -RS District - Private Improvements in R-O-W
Exhibit F. Code Sections 78-966 and 78-967 re: Land Alterations
Exhibit G. Council Memo and E�ibits dated 2/5/15
Summary of Request: This is a proposed change to the list of allowed non-encroachments on
yard requirements in Section 78-1405. It intends to add a section clarifying standards for
retaining walls as a non-encroachment.
Planning Commission Recommendation: On 1/20/2015 the Planning Commission held a
public hearing and recommended adoption of the initially 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.
Council Review 2/9/15: Council discussed the proposed standards for height and setback of
retaining walls, as well as the amount of fill associated with walls or planter beds that should be
allowed without a land alteration permit. Tabled 5-0 for further consideration.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council consider the standards in the attached
revised draft ordinance.
The initially proposed ordinance amendment would add the following text to the non-
encroachments section of the zoning code:
(5.1)No retainin�wall of anv hei�ht shall be located closer than 5 feet from any side or
rear propertv line, never fewer than ten feet from the edge of the traveled roadway or
blaced within a draina�e, utilitv, or other easement, except upon ap�roval in writing for
an encroachment a�reement bv the citv; or similar approval from another regulatory
and/or utilitv a�encY
/
15-3707
February 19,2015
Page 2
On February 9 Council reviewed the information provided and considered a number of factors
related to the impacts of retaining walls along or near lot boundaries. A number of specific
concerns were discussed:
- Property owners should have the ability to construct low planter beds near a lot line without
having to get a land alteration permit.
- The City should set some thresholds for retaining wall height, setback, and amount of fill
associated with a wall or planter box, below which no permit will be required.
- Retaining walls and filUgrading projects that have a potential impact on neighboring
properties need to be reviewed by staff-this necessitates the homeowner applying for a
permit in order to be effective.
- Existing City Code Section 58-2(e) - see Exhibit C -prohibits the creation of negative
drainage impacts to neighboring property.
- Retaining walls and similar improvements represent an investment by a property owner
that could be at risk if not properly located, designed and constructed.
- Future maintenance of such improvements needs to be taken into account.
- Consideration should be given to the extent and types of encroachments that are allowed
within right-of-ways.
Planter Box& Retaining Wall Proximity to Lot Lines. Council suggested that a planter box
up to 2' high and involving up to 20 cubic yards of fill should be allowed as close as 2-3' from
the side or rear lot line without a permit. In subsequent discussions among staff inembers, staff
is generally comfortable with allowing a 2' high wall or planter bed involving 10 cubic vards as
close as 5' from any lot line without a permit,but less than a 5' setback, higher than 2 feet or
more than 10 cubic yards would require an administrative permit. Staffls reluctance to allow for
less than a 5-foot setback without at least an administrative permit, even for low walls, is that
while there may be a desire to to m�imize use of space on a narrow lot, it is the narrow lots
where drainage becomes a concern. Retaining walls and planter boxes need to be located and
designed so as not to impede drainage between and across adjoining properties. Maintenance,
safety, and visual impacts are less of an issue for low walls close to lot lines.
Ten cubic yards is one standard dump truck load, the equivalent of 270 cubic feet. This is one
foot deep over an area 10' x 27'. This amount of fill should have minimal impact on even the
smallest properties in the City.
Staff would recommend that without a permit required,retaining walls and planter boxes up to 2
feet in height be allowed no closer than 5 feet from property lines in all yards (front-side-rear),
subject to:
1) no more than 10 cubic yards of imported fill is allowed;
2) no impacts on drainage direction,rate or volume allowed.
3) must be at least 10 feet from edge of traveled roadway, even if that places it more than
5 feet inside the lot line)
15-3707
February 19,2015
Page 3
Additionally, staff would recommend that any wall or planter box to be located less than 5 feet
from a property line or less than 10 feet from the traveled roadway will require an administrative
permit to ensure review of the drainage and other potential neighbor impacts, and to determine
whether a CUP for grade changes within 5 feet of a lot line should be required as specified in
Section 78-967(b).
An additional concern of staff is that there is no established minimum setback from a lot line for
an engineered retaining wall of significant height that could impact a neighbor's views. An
example was on Graham Hill where a property owner in order to elevate his driveway to reach
an upper story on a sloped lot, created a lengthy,high retaining wall near his side lot line. An
option to consider is whether to establish that retaining walls if exceeding the height of an
allowed fence in a given required yard, must meet the required accessory structure setback.
Section 78-1405(8) limits the height of fences within required yards, i.e. to 6 feet in side and rear
yards, 42 inches in front or side street yards. Because a fence exceeding the maximum allowed
heights takes on the character of an accessory structure, it has been a requirement that fences
exceeding those height limits must meet required accessory structure setbacks, which in all
districts would be 10 feet from side lot line, 5 feet from rear lot lines. The same standard could
be applied to retaining walls if Council so chooses. Staff has added this to the draft ordinance
for consideration.
Allowed Amount of Fill or Earth Movement. Zoning Code Section 966 functionally prohibits
any amount of filling or earth movement without a CUP. Section 967 then provides an exception
to the CUP requirement for earth movement of less than 500 cubic yards which"does not
adversely impact existing drainage"; but this still requires a land alteration permit for such
activity. If up to 10 cubic yards is going to be allowed to be placed for low walls or planter beds
without a permit,then it follows that 10 cubic yards of fill should be allowed without a permit
anywhere in Orono (except in the 0-75' zone). This is the equivalent of one standard dump truck
load. In order to make this code change Section 967, we would have to publish and hold a public
hearing, as this change was not anticipated nor published as part of the original "retaining wall as
a non-encroachment"proposed amendment.
Right-of-Way Encroachments. With regards to encroachments within road right-of-ways,this
is to a great extent already addressed in Orono Code Chapter 18 - see Exhibit D. As defined in
Section 18.1,the public road is considered by definition the public property between lateral lot
lines, and when the street is not platted, includes 10' either side of the actual paved or traveled
roadway surface. Section 18-2 requires a permit for placement of any obstructions within a
street. Subsequent sections in Chapter 18 dealing with private improvements within the public
roadway require approval of the public services director and that the owner obtain a permit.
The use of an encroachment agreement or a `hold harmless agreement' has been commonly
employed as a method of allowing encroachments within right-of-ways by placing limitations on
the use and establishing that such improvements may have to be removed and are allowed at the
owner's risk. The use and improvement of right-of-ways in the RS Recreational Seasonal District
(Big Island) is addressed in much greater detail than in the general ordinances - see Ezhibit E.
15-3707
February 19,2015
Page 4
The intent of the current code revision in part was to merely reiterate that it is not acceptable to
have retaining walls directly abutting the road right-of-way without City approval. The draft text
is intended to reinforce the provisions of Chapter 18 that whether the right-of-way is platted or
not, the area within 10 feet of the paved traveled road is considered as right-of-way. Staff would
suggest that the proposed wording be revised to include a clarification that walls cannot be
within a platted or dedicated road right-of-way, and when the platted right-of-way is extremely
narrow or is neither platted nor dedicated, walls may not be placed with 10 feet of the traveled
roadway. Further, in situations where a narrow platted road corridor results in the traveled
roadway directly abutting the property line,the City needs to be able to make use of that 10-foot
adjacent area
Definition of Retaining Wall. If there is a need to define retaining wall, it would be to
distinguish a retaining wall from other types of wa11s. A planter box functions to retain the earth
inside it, so it functionally is a retaining wall and should be regulated as such. A wall that is
open on both sides likely functions as a fence, and should be regulated as a fence, which we have
been doing for decades; a wall or fence greater than 6' in height that is open on both sides need
to meet principal structure setbacks. If Council determines that a definition of"retaining wall" is
necessary, staff would suggest the following:
Retaining Wall means a wall or similar structure designed and constructed to hold back and
prevent lateral movement of earth or other landscaping materials.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends adoption of the revised draft ordinance attached as Exhibit A.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Staff requests that Council consider the revised draft ordinance and provide staff direction as to
any desired revisions. Subject to specific revisions, Council may wish to adopt the ordinance or
table for further discussion.
Draft#3-2/19/15
ORDINANCE NO._, THIRD SERIES
CITY OF ORONO
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
SECTION 78-1405 OF THE ORONO ZONING CODE
REGARDING RETAINING WALL AND LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES
AS A NONENCROACHMENT
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 Retainin�walls, subject to the followin�provisions:
a. Retainin�wa11s mav be located in all required vards when all of the following.
conditions are met:
1. The structure is located at least 10 (ten) feet from the edge of the traveled
roadwav;
2. The structure is not located within a drainage, utilitv, or other easement, except
upon approval in writing for an encroachment a�reement bv the citv; or similar
approval from another regulatorv and/or utilitv a enc�
3. The structure creates no impacts to draina�e direction, rate or volume for
adj acent properties.
b. Retaining walls which do not exceed 2 (two) feet in height above existin�grade,
which are located within the property and at least 5 (five) feet from anypropert�
line,and for which the amount of imported fill associated with the structure does not
exceed 10 (ten) cubic vards, do not require a buildin�or land alteration permit.
c. Retaining walls exceeding 2 (two) feet in height above existin��rade or for which
the amount of imported fill associated with the structure exceeds 10 (ten) cubic
vards or which are located less than 5 (five)feet from a propertv line, shall require a
land alteration permit and upon recommendation of the buildin� inspector ma�
require city council review or a conditional use permit per the provisions of Section
78-967.
d. Retaining walls exceeding the allowed height of a fence in a iven required ��d
shall be located so as to meet the required accessory structure setbacks established
for that yard."
SECTION 2. Section 78-1, Definitions of the City of Orono Zoning Ordinance is hereby
amended by adding the following definition of"retaining wa11":
"Retainin�wall means a wall or similar structure designed and constructed to hold back and
prevent lateral movement of earth or other landscaping materials."
1
SECTION 3. 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: Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor
Diane Tiegs, City Clerk
Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of , 201 S.
2
, MINUTES OF THE Council
ORONO CITY COUNCII.MEETING Exhiblt B
February 9,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m. ,�, :'
Ciliberto indicated it w . �
9�
Levang asked what will be the surface beyond the boulders next to the road. L ang asked whether �
asphalt will be laid there or ether it will be sod or dirt.
Gaffron displayed a picture of th roperty prior to the work being done.
Ciliberto stated it will either be asph or gravel but that at this point y have not come to a decision.
Ciliberto indicated they would be open o Council input if they have mething specific in mind for that
area.
Gaffron stated in his view it would be diffic t to grow grass i that azea and that it is an area that either
needs to be paved or gravel.
Walsh noted it will be hardcover either way.
Levang stated it is a much better plan and asked h ey came to that decision.
Ciliberto stated they knew if they kept it the y it was,t ey would need to back in and back out since it
is a really tight space. Ciliberto stated to h recollection t Council provided some comments in that
regard and that their neighbors also have me pull-up garag that are easier to access and park.
Ciliberto stated they are attempting to ake it easier to access d that they do not want people coming
down the back since it is more of a p vate driveway.
Walsh stated in his view it is a tter plan and would help to elimina cars parking on the road.
McMillan stated aesthetica it looks very nice.
Levang moved,Wals seconded,to adopt RESOLUTION NO. ,a Resol 'on Amending Resolution
No.6407,for the pr erty located at 3309 Crystal Bay Road. VOTE: Ay 5,Nays 0.
*5. #14-370 NNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY SERVICES—3880 SH LINE DRIVE—
CONDITION USE PERIVIIT AND COMIVVI�RCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW RESOLUTION
NO.
Levang oved,Cornick seconded,to adopt RESOLUTION NO. ,a Resolution Approv a Site
Plan d a Hardcover Variance,and a Conditional Use Permit for a Building Addition P uant to
Oro o Zoning Code Chapter 78,Division 4,and Sections 7&348 and 78-1700,for the prope
lo ted at 3880 Shoreline Drive. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
6. #14-3707 AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT: ADD LANGUAGE TO 78-1405 NON-
ENCROACHMENTS SECTION REGARDING RETAINING WALLS—SECOND REV�W—
ORDINANCE NO.
Gaffron noted at the January 26 meeting the 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. The Council requested Staff provide
additional information on the impacts of this ordinance amendment and ta.bled the matter.
Page 3 of 25
MINUTES OF THE .
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 9,2015 '��
7:00 o'clock p.m. 1
: ^
Gaffron noted other cities' codes regarding construction of retaining walls are widely varied and that a ��
number of them do not require any permit for those less than four feet in height. Others, similar to Orono, '�'�
require a land alteration permit for walls under four feet high. For retaining walls at or above four feet in �
height, Orono requires engineering and a building permit,which appeazs to be common among cities. In
addition, some cities require a permit for those under four feet in height if they support fill above the wall.
The sections of the code that establish a 5-foot setback evolved over time and have to do with land
alteration. Gaffron indicated those sections can be confusing and difficult to interpret. Gaffron stated
items or activities that are typical of any retaining wall installation are typically prohibited,but there are
some exceptions that are allowed for normal and customary grading in the area of an existing or newly
constructed building or any earth movement under 500 cubic yards which does not adversely impact the
existing drainage.
The Code also talks about those exceptions having the characteristic of an unusual land alteration and
requiring a conditional use permit. Gaffron stated there were a number of things that were defined over
the years as being unusual land alterations. One of them was grading or alteration that would propose any
changes in elevation within five feet of an adjacent residential lot line except for drainage swales and
ditches. The result of that is the City Code contains language stating that someone is not allowed to
conduct grading within five feet of the lot line.
Gaffron indicated Staff also looked at the definition of a retaining wall since one of the questions asked
by the Council was whether a retaining wall should be defined. Staffls report contains a number of
different dictionary definitions and they basically talk about a wall that is built to resist lateral pressure
other than wind pressure or to prevent earth or water from moving forward.
In addition,the Council questioned whether a raised planter bed would be considered a retaining wall.
GafFron indicated Sketch A shows a retaining wall that is on the upside of the lot line with a 5-foot
setback. Gaffron stated when the retaining wall is above the property next door, it needs to be maintained
at some point in the future and the ability to maintain it without going on the adjoining property may not
be possible without a 5-foot setback. Retaining walls also need to be designed and located so as to not
impede the drainage along the property lines and across adjoining properties,which is another reason for
a 5-foot setback. From a safety perspective,retaining walls need to be located so as to not create unsafe
conditions for neighboring properties.
Sketch B depicts a retaining wall located below the property boundary and is probably not as critical as
the situation depicted in Sketch A in terms of the safety aspect. Gaffron stated with a 5-foot setback, it is
unlikely that someone will be walking in that area. Gaffron stated visually retaining walls can have the
same impact as an accessory structure by limiting sightlines. Gaffron noted the City currently allows a
4-foot retaining wall without engineer review,but a retaining wall that is higher than that needs to be
reviewed by an engineer.
Gaffron stated the Council should also discuss the 10-foot retaining wall setback from a traveled
right-of-way. The existing Code talks about a 10-foot setback from the traveled roadway and states as
follows: "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. The
intent of that language 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.
Page 4 of 25
• MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 9,2015 ^
7:00 o'clock p.m. �
��,
Gaffron indicated Sketch C depicts a raised planter bed that is less than five feet. Gaffron stated the O
im acts would depend on the drainage and the individual site. Gaffron stated while everyone likely �
P
accepts the fact that they can have a 1 or 2-foot high retaining wall next to the property line,technically ��
the Code as drafted would not allow that.
Staff requests the Council discuss the issues and provide Staff direction as to any desired revisions to the
draft ordinance.
Printup asked how retaining walls compare with fences in terms of setback from a property line.
Gaffron indicated fences can be right up to the lot line but not over it,which raises some issues with
maintenance. In addition,fences can be anywhere between three to six feet high. Gaffron stated it is
likely the neighbor would let someone on their property to maintain a fence since they also have to look at
it. Gaffron stated the issue with an accessory structure being five or ten feet from the property line is the
height of the structure and the visual impacts that can have. Gaffron stated a fence can also be built so it
does not affect drainage;whereas, a retaining wall will likely impact drainage
McMillan asked what process would need to be followed if a retaining wall needs to be within five feet of
the property line. McMillan asked whether that would require a variance under the proposed ordinance.
Gaffron indicated it would require a variance and potentially a conditional use permit depending on the
amount of land being moved and whether it is near the shoreline.
McMillan asked if a retaining wall would be considered an encroachment if it needs to be constructed
within the right-of-way.
Gaffron stated there would likely be an encroachment agreement required, but that it could require a
variance or a conditional use permit depending on where it is located. Gaffron indicated an encroachxnent
agreement is something that Staff can do administratively, but if it requires fill, Staff would likely bring it
before the City Council as either a variance or a conditional use permit request.
Walsh asked if there is already something in the Code about not allowing runoff into the neighbor's
property.
Gaffron stated to the extent the person can avoid doing that,that would be desired,but that the Code says
whatever drains off a property should not impact the neighbors.
Walsh stated to his understanding under the ordinance even one wheelbarrow full of dirt will require
permission from the City.
Gaffron stated technically that is true today. Gaffron noted the City Council recently approved an
increase in the amount of fill allowed within the 0-75 foot zone from 10 cubic yards,which is essentially
one dump truck load,to 50 cubic yards,which is approximately five dump truck loads to allow for top
dressing or maintenance of that area. Gaffron stated technically the Code does talk about any grading or
any fill from 0 cubic yards on up requiring an administrative permit. Gaffron stated depending on the
amount, it could require a conditional use permit. Gaffron stated Staff has to use some reasonableness in
determining whether an administrative permit or a conditional use permit is required since there are things
that people do to merely maintain their yard but that technically the City does require a permit.
Page 5 of 25
MINUTES OF THE •
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 9,2015 �^>
7:00 o'clock p.m. �
O
Walsh stated in his view there should be reasonable limits set that would cover 90 percent of the people �
and that he does not want to penalize everyone and be overreaching. �.�'0
McMillan stated the minor projects should not require a permit but that as the projects become bigger and �
more impactful,then more limits should be set. McMillan stated the question is what those thresholds
should be,and that in her view it is not possible to have one size fit all.
Walsh noted that currently someone cannot dramatically alter the land. Walsh asked if the threshold
should be 0 to 10 cubic yards where someone would be allowed to do it,but then if there is a problem,
Staff will need to figure out how to handle it. Walsh stated if someone stands on someone else's
property,that person is technically trespassing, and that when he installs an electrical substation,he is
required to have a minimal amount of clearance to work with that.
Walsh stated he could see the situation where the City allows up to a foot of height to do a wall or a
planter bed,but that there need to be at least two or three feet from the property line to allow someone to
maintain that without going into someone else's yard. Walsh stated the City should set those types of
standards. Walsh stated on the narrow lots,if a person is required to leave five feet untouched on each
side,the lot becomes very narrow and that the person should have the right to use their property. Walsh
stated he would like to see it narrowed down somehow to address the 80 to 90 percent of the population
that follows the rules in order to give some leeway for the minor projects.
McMillan stated the City wants to have reasonable rules and only require permits on the more impactful
items. McMillan stated if the Council is comfortable in providing some thresholds,that would give Staff
some idea on what would be allowed. McMillan stated currently 4-foot retaining walls are the threshold
for engineering.
Edwards stated that primarily relates to safety.
McMillan asked if that applies to the tiered walls.
Edwards stated currently the City considers multiple walls to be a single wall if the distance between the
two walls is not greater than twice the height of the upper wall. Edwards stated if the walls are really
close together and staggered,they would still be considered one wall as far as the engineer requirement is
concerned. Staff is primarily concerned about the wall failing and slumping and causing damage.
Walsh stated if someone has a 3-foot high deck,they are required to have railings,which relates to safety.
Walsh stated once you start getting to two to three feet in height,you could impact someone's sightlines
but that he does not want to prohibit someone from constructing a 1-foot high retaining wall or planter
box. Walsh stated his recommendations would be at least two feet from the properly line and 12 inches
high without the need for a permit. In addition,the person could go up to 20 cubic yards of dirt as long as
it is not altering the slope and changing the runoff.
Printup stated he likes the idea of a starting point in order to keep the process moving forward. Printup
asked how long this process will take. Printup stated he has a concern given the people who might want
to have some work done due to the high water issues experienced last year.
Page 6 of 25
� MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 9,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m. �:.�
O
Gaffron stated it is his anticipation that Staff will have something ready in a couple of weeks for the �
Council to look at. Gaffron stated unless the Council needs to see the draft three or four times, it should
be done before spring. `���t
Levang asked if Staff would like some guidance on the retaining wall definitions and which ones the
Council would prefer.
Gaffron stated the definitions are different but yet basically the same. Gaffron stated most of the
definitions talk about supporting earth and not supporting another material.
Mattick stated the situation gets complicated in part if a retaining wall is there for simply decorative
purposes. Mattick stated from a definition standpoint,a planter box would seem to be the same as a
retaining wall or other landscape feature. Mattick stated regardless of what it is, if it is 12 inches or
higher from an existing grade,the City should set a threshold for regulating it.
Walsh stated in his view that approach makes sense if the City chooses to define it.
Mattick stated a planter box that is four feet tall might be just as offensive as a 4-foot tall retaining wall
and that he would approach it from a performance standard and not a definition standpoint.
McMillan stated she would be in favor of a 2-foot high retaining wall and 20 cubic yards of fill not
requiring a permit. McMillan stated anything within the right-of-way would need to be approved by Staff
regardless of height due to the fact that snow needs to be plowed and the impact it could have on
sightlines.
Gaffron stated from a side lot line or a rear lot line,the Code has been at five feet. Gaffron stated it
should be set at the point where the person can still walk around and maintain it.
Walsh stated in his view two to three feet would allow some room. Walsh stated as it relates to the 10-
foot issue,that could take up a lot of room on a narrow lot,and that people should know that if something
has to be removed within the right-of-way, it has to be removed. Walsh stated he is not sure the City has
to regulate the footage within the right-of-way any more than they currently do with the 5-foot.
Gaffron stated the original language does not talk about front yards. Currently the City allows very few
encroachments in someone's front yard and that people are allowed to do more in their side or rear yards.
The current Code does not allow anything in the front yard that encroaches. Gaffron stated it is likely
there will be a situation where someone would like to construct a retaining wall in their front yard and
that the City Council should discuss that. Gaffron stated if it is in the right-of-way, an encroachment
agreement will be required.
Walsh stated if the City starts regulating all kinds of planter boxes and stepping stones,that does not seem
that reasonable.
McMillan noted oftentimes the road is not exactly in the middle and that it can vary,which is another
factor. McMillan stated the City needs room for snow plowing and storage and that she would like the
Council to look at the right-of-way issue a little further. McMillan stated she is not sure at this point
whether ten feet is too much.
Page 7 of 25
1VIIl�TUTES OF THE �
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING ��
February 9,2015 �;; %'
7:00 o'clock p.m. `� o
��,,'
Walsh stated if someone is permitted to plant a bush within the right-of-way, it can get into the issue of �"���''
why I can do this but not this. Walsh noted he has hedges that are five feet high right on the street,which �
he is allowed to do.
McMillan stated if something is in the right-of-way, a utility company could remove it if necessary and
that a retaining wall is more of a permanent structure than a bush or hedge or tree. McMillan stated
retaining walls also tend to be more costly than a shrub or a tree.
Walsh stated the homeowner is taking that risk and that they should be aware of that risk.
McMillan stated the City needs to do whatever is necessary to plow the snow.
Walsh suggested the City Council look closer into what type of setback is necessary in the right-of-way.
McMillan stated the question is what the thresholds should be that trigger an encroachment agreement.
McMillan noted people will use boulders as a decorative feature and they are not designed for retaining
the dirt.
Walsh stated if the standard is set too low and it causes problems,the City can request it be removed or
relocated. Walsh stated in his view the City needs to set up a standard to start with.
McMillan stated in her view there are a few separate issues to deal with and they include the right-of-way,
properiy lines,possibly reducing the setback to two to three feet, and a limited height for a planter wall or
retaining wall. McMillan indicated she is inclined to allow a structure under two feet in height to be
located two to three feet from the property line.
Printup stated as long as it does not impact the runoff to the neighbor's property.
Walsh noted that is already covered in an existing ordinance.
McMillan stated in her view it does not hurt to explain that in the new ordinance as well.
Gaffron noted Staff does not know what people are doing if they are not required to obtain a permit for
something, such as a fence. Gaffron asked whether someone should obtain a permit for something that
meets these standards. Gaffron indicated he is okay with the idea that a person can do certain things
without a permit, but that there should be a threshold set for when an administrative permit is required or
a variance.
Walsh stated it could also impact hardcover.
Gaffron stated that is correct. Gaffron stated the amount of fill or grading should also be considered.
Mattick stated the City wants to be accommodating but that something as simple as a retaining wall could
take someone over on hardcover. Mattick stated if there is no City review,the property owner may not
realize that.
Walsh asked if retaining walls still count towards hardcover.
Page 8 of 25
� MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
February 9,2015 `
;
7:00 o'clock p.m. `� �
��
Curtis stated they need to be beyond the 75-foot setback. �
���
Walsh noted anything within the 0-75 foot zone would need to come before the City Council,which �
would cover the issue with the hardcover.
Walsh stated the Planning Commission approved the draft ordinance 6-1 and that he was in attendance at
that meeting. Walsh stated in his view it is important to see someone discuss applications like this and
the passion that they have when they are talking about it. Walsh stated videotaping the Planning
Commission meetings would allow that.
Gaffron stated Staff will draft something for the Council to review in a couple of weeks based on
tonight's discussion.
Levang moved,Cornick seconded,to table Application No. 143707,Amend Zoning Ordinance
Tezt: Add Language to 78-1405 Non-Encroachment Section Regarding Retaining Walls. VOTE:
Ayes 5,Nays 0.
7. #15-3714 CREATE SECTION 14-142 WELLHEAD PROTECTION ORDINANCE—
ORDINANCE NO.
Edwards stated the purpose of this ordinance is to create Section 14-142 to provide for wellhead
protection by prohibiting new private wells where public water supply is available. In October of 2013,
the City adopted its Wellhead Protection Plan. The WHPP is a requirement of the Minnesota Department
of Health under Minnesota State Statutes and 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.
Edwards stated part of the plan was a series of improvements the City agreed to do to protect its wells.
One of those requirements was to establish an ordinance to protect the wells by prohibiting new private
wells within protection zones,which corresponds with the City's water distribution system. If a person
has a fully functioning well,they 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. If 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 Deparhnent of Health. At the time
connection to the public water supply is completed,all existing private wells no longer in use shall be
capped by a licensed well contractor.
Printup asked if that means that if a private well fails,the property owner cannot drill another one or
whether they are allowed to drill on an alternate site.
Edwards concurred that there are numerous alternate sites for drilling another well on any particular
property.
Walsh asked if this is a mandate or a suggestion they would like the City to follow.
Edwards stated it is a suggestion.
Page 9 of 25
Council
Exhibit C �
Existing Code- Drainage Impacts to Adjacent Properties - See(e).
Sec. 58-2. -Maintenance of drainage systems; interference with drainage; permit for
drainage systems.
(a) Definitions. The following words,terms and phrases, when used in this section, shall
have the meanings ascribed to them in this subsection, except where the context clearly
indicates a different meaning:
Private drainage system means any storm sewer, ditch, tile line, or other facility,together
with all appurtenances, constructed by a private person or existing on private property, for
the purpose of collecting or conveying natural precipitation.
Public drainage system means any storm sewer, ditch, tile line, or other facility,together
with all appurtenances, constructed by the city from public funds,whether or not the cost
was specially assessed, or maintained by the city from public funds, for the purpose of
collecting or conveying natural precipitation.
(b) Maintenance. It is the responsibility of the owner of any private drainage system, or the
owner of the land upon which it is constructed,to maintain such system in good and
workable condition and not to alter its capacity, inlet location or discharge location
without a permit from the city.
(c) Obstructions. It is a misdemeanor for any person to obstruct or place any obstruction in or
upon any public or private drainage system.
(d) Contract required. It is a misdemeanor for any person to construct,reconstruct, or in any
way alter or extend any public or private drainage system unless such person is within the
scope of a contract with the city or has a written permit from the city.
(e) Increase of volume, velocity. It is a misdemeanor for any person to increase the
volume or velocity of surface water runoff leaving his property, or to channel any
surface water runoff so that it is redirected outside of the normal, natural
watercourse as such surface water is discharged from private property on to public
streets, public property, or on to neighboring private property,without a permit
from the city.
(Code 1984, �9.04)
Council
� Exhibit D
EXCERPTS FROM Chapter 18-STREETS, SIDEWALKS AND OTHER PUBLIC PLACES
Sec.18-1.-Definitions.
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.
Sec.18-2.-Obstructions.
It is a misdemeanor for any person to place,deposit,display or offer for sale any fence,goods or other
obstructions upon,over,across or under any street or private road without first having obtained a written permit
from the city,and then only in compliance in all respects with the terms and conditions of such permit,and taking
precautionary measures for the protection of the public.An electrical cord or device of any kind is included,but
not by way of limitation,within the definition of an obstruction.
ARTICLE III.-CONSTRUCTION,REPAIR AND IMPROVEMENTS OF PUBLIC ROADWAY SURFACING,SIDEWALKS,
CURB AND GUTTER,DRIVEWAY APRONS OR CURB CUTS
DIVISION 1.-GENERALLY
Sec.18-76.-Methods of procedure.
Abutting or affected property owners may contract for,construct or reconstruct roadway surfacing,sidewalk
or curb and gutter,driveway,driveway turnaround,driveway approaches or curb cuts in accordance with this
article.
Sec.18-77.-Inspedion.
The city shall inspect such improvements as deemed necessary or advisable.Any work not done according to
the applicable specifications and standards shall be removed and corrected at the expense of the permit holder.
Any work done under this article may be stopped by the city if found to be unsatisfactory or not in accordance with
the specifications and standards,but this shall not place a continuing burden upon the city to inspect or supervise
such work.
Sec.18-78.-Specifications and standards.
All construction and reconstruction of roadway surfacing,sidewalk,driveway,driveway turnaround,curb and
gutter improvements,including curb cuts and driveway approaches,shall be strictly in accordance with
specifications and standards on file in the office of the city,and open to inspection and copying there.Such
specifications and standards may be amended by the city but shall be uniformly enforced.
Sec.18-79.-Authority of public services director.
All work done under a permit issued in compliance with this article shall be under the direction and
supervision of the public services director,who is authorized to make the necessary rules, regulations and
specifications with respect to materials for and method of construction of a sidewalk,curb and gutter,driveway,
driveway approach,driveway turnaround,curb cut,roadway surfacing or private improvement in any road or
other public property in the city that are necessary to preserve public safety and private and public property.A
copy of such rules and regulations shall be kept on file with the city clerk.
Sec.18-80.-Submission of plans to public services director.
All plans submitted to the building inspector for his approval which include or involve a sidewalk,curb and
gutter,driveway,driveway turnaround,driveway approach,curb cuts,roadway surfacing or private improvement
in any road or public property in the city shall be referred by the building inspector to the public services director
for his approval before a building permit shall be issued.
Sec.18-81.-Construdion requirements generally.
In addition to the rules,regulations and specifications as outlined in this article by the public services director
with respect to the improvements listed in this article,the following requirements shall be complied with when
work is done under the provisions of this article:
(1) All driveway approaches shall intersect the road pavement at an angle to be approved by the public
services director based upon the physical characteristics of the public road,driveway approach and the
parcel of land being accessed.Such angle shall be as close as is reasonably practical, in the judgment of
the public services director,to a right angle to the pavement of the public road.
(2) No curb cuts shall be made in such a way that the curb return extends beyond any property line as
projected,except when consented to,in writing,by the adjoining property owner involved.This consent,
if necessary,shall be submitted to the public services director prior to the issuance of a permit.
(3) The top of the paving of the driveway approach slab at the curbline shall be 15/8 inches above the
flowline of the gutter,and shall not extend into the gutter beyond the face of the curb or beyond the
gutter line,and shall not be constructed in a manner that will in any way interfere with the use of the
road for the purpose of travel or maintenance.The constructed road shall not be excavated in the process
of constructing the driveway unless previous approval,in writing,has been granted by the public services
director.
(4) Driveway culverts shall be provided and installed by the owner as required by the public services director.
(5) Driveways shall not be constructed over curb stops,catchbasins or other structures, if at all possible. If
there is no other feasible location for the driveway,it shall be the responsibility of the applicant to set the
curb stop,catchbasin cover,or any other structures flush with the final driveway surface.
(6) The owner and contractor shall protect the public from injury or damage during the construction of the
sidewalk,curb and gutter,driveway,driveway approach,driveway turnaround,curb cuts,roadway
surfacing or private improvement in any street or public property in the city;and any permit issued
pursuant to this article shall contain the agreement of the applicant that the city shall not be liable for
damage which may arise from the result of work,and that the applicant will hold the city harmless for any
liability incurred by the city as a result of such activity.
(7) Trees or shrubs shall not be placed adjacent to a driveway so as to constitute a sight distance problem.
(8) If a parcel of land has frontage on both a cul-de-sac portion and a lead-in portion of the public road,the
driveway shall be constructed off the lead-in portion of the road and not the cul-de-sac.
DIVISION 2.-PERMIT
Sec.18-106.-Required.
It is a misdemeanor to construct or reconstruct a sidewalk,curb and gutter,driveway,driveway approach,
driveway turnaround,curb cut, roadway surfacing or any other private improvement in any road or other property
in the city without a permit in writing from the city.
Sec.18-107.-Application.
Application for a permit required in this division shall be made on forms approved and provided by the city
and shall sufficiently describe the contemplated improvements,the contemplated date of beginning of work,and
the length of time required to complete the improvement,provided that no permit shall be required for any such
improvement ordered installed by the council.Such application shall also contain information showing the type of
construction,the width and the location of an improvement on the parcel of land,and the lot and block number or
the parcel number and the street and house number and a profile of the proposed improvement,if necessary,and
other such information as may be required by the public services director.The application shall be filed by the
property owners desiring to construct such a driveway approach,driveway turnaround,sidewalk,curb and gutter,
driveway,curb cut, roadway surfacing or private improvements in any road or any property in the city,or by his
duly authorized agent.All such applications shall contain an agreement by the applicant to be bound by this article.
Sec.18-108.-Responsibility for damages.
A permit from the city under this division shall not relieve the holder from damages to the person or
property of another caused by such work.
Sec.18-109.-Issuance.
A permit required in this division shall be issued by the public services director,if he has determined that the
applicant has complied with the terms of this article,the permit fee has been paid and the public services director
has approved the driveway,driveway approach,driveway turnaround,sidewalk,curb and gutter,curb cuts,
roadway surfacing or private improvement in any road or public property in the city as requested or with
stipulated changes.The public services director shall have the authority to refuse to issue a permit when,in the
judgment of the public services director,the requested construction would impose an unreasonable hazard to the
public.There is no administrative appeal from the decision of the director.
Sec.18-110.-Permit fees.
The fees for permits for the construction of improvements as outlined in this division shall be as set forth by
resolution.
Sec.18-111.-Revocation.
(a) A permit issued under the provisions of this division may be revoked by the public services director when
he determines that the construction or activity authorized by the permit is not being performed according
to the terms of the permit or this division.
(b) In addition to the provisions of subsection(a)of this section,a permit may be revoked by the city council;
and the city shall have the right to revise,relocate or close any sidewalk,curb and gutter,driveway,
driveway approach,driveway turnaround,curb cut or private improvement in any road or other property
in the city as the result of the reconstruction of any road,a change in land use,or a major change in the
traffic pattern of an existing land use.
(c) Notice of such revocation,with a description of the facts supporting such revocation,shall be mailed or
delivered to the person named in the permit at the address listed in the permit.
(d) All work shall cease upon receipt of the notice of revocation.
(e) Any person whose permit is revoked may appeal that revocation to the city council by filing notice of such
appeal with the city clerk within ten days of the date the revocation was mailed or delivered.
(Code 1984,44 6.05(5), (6J,6.06(5J, (6))
. Council
Exhibit E
Excerpt from Chapter 78 re: Private Improvements in Right-of-Ways- RS District (Big Island)
Sec. 78-567. -Permit for private improvements within public rights-of-way.
It is unlawful for any person to alter, improve or use for private purposes in any RS district any
platted public right-of-way,any platted public park,or any other property owned by the city without
first obtaining a permit from the council, as follows:
(1) In/and property access. Persons desiring access to property located inland and not abutting the
shoreline may apply for a permit to privately use and/or improve platted public right-of-way for
such purpose.The permit applicant shall demonstrate and the council shall find that there is no
reasonable alternative access available,and that the proposed improvements and/or type of
use would not unreasonably affect other properties abutting the right-of-way.The council may
approve, deny or place restrictions on any such permit based upon public health, safety and
welfare considerations, including without limitation the configuration of adjoining record lots,
the location, width,topography, drainage and vegetation on the right-of-way and the number of
existing or future property owners who may require access at the same location.Any land
alterations or improvements approved shall be the minimum amount necessary to provide
reasonable inland access.
� (2) Land a/terations. Grading or physical alteration of any platted public right-of-way for any
purpose, including inland property access, is prohibited except when such work has been
specifically authorized as part of a permit issued by the council.The permit applicant shall
provide a detailed land survey of the right-of-way and appropriate engineering drawings
sufficient to identify the full extent of all proposed work. Permit approval shall be subject to
obtaining a grading permit from city staff;and land alterations involving filling and grading shall
be performed with only clean fill,and all other permits as may be required by other agencies
having jurisdiction. Public rights-of-way so improved shall be maintained by the licensee.
(3) Dockage on right-of-way. Installing, maintaining, keeping or using a private dock on any platted
public right-of-way for any purpose, including inland property access, is prohibited except when
such dock has been speci�cally authorized as part of a permit issued by the council. Not more
than one seasonal dock will be approved for access to any one property. In review and approval
or denial of such permit,the council shall consider the width and topography of the right-of-
way,the number of property owners requesting dockage at that location,the plan of the
proposed dock,and conformance with city and Lake Minnetonka Conservation District dock
regulations.The council may establish reasonable standards or requirements in approving any
such dock permit.
(4) Encroachmenrs prohibited. No private property, buildings, structures,fences, boats,vehicles,
dock parts,junk or debris shall be built,stored, parked or kept at any time within any platted
public right-of-way, within any platted public park,or on any other property owned by the city
except as specifically authorized by a permit issued under this section.
(5) Permit exceptions. No permit shall be required for any person to walk on or over any platted
public right-of-way or any platted public park when such use is made without altering the
natural state of the land. No permit shall be required for any person whose property abuts a
platted public right-of-way or a platted public park to control weeds or brush,seed, sod, mow or
otherwise maintain the right-of-way or park in a neat and presentable manner. Persons whose
record lot established by s�ction 78-568 consists of tax parcels divided by platted,unopened
public right-of-way may incorporate and use such right-of-way as part of their yard without a
permit, provided no permanent structures are erected or maintained within the right-of-way.
(6) Public use limited. Any permit issued under this section shall be deemed to open the platted
public right-of-way only to the extent necessary as established in the permit, and for the limited
use of the permittee and his invitees.
(7) Permit limitations. A permit issued under this section shall not grant or vest any property rights
to use of the public right-of-way or other public property, or in any improvements. Permits
issued under this section shall be valid for one year,shall be subject to change,alteration or
revocation for cause by the council at any time,and shall be automatically renewable on the
anniversary of the date of issuance except upon written notice from the city to the permittee at
least 30 days prior to the anniversary date.
(8) Ho/d harmless. As a condition of issuance of any permit,the applicant shall in writing release,
indemnify and hold harmless the city from any and all claims or causes of action arising out of
the use or alteration of the platted right-of-way by applicant or his invitees.
(9) Permit hearing and notice. The planning commission or the council shall hold a public hearing or
hearings on each application for a permit. Notice of the public hearing shall be given not less
than ten days nor more than 30 days prior to the date of the hearing by publication in the legal
newspaper for the city. Such notice shall contain the description of the land and the proposed
use.At least ten days before the hearing,the city clerk shall mail an identical notice to the
applicant and to each of the property owners within 350 feet of the outside boundaries of the
land in question. Failure of the property owners to receive notice shall not invalidate the
proceedings.At the public hearing,the planning commission or the council shall review the
application and the statements and drawings submitted with the application and shall receive
pertinent evidence concerning the proposed use and the proposed conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained.
(Code 1984, § 10.31(5))
� Council
Exhibit F
Excerpts from 2oning Code re: Land Alteration
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 atterations 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, 12-8-1997J
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 this 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.
(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) The 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(21J; Ord. No. 163 2nd series, §2, 12-8-1997;Ord. No. 1712nd series, §1, 4-4-1998J
Sec.78-968. -Permit. An application for a conditional use permit shall be accompanied by a drawing
made by a registered surveyor or other competent person showing the location of the proposed
excavation or storage and shall state the amount of material which is to be removed,excavated or
stored,filled or graded, and such other information as the council may require.Applications shall be
filed with the city administrator and shall be accompanied by a deposit to be determined by the city,
which will be used to offset the cost of processing the application.Any unused portion will be refunded
to the applicant.
(Code 1984, §so.o3(Zo��
. Council
Exhibit G
Date Application Received: NA
Date Application Considered as Complete: NA
60-Day Review Period Expires: NA
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date: February 5, 2015
Item No. �p
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 Euhibits:
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 wa11s 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 pernut 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 this 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.
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)The 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. 171 2nd 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 Dictionary: 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 permit
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
Staff requests that Council discuss the issues noted and provide staff direction as to any desired
revisions to the draft ordinance.
I
� � I
�C � � �
OL 2
U � �
W
2 ��►
� � ?
� � �
Z + �
�
a k� �
� � � �
� � �
�� 4
- (�-�- � �� 2 r ,
a. �
`11 oC 4 4"1 Y
►�-� � cL � —. N
�� � � ,
� � � � �
' � 3 N (1 �� �
� � � � � � � � .
(��
U � `� � m z�.�
�� � _
� � zX
� �
� '� `��t
a 3 �
�__�__�. � -�
� � � 3 �
2 � �
� � � �
� � ., �.. �- Z
� Q s �
.
a
�
� � � �
d V
. �
Council
� MINUTES OF THE Exhibit B
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,January 26,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m. '
�ti:
The Spring Hill Conference Center went away approximately 15 years ago and became a golf course. �,�
Gaffron indi ated there has never been any property before that and since that has been zoned RR-1B-1 �
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 z ed M-6, this is an outdated piece of the City Code. taff recommends those
two districts be removed fr the City Code.
Levang 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 Eliminatin he RR-1B-1 and M-6 ZONING
DISTRICTS. VOTE: Ayes 3,Nays 0.
4. #15-3706 AMEND SECTION 78-1211 GARDING 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 actly 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 standp ' 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 50-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 e 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,Third Series,an Ordin nce
Ame ding the Orono Zoning City Code by Amending the Definition 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)
Gaffron stated this is a change to the list of allowed non-encroachments on yard requirements in the City
Code. The clarification states that retaining walls 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. _�re .
�
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 wa11 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 pernut
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 call and ask
about planting a garden or planting trees or moving some dirt azound 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 retaining 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
• 1VIINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,Jannary 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 e�cisting retaining walls aze not affected by this unless the wall 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 questioni.ng the raised garden beds in a small azea within five feet of the properiy line.
Gaffron stated every situation will be different,but that there are possible ramifications to neighboring
properties if a wa11 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.
Gaf&on 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 appmval.
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 Attomey and Staff time is involved in drafting the
encroachment agreement.
Page 4 of 13
MIlVUTES OF THE .
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,January 26,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
,
.
O
City Attorney Mattick stated the more items that are included in the utility easements;the more likely it �I��
could impact the easement,which is the reason for the review. Mattick stated if there is an encroachment `I�°
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.
Comick 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 7&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(�TO ADD NAVARRE AREA TO PUD MIXED
USE PROVISIONS—ORDINANCE NO. 132
Gaffron stated in April of 1989,the City adopted an ordi.nance 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&on noted there is the potential for redevelopment in the Navarre azea 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 Approval• 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 Exhibits:
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 retaining wa11s. 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 1. 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
nroperty line, never fewer than ten feet from the ed�e of the traveled roadwav, or placed
within a drainage, utility, or other easement, except upon approval in writin fg or an
encroachment a�reement bv the citv; or similar approval from another re u�latorv and/or
utility a�enc�
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�l
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
II 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
" PC � it A
ORDINANCE NO._, THIRD SERIES ��2'
CITY OF ORONO
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE CLARIFYING RETAI1vING
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 anv height shall be located closer than 5 feet from any side or rear
propertv 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 ap�roval in writin for an
encroachment a�reement b�ty; or similar approval from another regulatory and/or
utility ag.enc�
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 Loflus, City Administrator Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor
Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of , 201 S.
1
U S HWY NO 12 ��1V'O
,� >
ti ;
F �
�7'�f S H���
Legend
Railroad
� City Limits
Woodhaven Dr ❑ Parcels(11-1-2014)
J.�e.rl�r GLENDALE'DR Lakes&Ponds
S�rve{ 2
�
ELM LA 3
O
�
�
r
� - •
O =
y � �
�
_
� � �
� ~ _
WATERTOWN:RD c� m O
� ao z
�j N n
O W r
Thoroughbred La Z o m
� o �„ -+
z
p Colin Dr �
� Devin La
0 02-23-2015
J Council Agenda
3
Disdaimer.
This drawmg a nerther a legally recorded map nor a
survey and�s not intended to be used as one This
drawmg is a compdadon of records,mformation,and data
0 529 Feet bcated m vanous ary,county,and state offices,and other
- wurces affectmg the area shown,and is to be used for
reference purpous only The Ciry of Orono is not
m Bolton&Menk,Inc-Web GIS 2/20/2015 11:02 AM ,P������nia�,.a����a����.a��P�nP.P�����ra��Pd
� „
� . COUNCIL MEETING
FE8 2 3 2015
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION rI
Date: 19'F�br�ua�jr-Z013
Item No. �
Department Approval: / Administrator Approval: Agenda Section•
Name: Melanie Curtis i� �
Title: Pianner
Item Description: Casey&Jill Hoehn—2 GI le Cove ln—Encroachment Agreement
List of Exhibits:
Exhibit A. Draft Encroachment Agreement
Exhibit B. Restoration Plan (MCWD—approved)
Exhibit C. Council Memo& Exhibits 01/07/15
Exhibit D. Council Minutes 01/12/15
Summary:
At the January meeting Casey and Jill Hoehn (the property owners) requested the Council consider approval of
an encroachment agreement to permit an as-constructed retaining wall and fire pit area to remain within the
wetland buffer and the drainage& utility easement on their property. For a background on the request please
see the previous Staff memo to Council with attachments enclosed as Exhibit C. In January, the Council was
amenable to entering into an encroachment agreement with the Hoehns to allow the improvements to
remain. However the Council requested confirmation that the property owners' proposed restorations within
the buffer area were acceptable to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). The MCWD has
approved the property owners' proposal (Exhibit B). The City attorney has drafted an encroachment
agreement for consideration; the Hoehns are agreeable to the terms of the encroachment agreement.
Staff Recommendation
Staff is agreeable to allowing all or some of the retaining wall within the easement area to remain subject to
the requirement that the property owners enter into an encroachment agreement with the City. The
encroachment agreement would allow the City to require the property owner to remove the encroachments if
the encroachments become an issue in the future. If the wall remains, the property owners should comply
with the requirements of the MCWD regarding establishment of native buffer vegetation according to the
agreed-upon plan attached as Exhibit B.
Staff recommends the property owners apply for zoning and building permits, and pay permit fees for the
improvements. The Council waived the after-the-fact fees at the January meeting.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Council should authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign the encroachment agreement to allow the
improvements to remain within the easement area.
� e�t�c�cT �
(reserved or recording informcuzt�rt�
ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT made this day of ,2015, by and between the
CITY OF ORONO,a Minnesota munici�l corporation("City"), and CASEY HOEHN and JILL
HOEHN,husband and wife, ("Hoehns"dr"Owners").
1. BACKGPOUND. Hoehns are the fe�nwriers of certain real property located in the
City of Orono, County of Hennepin,State of Minnesota, legally described as follows:
Lot 6,Bloc�r 1, t�enalale�'ove,H�nepin County,Minnesota
(Parcel�1 No. 34-118-23-33-0065)
having a stre�t�ddress of 2325 Glendale Cove Lane, Orono,Minnesota ("Subject Property"). The
City owns easemen�for drainage a�d utility purposes, and for flowage and conservation easements
over,under and across a Wetland and Wetland Buffer area(pursuant to the Grant of Permanent
Flowage and Conservation Easement and Restrictive Covenant for Wetland and Wetland Buffer
dated August 14,2006 and recorded August 16,2006 as Hennepin County Document No. 8846352)
(collectively the"City's easement areas")over portions of the Subject Property. Hoehns have
constructed a boulder retaining wall on the Subject Property which encroaches on the City's
easement areas as depicted on the attached sketch.
1
igoi9��i
2. ENCROACHMENT AUTHORIZATION. The City hereby approves the
encroachment of the existing boulder retaining wa11 upon the City's easement areas on the Subject
Property, conditioned upon compliance with the terms of the Owners' written agreement with the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regarding planting of additional shrubs and/or natural grass in
the 750 square foot area impacted by the retaining wall.
3. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF RETAINING WALL. The Owners shall
be solely responsible for all costs relating to the mainten�nce and repair of the boulder retaining
wall. The City sha11 have no responsibility to maintain the retaining wall l�ocated within the City's
easement areas.
4. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNTTY. Iu consideration of being allowed to
encroach in the City's easement areas,Haehns, fc�r themselves,�h,eir heirs, successors and assigns,
hereby agree to indemnify�nci hold the City haimless from any damage caused to the Subject
Property, including the retaining w�ll in the City'e tr�sement areas,caused in whole or in part by the
encroachment into the City's easerr�ent area.
5. TERMt1�1ATION flF AGREEI�+IENT. The City may,at its sole discretion,
terminate this Agreement at any time by g�ving the then owner of the Subject Property thirty(30)
days advance written notice, exce�t that no notice period will be required in the case of an
emergency condition as deternun�i solely by the City and the Agreement may then be
terminated immediately. The property owner shall remove the retaining wall to the effective date
of the termination of this Agreement. If the owner fails to do so,the City may remove the retaining
wall and chazge the cost of removal back to the owner for reimbursement.
2
isoi9��i
6. RECORDING. T1us Agreement shall run with the land and shall be recorded
against the title to the Subject Property.
PROPERTY OWNERS:
Casey Hoehn
Jill Hoehn
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged b�fore me this day of
,2015 by Casey Hoehn anci J�l Hoehn ,h�sband and wife.
Notary Public
3
isoi9��i
CITY OF ORONO
By:
(SEAL) Lili Tod McMillan,Mayor
AND
Jessica Loftus,City Administrator
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 2015, by Lili T� McMillan and Jessica Loftus, respectively the Mayor
and City Administrator of the City of Oronq a A�Iinnesota mjmicipal corporation, on behalf of the
corporation and pursuant to the authority gra�nted by i#�City Council.
Nota.ry�'ublic
DRAFTED BY:
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
Professional Association
1380 Corporate Center Curve, Suite#317
Eagan,Minnesota 55121
Telephone:651-452-5000
SMM/jmo
4
180197v1
[Attach sketch]
5
180197v1
_ �ktt��rt-r �
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
C�UALITY OF WATER QUALITY OF LIFE
rfr•j,jfrtr,�t rtf�,C,�,��
�:JC'rPl'ifi?f.�I1Si;7�*1S '
February 18, 2015
�o,,;,;itreo �a r -
c�n,,ar;t�,,,ro?r i.� TO: Melanie Curtis,City of Orono
�rn�ectin7, ��F��T(Ci„i,'�J CC: Casey and Jill Hoehn
FROM: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District :
�,rr�°rrcrnr,y,ng�ne �: 2325 Glendale Cove Lane ;
sr,rfr�.'r wrtt�fs r.��r; ,
The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District(MCWD)has reviewed the letter and attached plans
a��rt;�±�ci�f�ae�r�c�f�.rtr� submitted to the District on February 10,2015 for the above referenced praperty.Based on our �
,�,�,�,;v��w,,r�f,;,� �;;� review,we find that: �
�
�:sr_�,cc, rn�ttt;,;;nq=#r�.�� l. The applicant will remove the sod within the designated wetland buffer area.
rei�.t��»�st�i��ic w€��� �
2. The applicant will seed the area with an approved native seed mixture(attached). �
eu,s4�srt��r,s ,°.;-ir;iir!1,r1 �
�
3. The submitted plan will meet wetland buffer vegetation requirements of Section 7 of the �
r,re a� �r�;��rzrt�;�•� District's Wetland Protection Rule.
�ij€' GCh'�='��u'It�;gyt,�rr �
h
4. The submitted plan offers the greatest resource protection by providing approximately 7250ft of �
tlt;cs;�"^F rec�t�iri;a�,
wetland buffer.
cct�n;tr�i ptn,�2%ts. �
The District requires that prior to seeding,the soils of the wetland buffer be decompacted to a depth of e
eFf�rc�tiar7, cvcverc:°;,-F 18 inches and organic matter incorporated into the soils before revegetation.The District requires that '
trs�;er,vt�,;�s, �m,�tr,e, �'►e buffer vegetation is mauatained in accordance with Section 7(a)ofthe DistricYs Wetland
Protection Rule.The District requires that buffer signs are installed on the wetland buffer edge in
��v;�r�r�,s�,asect cr, aceordance with Section 5(d)of the DistrieYs Wetland Protection Rule. ;
s�te��d scie;;ce,
If there are any questions,please contact me at(952)473-2855 or at chall�a minnehahacreek.org. ;
ittnr�vttttv� thi�-t`r.intj, %trt
TI1�ilIC y0U' �
it7fr;,°�ted n���rt�trz��d
:ot7S:?tL�errC}; [t1;ri Cir:%
-os4 ��rL::tr��;ss�c-r Courtney Hall,MC District Technician
;3t�hilc (.,,,;ts,
�
�
i
�
�
�
k
k
Prairie Restorations Inc-Restorang Natural Habitats-Maintaining Nati�e Landscapes Page 1 of 1
Cal)Us Today! Follow us on
' . • ' ' • . • 1-800-837-5986 ;fy.��:�.1
Home About Ua Co�act Us ;_�roauc�seara, ' Subr
PrOdUCt CategO�feB You�e Here:Wlidfiower Seed Mixes>ShoNDry Wlidflower Mix
v,n,a,�„8� Short/Dry Wiidflower Mix
Orasees,S�9ges�BulrusAes Seed Mlx InformaUon:
Soil Type:Ideal In sandy or�aveiry soUs.elong walkways end
Trees and Shrubs around buildEigs where shoKer vegetatb�s la Aeslrabie
Soli Mclature:Dry
Wiltniower Seed Mixes Average Helght:1-31t.
Sun Ezposure:FuU�o pertial sun
Grasa Seed Mixes Seedinp Rate:&oadcest:1/2-11b.l10.000 sq.R.
S°d F�S Desertption PHce
Price per Ounce i12.26
ROalilttr OUf Price per Pound ;188.00
CATAL�]C3
� Detalled DescNptlon
Compositlon,
17°6 Purple pralrle clover,l8%Black-eyed Susart,ib%Hoary vervatn,10%Leadplant,10%Whib pralrie
To Orx{ar Calt: clover,4%Bush ciover,4%Showy pens�mon,3°b Azure aster,996 Stlf!tickaeed,�yL Oray poldenrod,
1-80a8S7-5988 or 76&389-4942 2%Common mtlknroed,256 Rough bla�r►g star,295 Wlld berpamot,296 Pnlrfa roae,29L Sdff goldenrod,
196 Fragrant glant hyssop,1%Prelrle cinquefoil,19'.Westem spidarwort,196(iolden Alwander,0.694
Yarrow,0.676 Northero bedatnw,all by bulk wt0
Cwstomer Servtce:
1-800-837-5886
MaUtnp Address:
Prai�fe Restorat�na Inc.
31848128th Street,
Princeton,MN 55371
Emsll:
Info�prairieresto.com
FREE Restoratlon Guidel
Jofn our Email List and recehre our iree
RestoraBon Guide,"Guidelinea for
Es�blishMg Yoia Own Prelde."as weli as our
Season Updetes,R+atafl Promotinns&
Restwation Tips.
Eman:C��� Go
CopyHpht�2013 Praltle Restorations,Inc. Online M�ketirm by ESI
http://www.prairieresto.com/ItemDisplay.php?i=115&cID=13 2/18/2015
Prairie Restorations Inc-Restoring Natural Habitats-Maintaining Native Landscapes Page 1 of 1 �
�
_
� � � � � 'I CaN Us Today! Follow us on ,
• • • 1-800-837-5986 I . r } �
.f�.�-.,�.�. �
Home About Ua CoMact Us ( _Produa searcn , Sutx �
�
�
P�OdUCt Categori� You aro Hero:Orass SeedMixes>8hoA1Dry Gross MIx ;
�e� ShortlDry Grass Mix
�
Orasses,Sedges&Bulrushes Seed Mix Informatton:
Trees and Shruba Soli Type:ideai In sendy or grevelty soils,abng waikways and
around bufldings where shorier vegetations is deskable
Soll EAolslure:Dry
WNdOower Seed Mixes Averege Helght:1-3 ft. �,
Sun Exposure:Full to partiel sun �
Graas 3eed Mlxes Seedfng Rate:Broadcast:4 lbsJ10,000 sq.ft.Driil:8-10 Ibs.lacxe
�� Descrlptlon Price �
Pdce per 1/21b =15.6D '
i,
PHce per Pound ;28.60 �
Reaetve Our
CATi4L(� ;
� Detaited Description �
Compo�itlon:
46y.Ltttle bineatem,34'K 31de oats gfeR18�9i4 Blue giame by PLS W8lght8�4%Poverty oet 9fass�4Ye
To Qrder Gali:
June grass,29G Send dropseed,2%PralHe dropseed,by bulk wsight P
1$04837-5988 or 783-388-4342
Customer Servies:
1-800.837�i988
i
i�aliing Address:
Pratrie Realorations Inc. `
i
316+18128th Street,
Princeton,MN 55371 '�
3
t
FiFl#��: �
Info�praideresto.cam �
FREE Restoration Gulde!
f
Join our EmaA List and recelve our free �
Realoration Guide,"GuWaNnes for i
E�ablishing Your Own Prairie.°as well as our '
Season Updates,Retall Promotbns& `
Restoratbn Tips.
Emeit GO 4
i
t�
�
Copyrlght�2019 Pralrle RescoraGona,lnc. Onune Marketing by ESI i
�
�
t
{
i
{
f
�
�
�
i
rairieresto.co temDis la . h ?i=13&cID=14 2/ 15 �
http://www.P � P Y P P 18/20 �
�
lill and Casey Hcehn
2325 Glendale Cove Lane
Orono,MN 55356
February 10,2015
Courtney Hall
15320 Minnetonka Blvd.
Minnetonka,MN 55345
Dear Ms.Hall—
This letter is acknowledgement of our acceptance to the p�eferred resolution by the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District to address the approximate 750 square foot area impacted by our landscaping(area
highlighted in red on the attached map below). The plan which we are agreeable to is replacement of
the 750 square foot sodded area within the designated buffer area with a short/dry grau mix(which is a
seed mix recommended as acceptable by the MCWD). Given the curcent winter season,we cammit to
executing the plan outlined above as soon as weather allows.
Sincerely,
Jill and Casey Hoehn
\ � � W / �
�a
{ �� \` � � O �� � 't
+�a ♦ _
N 3 �� j _
•;.+ 00'68l 3.QO.LZ.6Q S ,,+ � ���
�--• � .- �
b� �
� ' ��
�;` ,' /,� • •�` x8�,� �•�
I �
i � \
i �
� � ��� � i �
� } � �'/ \�
..�- / • aI � _ �
�-, F • /�� Q• �; ` O•
• � { �''n�• '/� � � � 1
\
y/ +
.���,•. ` ' � i O
\41 Q � � �„ � m VV
� � r
.._ � ti I I �
.
•e�� ' s !�� 1 l
'"'' '` .� ___ __ ___ .�.._J l�.___ _ _____ _ __
�
�
� .
l0'ilZ M�Q0�4Z,88 N � A: �q ,:.:
---------------------;---- ;------------------•-----
'`�:��± � 16 L) �'�Z'6 M.00��Z
� ~ �
I 'f�
�
� � ti
� �
I � � �
� � v
( '�'� : 't
' `�C' d
�,~��� I
�, �■r�
.�..��` � ...... '
.� �
��� ' � , a �
( � � .. � � o.
I � �`• � ''
� ` � `
� � � � � _a
� c� �► � _
, � �. •
� M :
� � � �
•. �
�`�.i I �. i ; �
• � �.,: ,�.�•
. .. .�
. @�!-t�.�I.T�C
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date: 7 January 2015
Item No. 3
Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section:
Name: Melanie Curtis�,,� /,
Title: Planner ����
Item Description: Casey&Jill Hoehn—2325 nd I Cove Ln—Encroachment Issue
List of Exhibits:
Exhibit A. Request from Property Owner with Attachments(photos)
Exhibit B. As-Built Surveys
Exhibit C. City Engineer As-Built Survey Review Comments
Exhibit D. Building Permit Survey
Exhibit E. MCWD Memo—11/24/14
Exhibit F. Retaining Wall Engineer Letter-09/19/14
Exhibit G. Glendale Cove Plat(Partial)
Exhibit H. Glendale Cove Plat with Wetlands&Wetland Buffer ldenti�ed
Exhibit I. Flowage&Conservation Easement—City
Exhibit J. Wetland Buffer Declaration&Amended Declaration—MCWD
Summary:
A building permit for the new home was issued in September 2013; a temporary Certificate of Occupancy to
allow Casey & Jill Hoehn, the property owners, to move into the finished structure was issued in January
2014. The City-approved site plan (09/12/13) associated with the permit included one proposed retaining wall
near the west side of the home. When the final as-built survey was submitted on August 19, 2014 to close out
the permit and issue a Certificate of Occupancy it was noted that 3 additional walls around the home. One
wall extending the width of the property was constructed within the wetland buffer and the drainage & utility
easement had been constructed without City review or approval. Typically landscape features (i.e. patios,
walls, etc) which vary from the permit-approved landscape plan should have City approval and a Zoning
Permit; in this case a Zoning Permit was not requested. An additional wall was constructed on the west side
of the home which exceeds 4-feet in height. Consulting Engineer Bob Bean observed this wall in the �eld and
indicates in the attached 08/28/14 comment memo that an engineered design is required; a building permit is
also required due to the height.
The wetland buffer area is covered by a City conservation & flowage easement and a MCWD wetland buffer
declaration. Both documents are attached and reflect a prohibition of the construction of structures within
the wetland buffer. Resolution of this matter would be for the wall located within the drainage and utility
easement/conservation easement to be removed. Staff met with the property owners and MCWD staff on
November 7th to discuss resolution to the encroachment violation and the final Certificate of Occupancy,
which continues to be withheld until the issues are resolved. Following that meeting the applicants made a
formal request for an encroachment agreement.
Staff Recommendation
Staff is agreeable to allowing all or some of the retaining wall within the easement area to remain subject to
the requirement that the property owners enter into an encroachment agreement with the City. The
encroachment agreement would allow the City to require the property owner to remove the encroachments if
7 Jan 2015 '
2325 Glendale Cove Ln
Page 2 of 2
the encroachments become an issue in the future. If the wali remains, the property owners should comply
with the requirements of the MCWD regarding establishment of native buffer vegetation.
The property owners have provided a statement from a structural engineer regarding the wall exceeding 4-
feet in height on the west side of the home as requested (Exhibit F). The property owners should apply for
zoning and building permits, and pay the after-the-fact fees to address the walls constructed that were not
shown on the approved building permit survey. If the Council determines it to be appropriate, the City
Attorney can draft an encroachment agreement for consideration at a subsequent meeting.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Council should provide direction to staff regarding an encroachment agreement to allow the retaining wall
encroachments to remain.
Jill and Casey Hoehn
2325 Glendale Cove Lane
Orono, MN 55356
November 13,2014
Melanie Curtis
2750 Kelley Parkway
Orono, MN 55356
Dear Ms. Curtis—
This letter is in response to our recent meeting on November 7, 2014 as well as the original letter we
received dated September 15, 2014. The letter requested that we remove a boulder wall we recently
built as part of our landscaping in late August. According to City documents, the wall is within a City
designated Drainage and Utility Easement area, and also within portions of a Wetland Buffer
Replacement and Wetland Buffer area.
Backaround•
We knew a portion of our property was up against or within a wetland buffer. Therefore, before putting
together a landscaping plan or beginning any landscaping, we proactively inquired about who we
needed to talk with. Under the advice of our Project Manager, we were directed to seek out the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) for answers and approvals on what our landscaping
options and boundaries could be.
Our communication/interaction with the MCWD started on June 30th (which we did in-person at their
offices in Minnetonka). In that initial interaction, we simply validated that they were the appropriate
and governing agency to be speaking with given the involvement of the wetland buffer areas on our
property. They acknowledged that they were. With that information, we then told them that we were
seeking their input to determine what our landscaping options and boundaries could be. We provided
them with our Grading Plan Site Copy and discussed the locations of the two silt fences present on the
property. We also shared with them the severe grade challenges that our backyard presented, and the
recommendation of our landscaper that a retaining wall would be the most effective landscaping
alternative to address erosion concerns if that was decided to be an allowable option. Over the next 12
days, we had no less than 7 interactions with the MCWD. Within that timeframe they came out on a
couple occasions to conduct site visits on our property,taking pictures and(we assumed) measurements
as well. Ultimately they gave us the verbal go ahead to start our landscaping and said we were able to
landscape anything inside the silt fence that ran along the vegetation/tree line (which included the
option to construct a retaining wall if desired).
Over the 12 day period (June 30—July 11) in the interactions with the MCWD,there was no mention of
the absence of wetland delineation marker signs, nor a map provided highlighting the buffer
areas/locations or a suggestion made that we also needed to contact the City. All of these items we
learned about only after the fact in the aforementioned letter from the City.
Working under what we believed to be the appropriate jurisdiction approval,we began our landscaping.
As part of the landscaping plan, after much consideration simply from a cost perspective, we did decide
to include a retaining wall as part of that. Although the wall was a substantial cost(accounting for well
over half of the money we spent with our landscaping), we knew it was a long-term investment and
ultimately necessary to address and mitigate continuous erosion concerns over time given the severe
grade of the area and ultimately ensure the integrity of the surrounding wetland. In construction of the
wali and related landscaping items, we were meticulous in our efforts to make sure all work was done
inside the silt fence designated by the MCWD as our'boundary' for landscaping with minimal impact on
trees and surrounding vegetation. We also specifically chose to use natural boulders vs. manufactured
block, railroad ties or other non-natural materials in an effort again to help the natural integrity of the
surrounding area.
In summary, we hope that the included background and information, subsequent Appendices and
corresponding pictures help convey the fact that our actions and the work we did was with genuine and
the best of intensions. This is the first house either my wife or I have owned. We moved to Orono to
raise our family based on the reputation of the education system and desire to be part of a smaller and
tighter knit community. Our goal was to make our yard as functional as possible while addressing the
steep grade within the parameters given by the MCWD, while making a concerted effort to protect the
trees and surrounding natural/wetland areas as well. We believe overall that the wall improves the site,
serving as delineator better protecting the integrity of the surrounding Wetland Buffer and Buffer
Replacement areas. We truly look at this as our `forever house' and upon moving into our home in
February, all of the improvements or things we have done have been with that mindset.
Recommendation:
Given the background and sincere intent of our actions,we are asking for approval of a Conditional Use
Permit or Encroachment Agreement for the wall, for which we are willing to pay any related Permit
Application Fees. We wil) also work with the MCWD on a cost effective compromise with seeding
natural grasses and vegetation in agreed upon locations within the Wetland Buffer and Buffer
Replacement areas as well as explore other alternatives to help improve these areas such as buckthorn
removal, etc.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Jill and Casey Hoehn
Appendices•
Appendix A—
Map provided by the City illustrating the approximate location of the wall
Appendix 8—
Using the Wetland Buffer map provided by the City,we illustrated the approximate location of
the wall on this map for reference (to help convey the minimal impact of the wall into the
overall Buffer and Buffer Replacement areas). Also, according to the Title Documents for our
property,the required Wetland Buffer required is 25 feet (vs. the 35 teet listed on this map).
So,taking into account 25 feet, and doing a measurement from the closest part of the wall to
the wetland boundary delineation flags, there is still a 22 foot buffer. We've also illustrated
this(approximately)as well in red on the map.
Appendix C—
This is email correspondence with a representative at the MCWD responding to the email we
sent upon receiving communication from the City asking us to remove the wall including
corresponding pictures. We were asking that they verify and con�rm to the City the
permission and boundaries that they initially gave to us before constructing the wall. In this
communication, the MCWD confirms location of the wall to be outside the buffer area and
within the boundary they approved (the silt fence along the vegetation/tree line) as well as
acknowledge the wall is necessary to protect the upland from future soil erosion into the
wetland buffer area.
Appendix D—
'Before'and`after'pictures helping illustrate the steep grade issues and erosion concerns that
were present as well as show that the wall was constructed within the silt fence `boundary'
agreed upon with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District(fence closest to the tree line)
a
�
_
0
z
W
a
a
Q
��qA"F'erPi�+ds-r#.-�'y^4�9g��_ -�'ir #r
s=��••:-z'��`�3"a9-4�F� 's�Y"v� ".YS;�`. � �k
`�4��;:Ey'�`•�:��y,-'' �r _, ;4'^ � ..
+'�;ai`C.�`a�a 6�� �s;.�.,'a'a�.t - . W ' • _
r��*�vsY�. �';ay . _ . .
.a.���'�:�¢:Y ,K.'�ft: �'q-_`'a�.s. ',y-. , . -
�t��.f-' ..�,-'. -. .*�; - . , ,
iF���'ry '� _ A � , �
,�';,.4"� r ,��.. - _ ' -. , . �• �
�:, � a� �' � . , •
y��,F;'; .�`�. .: �� �
�.{;tu-��, ;r�;:.'�� �
�x_ �
.,�w_ 'y_- _ ' ` , -�
� '����� I'�' .�N{9� -'s� . , �
,'��� I�'+� III -� . _ ._ �.'Y � '�4
,'�����I �
e'"�#4r�� �' I"'!'��I{iil'� �'�li� I : F ,�•.' � � 1�,
a�, 'ii I� �
A5� �� . � ^ �
:�, �
���� � � .. �
,... �
>�-, - � '" `
� ~ �
�p,.. :� " . . � � �' � �"� ' �
s: � .+� �
. . . 3 �
�_� � �
� ' �° �"�� � ���� � �
� ° .w,,.,, � `
c� ' � �w� _I .���r ,�� w� �
� � �I � -`� �� �. `
� � `r� .�..`�� �++
• �� t� ���
i � �
�
� �r z
� � ` � d� �. -- ... .. (� .
�► • � •�j� '� �'' '�p - •
� / —"' 1, � --- —_..• '� ` / ..� • �t• .� � �P
+� �
� �''' � / /�► � ��"" ;� � � � ��l ..�1V
� ,� L - -" � •
/ � ��4� t�.•� �
�� t1► ��'S, ' �
i �
/ 4 j � "' "
. Z � Ll'Q� '�� �
�os � c, � �,,.-�' s ..�}- '"'
�` / �'1►1i � "' Q�. �
� � .- � � w -
i � � : ♦ ` I� � �� � 'r � � �
�+ / • � � � 4�� � � -- 4 � �
. ! � � � / � w't4�+ � �4�. 1�� �/� i►
�
�
�
�
�
W
a
a
a
` , i
, ,
,� �` -+OtZ9� �
..-�' ' '- � � � `
'"� � �'
.
s ,
o5=a �• ' .
-�az zj ' �
� �,
` ! g
.
k' \ t � ���
``�' '� f t„� . �. .t
_ _.+ � �+�' . i� �
1� � � �... �. �..� ' • t� t
�����1+� �♦�F � � , � � �'
�� ++ � �
� �
0' �- ' - - '� A
o��ss=nNi � '
� Hw � � _.�,�
� ,�` . ; �ll•�. l�u�n���
,��� S - �� � �I� rr�rr
-� , ' +otez� � � � �',�
t •o�' � j U"� � .�'�1r1�,
� � T
i �
• � i � ....•..
�
x1 � g 1��� .�
4M `
.
.
�
-+O�Oi*� � � :
� _
. _ =
, :�,_`_ S'S'£L8
_�,� _ ,�£.__._.�.._ ;.,�..,;:.:�•-- ; -"' - -�.. ,��..,...._. �_._ - - ------------ -
`� �� �
� �
�
� .� �
�
�
�
�
,
�
�
N �
m �
ca �
P I
N �
� J
. �
���� � � !
�
�
�
�
z
W
a
a
a
Hoehn, Casey
Subject: RE: Hoehn -2325 Gfendale Cove Lane
From: ]cey Handtmann f ailto:]HandtmannCalminnehahacreek.orgl,
Sent: Friday, September O5, 2014 1:54 PM
To: Hcehn, Casey
Cc:JhcennCa)tcfbank.com
Subject: RE: Hoehn -2325 Glendale Cove Lane
Casey&Jill,
Thanks so much for sending these photos over.They reatly help to show that your retaining wall appears to be outside
of the buffer,as well as ecologically necessary to protect the upland from excessive erosion due to the steep grade. I'm
going to stop by Monday morning to take a few distance measurements to make sure the work was done outside of the
buffer offset and keep you posted with the results.
As always,if you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to give me a call or shoot me an email.
Thanks!
Joey Handtmann
District Representative
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
15320 Minnetonka Boulevard
Minnetonka, MN 55345
Direct: (952) 641-4517
Main Office:(952)471-0590
Fax:952-471-0682
www.minnehahacreek.ore
�
MINNENAMA CREEK
WATERSHED DISTRICT
From: Hoehn,Casey[mailto:choehn@teksvstems.com]
Sent:Thursday,September 04,2014 5:00 PM
To:Permitting
Cc:Hoehn,Jill(JHoehn@tcfbank.com)
Subject: Hoehn-2325 Glendale Cove Lane
Good evening!
1
Just to follow-up from my brief ineeting with Joey on Wednesday,please find a few pictures(before and after)of the •
area that the City of Orono was referring to that has part of our boulder wall in it that is within the buffer area
(southwest corner of the property).
• Photo#1—showing the southwest area of the property before(also showing the location of the silt fence along
the wood line)
• Photo#2—showing the same area after{that the boulders are inside where the fence was)
• Photo#3—basically same picture as#2,just showing the transition from the larger wall this area
• Photo#4—Also wanted to inciude this'before'photo as I think it is a good illustration of the severity of the
grading/elevation challenges we had to address with our landscaping plan
I had proactively reached out to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District before starting any of our landscaping as my
wife and I knew that some of our backyard was likely up against or potentially in the buffer area and wanted to make
sure we had checked with the appropriate jurisdiction to ensure we didn't do anything we weren't supposed
to. Through conversations with the MCWD,we were told we would be able to landscape anything inside the silt fence
(which essentially ran along the border of our yard/property). So,staying inside the fence area and trying to not impact
any current trees on the property as well(also by the recommendation of our(andscape architect due to the severe
grade and potential impact to continuous washout of soil),we constructed a boulder wall to help alleviate this.
The one tier boulder area in the southwest corner of the property(which is the area of concern)was constructed inside
the silt fence as well and was a way to transition from the grade above to a lower grade keeping in mind slope/drainage
as weil as keeping a barrier ln place to stop the soil from erosion and washing out into the wetland and wetland buffer
area.
Thank you for your help,please let us know if there's anything else we could provide or do!
Casey and Jill Hoehn
320-282-2579
This electronic mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is privileged, ��
confidential, and/or otherwise protected from disclosure to anyone other than its intended recipient(s).
Any dissemination or use of this electronic mail or its contents (including any attachments) by persons
other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error,
please notify us immediately by reply e-mail so that we may correct our intemal records. Please then
delete the original message (including any attachments) in its entirety. Thank you.
This electronic mail(including any attachments)may contain information that is privileged, confidential, and/or
othewise proteded from disdosure to anyone other than its i rrterxled reci pient(s). Arnr di sserni na�i on or use of
this el ectronic mai 1 or its oorite�ts(i ncl udi ng any�ta�hments) by pers�ns other than the i ritended reci pi ent(s) is
strictly prohi bited. If you have received this rr�ssac�e i n error, pl ease n�ify us i mmediakely by reply�mai I so
that we may correct our i rrternal reoords. Pleaae then del c�e the origi nal message(i nd udi ng a�y attachrnerrts)i n
its enti rety.Thaik you.
z
� � � ..
. , y > . � , ,.., � • ..- ,�, �� - . .
, y y.
; � :': _,,, . 4. s..�; �. �� + , .
. � �R ��. � � � ` ',f . �� . fr t � '� . � `ry f , .
��F. � '�, � R
� „'r�~ . :� � ti. �_ � '�'r'" � '" , . �, ;* � ... . �` � _
� ' ��. !i � � `A� ^ 4, � , .`� �-r '�..�.�s... r. � A - .
� s ,., - , . . ,
� • �} �. . .. .z __._!�.
, "",� �
,
! ",�V�` � ' � � a �l �'�► #'y` �.C� � � ;�f r ,
��t . �. ��1,� '� .
'�. , /' • ,r11�� ,'Y1N. 'Z � J .,�,y,�„�k `y. ' . . .* 7.,,� *. t , . � ,..
' ` � �.. �.' " � ,
�.�► . . . ,�;�•... � ...� �� ;��„ -l. _ •. �� �• ,,.I� , w. � �.
��^�y. , r` � � `� d�� � � �
f Y �. . � � � . �i5k. ��;+.�1 � -
"f' ,. .� -�• ,r' � '"���`=* ' . _ , _ M .
- � �, ..i-'� '� ���i��.' "�'`«.u.s�t-"*.
"r►�' , �� � � ! � .
. �� �r, y r �'.;� , r � ,,.� � .:��..�
� �,.�/+t � �� �
♦ ,+„ ' ' �
♦ 4 Y� �� �' " ���L.���e �� . '.. � .. �*�, .
, j�'�,, � �' ,�' � �
..
' � �. .. , '
- � w r,l�'� 1.�. . • '1'. . i,++� + - .. , ... ,.. �"
,� '•. , , �,,t . � �
��Y., �^�.:� '�'�f�,���� _; .._. �� y '��� ' S,�"
�
a ,� �
� �.��'� � .';� �1:�,�'� �r �`.'p+" �;Y . +,'"'�+ti...-...�,i �,.. . ' ' ` V •
-~��� � � -�.; �"`�. � * ,`
�
._ .. , �, 1`
. . y
.
�f. '1� �- ,��j,�' _ j����. �' �``
.•!,�e � � a r •�.. �+� . ! y � �, . ��• � � ."�y>y � .. '
. ,
rt
, �.-
. ,. > . � , �;, �� ,.,��,�.r ,�,-"_ i
` 1 .
' R w.:l �. � .
a + • �
,, `: . { . ; . .. ��� � �
� " "`Y � i. t�
� r
�re s�.. � . _ � �' n F {
� �: _.... . i .
r }�'.�� � � t� t._ ,�µ���,' , n .
w�,S�r���t�,����i�. _
� �,'�,`.. k .t �;•,s � ,�,� . .,t .•; ����•. � ,
r_ +r"' � �
..�,,n �
� �,^�!'Mi F ;" �•�'�� ��,1, �ir������,"�'a ^'' �:.. ` � �,w.._.,
.�� �� •+1' :Y -' �� - -
.f-. ... ► � R �,..,._
' ..�._ V.J� , �y�... . t n �
� 4 o s,��+ t� ..,`� '�"Y` .+w
'� '�'�„j� ...{:� t;��« • ��.s�� �.IYr °4'� —. � r
w-
y , • , ,
�. . v't ����' � .e. �1` ..'�n. ' �+�' _ ..
.;� »�` � '�;�,,K,�,a �_ ,�•1I�,;. . ...+ ` � . . ,
.��` "" 1 � r
.� x ��,,,�,�•�.� � *
. ,� v i �� ' • � �
,� '` . . "f ...
...+r ��_t _ '�► . �
�.. . , y �1 , .. , pa.. ..
�'i
• )'
` � . � '.f
. �" ii ...Y.:�` '. . � �► - �- ..
. \ "'^
. 4-
�.
>�`�
<t = '^
�� ". > N _ .
.. � 'xc:. `" � ..
,.� � '". .. 4
++�"' ' `
,�•� �p�',�='y� ��', "�°` ;�` y� •
i t►" '' ��si� ����'�'3s�'�~� , 1�.
� `���� � ,: * � .
� � . '...�,.r �y, ���� ' +1 ~`��►y ' ' ,.
. } ' ' .�� s y #t . �� � +
t {� � � �` r `� + '�
' R_
' { * .i�! ,�*- '@� • �. '� � ,
c N
�► ,�• +► , ` +�*";� � \ ~. - .; '�e;r�;.
� ' � �
� �_ , .
�t�- • - r�. - .
� 1'� +►
� -� . _ �
� �
. -
.
" r
� . .
� . ' ,
k� � ' '
`�� � � 4
, v 1
. . - �_
` � � , i
�R ` . - � �
i +� � � ` {
,,,. � -
_ �-..3rs�«� c�- .. a
� . — � .�� � ' � l.. 't iF � .. / .+ . .
� �I��I� `� � � �� � .� �y
�► �
� a�� . � � ' '' �
� .... ,, , � , �+► �
.. � � .� . � � - s ' y �� ��
Y�� � 1 # ' '
:la,
�+. �
� �� �,7.. ' ..
' ! � � . S . � �— �
�..� �� A' ^��'�" �#� �` �►�
'�ft.�� � .
_ ,,,,, .
� - � �.-�
t
i\`j �
�.
, a '�' �
,,�Y �!
� - w � •.
��`.. �` �� . �
/ � ' . � �
.
�� j; a - • . �
ti ,. , ]
�' ��` ` ' , � r
# .� ��
. �' ''� ,` ' �.
< ..,.� + .
�
r.� �M
�6"� 9MF.. ��� ~�� ��� � a,. +�.�� ^`a�' '.�).. ��.rn ,� 1+..�� �iy��
�ty, ' � .
` • �::°�y�.9 .... � ��'� }�� .� ' I�. ,�...' • �� �� µ � �
. y " " • _ ��.� Mr
. ' ,.. . . .. . •� W
. tin.� �`�"�`,r�..� . '� .�I"" + T::�.. f _ +�'�.` """� � - 4 .��,', .
. �t � _ a"!- �. •4 � ,� � �,"�„�; '�,`v a.�..�y;
. <
� . -•^ , . + • , ,�,..,
M ,. �.W r„• '. - � � � �-
•, � r . w ` y •��1 »- R' � �„ �» w n" .
�� ...a� .. 4 �y, � S" . . � , ,��� , „�
r K
.. s ;x , .:.. "� ° t fi�� �'.-� ,.��a � 4* ,,.+�� �.��'"1� � •. ..:.,R.�+„ �A..,. .
...� /„��,�' ' ` �
M« � ' #`V._'^,��� `M*�� �'�1 4� ..M ' � � y.���lYl+ •y �;y���
� - Rt
� A�`/�.'.'e'.. . �.:. - � �" ► � � � . �
.. � . ��� �}�1�� '�r• . • �• ( � ..� . »`�� � � .
�.� ...�,�yi i�'�^. . y_ y�
L ;
• � � ` + ' .
� - • �
� . ..A �� �` • � Iy�� .�'� , w ��.
� ` ' �=+ A � .yiF' _ `♦�,� � y � � } * �� +}� `,. �.y `
� ���
�
Ms ���_.� • _ . .
. , � ,.. ,._. y � � , ` - ... '
:�.� . �. , _� �ir'•'
�, _ �^ c S, 4_'4'�. 'i!a�w+�' ' ` . .� � . ��
.. � , ,,. +► : `�' , rr • � - - �.s� r
,Y - ' ?. •._ • �,.'_..�� ,�-+� �„�,,, �^: � y � _
: � ,
y � �
�, ( . '
.� � 'y. �� � .� .. �
� }, a
r
�. 1 .
� + . �«y �, . .. � ,S��! � �� I U � . '�tr .
' � t . • ..t C ,-� � �`. � . .. . ...
. ' w
�.
.. � . . ru .,��� � �� � ��� � �
,�t: ' .,�': - , � *
, }
. _ ,
_ _�r. �,w;y,, �� .��,, ''�i�
f ,�. .. � a . .
- „+
..^
. �:
.` t � +� � . � , — � � M
,� � . ` `".,r� .. . �" � _ � i . �f'.#�► � �'��, ��•
'—� � • _ . , � + r . `�'.. .. T : ��Y ��� l:." _ x.
T' _ ' ••�t �e � . .. . ' , ' ♦ �� ,4w+
. ,
�, .� ' j� . � .+•_.y�� .�. '.'a�nr . `. ..� . � -. . �+..�.:.. �y. ..
� ... '"�(., k �.Q .w ..�. . � 4� . « s . . ..
� 4
. . � �` ..� . .. � - ��� � Y.
F �- 1 ' ♦ . r�w�� � 'r ✓.., 17;' T�M:" C � a, .1 . . .�� "/� �'�1�^
w .n.. ,�,�^ »,r,"""'"", "r"�a,� .. �.. � �+ •. . ' • » ,,,,; F..,�.
- .
.i _ • y�� - - � +r�� _ ,„ y - ,
,�,,:, � v .� ... .�/, " r.. ' { . � - .: �' - .
...! , � . ' � . , .w. . ...+ ^
,r�.•
} � w ,.
! ;y
,d
�p�� . . - ^..
.._ .:,�...... . M�. . .:.
� ��... _r� :�.,
<j;,
� � a i'. '. .,, ., �"S' ry ' �:�/
� � , � '
rt- w�
, >+: �� '
+ � � � � ,� . -�L�� � .
���;;�y... � � �� �`.. � ` r- �
�.,,� ,'._ ,
y:. : .� ;•.y
r
:r�
.
.
.
.
r
-�� ,, ,����. .`
� -?. T:� � ..
���
_C'�, A� .'�.��ry��� 1
� �
f: �:� "
-► 'M '�►
F
.,�:���,,,
.
..
. , t .. � � ..,,,y �,�.� - .� . ��
. f -� � s` n + , _ ."y„ - . +1 � ,,.IM ��-�i .�W ' r�
r y 5-„�t�.�� ,�' �, ��II��► �`'-� ---.:' �- _ +w � * '
+�r�"F* '"" 1i < �t ,r• +r"
. -` "`«- « ,�+ ,�,� �,i �,�_��� � . , ;• . si_1K"� ` �.K Ai�, �
_ ,�
•4 . .� `. ��`i�:�,� �"�' `.�� ' •� T -1�'+f
` `' �� x�.���t r'�ar . ♦ : �" �l , . � � 'r ` � ;/�4 �'f� -
��t�- r�� �,y.��� * _ ., i �� r�' .
�� � .7 , t� �• �_ *_�' y. "'y, �f R� . / � �� . � fi
ti 1 ��,� 'i"1y*.- �!"„+' w � .�� - � - w
F. . a-��:.�. �
-�,_ `,� • 1 �» - , ,_.. .. ' ` ; : 4 "
+� '`�'- � � ,
�� , acr �r3'-_,�6+���"k r Y � + . i
�N: �%�I�r� Y�r`
,y ,�,. ,..�. 1
� , `��������� A � � , .
� �
` � �„�T_ ��t'� �` m � � � � � � �
-.�•";� «. r�. �
, • ',pv,. a �M�� , 'w .''ti ` ' '�
.. . ,,�i � v_ �
� , �, �,..5��� ... .,� ♦
� •r'
, ` ` .• ' F�i..�� ' � ' ► t
. �� ' , ' � `.�,+t�� _�` `r^ * �� + �
�•. .
�� ' � e ./ <V. t � , _ ' �r
*. s _ - _ �
-. y . .
-.r ,, ' • •. -', �'
. .r � .A.'-. `, , . `''M.. �,. � . ._. . . .^ , �
;'i�.. _a ..� � . � �'1 � .�- �r�''"'A,. � . ~
s �,
� , �
;,, � . . . . � 1�R.�,". t . ,� '+�-` ,� � * � ' .,�ti * � �
�: `� \
� k *
'�:ii�"+i. ..'�'°�." _ �. a { � 4.�`� .,��['+`- �-w►� � .. ; .. ��-' . _ . `k
�L'�1 �_. .',�=e,., �"�.,�ii. °.�. � , r w', �. r . • �i
� �'WIt.. �,„/�r" "�,'. � �':" . ,,�� , . � ,
'e . � �r s r ,��v"`' g t, � �;� . . � ' 1
�.s �s ��"� �• �"°fi +�' ,� ` � �# � - � -
r yM� �,' � , �� '.r.. �. , .�� .f . . i '. c-•1. - ` �
..
��"�,, ,�y�
r '�i �'.w .. c�;R,� *�lY� 3�.,. '4 y,;.X .�.+Y. � i'� + "� �•
�T�,
+. k� v S .
';�' z i
�
� � 4�
y�.'�>���� �F � � _ 1
� �� � � ...�t�" ,.��t,, n...;x4 �y ' ' j � 4 y ' .
,� ���� �'+rr�i. ... ' - ::. `4 c
� .` : .-;* " ... �-..' _ r��+'� �,t ..
•
� � ' i ,, ,�:. ...' ' s,,, . .
.-� • .w�� � � K
'�'+w.'+� , � �,�w�. � u . ,'.
#` ♦ .
� , f�, " 1 1
ti' � �. . .1�' �
• �• �� '� tt � .
. .� ��x ' �� „ . y , .
w '
,�' y"'!"�t � '�r "
, � �
s �� k � , �, �j ; , .
JM.. ,,, .� l � ' T I .
�_ ,a -� � � � _ �� .
\ y
� � •. �
� � . .� +w � � .� �•� •
y � I y � � � , ���
k .w ; '� ♦
�
�C
_
�
Z
W
a
a
�t
' , �j +. .� `• �,l,,,,� ~ � •�s+: ,� _ 1,` � , ,. ����� --
� � , 4 s � f T -# „/, y, �j�,+�r`A-� ! f _- .��r. , r� �.f�i
- �-� �r^� i �` �.ti'� . � .. `� ;Y.� ' � .� 'r" .
- . . ,f �`�"� �" .,,2 ��'� � '� � . �.� ^('V l,r"" .
�- � ' r,l ♦• '����� ��► �'""r'1 �'iflr'u. .i►. . � • ��Y� . .:�;;! .
. ��.,,,, .. rt �Y �,�'':�. . .r.,-' .�� . . . � '
-..i. � ,�s- r' Z' s +' , . �" ,.:
d�` '!�+}'
• . =J�Ir'``�`,.��e� i�^',�= `,..�fy, � T . � �, � . . �� � -
, .. . s. 1 w� .. _ ..+ �' . . � . � � .`
�' .� ..� x � :.w. , . . � ' . � �
� � ' � " � � ����Y� ��. �i�� I�' . � � :l
� � • . l�r+,.,�^l,f.✓ � t h,��'�+ � f , , , • �j ° _ ' r
� �
� r�,,`.- �L� � �,� l..l_�� .. . - i •
'� T `„i.�, � .
.�� ^ �� ��. w
�� ��,,,�y��,,,�_� . - _ . . . .
+ ;��5�'^?G��^ a" •~ . .... � f �' � �r'r. � � � ..
...
. y � ��� � �� � � �
j_ 1 �
-�.
� �'�Z �w n - f
.� Y�-. _ `E�,�'ti' . � , _ r .
- . ��'w , •�3'i.�'` ""' � , �.� - ` ♦
\ - _^y„�"�r ' �, ` X
- � '�M .,k` , -
.:;;n"!.� . � . . . . ���.-.� �� r.f ' -�a: •a
' � . � �'; �.7ki_� -� _ . � _
_ ' ! _=.3� -.i` i n►.
- _. �.. � ,� � , +,�� �_ ' —
^j ._ �� a;.- . �'�` .��= _
•.r r
. , ,* -... ._. ,-,r� • � . � _
� y _ .
< �,
�� ^
.,.�� .�r� , y i�Y�y` . �.. � � � , �.� R � �"trr'a4��'t s y�� .. �
. � � �.�i �.� �
.;� ` '� � �i �-w .� S #.��+ .,�L.4�e .� . ' �'` .',y..,, .
,�.� • ,5, ��.y„'i i�yw,' _ � , � _ .
� � L 1K � � 's-� 'f i ' - •, ., +" !
i,�.--ts' _ ,..Y�� . .. "rr` .."� . .. ' .�� .- b._" ' ' .. . .
. � -� "�� ��;, ��J ' �,,e+�' ,�'� \#* .,M�� �'.�� .. ,
.-� *\.. a. �. ,1���" �l, . .,^e� ��'�y4'~ ra' � e' Y �L�\,� ,�F� r �,\ � .. �
ti. ` - . _ r� _.,.5,�^ •s�. �;�. � ..�, x ♦
,�'.,;���+'� \�4 , ��M'�.'��� �;;,�� .` �r, `� at�'�M ���, , . _..•�tA a��� � '�.� .. � � .
S � � -
l .� �ae*�: ".�.• "K � �
.. .
1
�.�,+��,_ �
' -#:r . .
� �`+�yj `� : .
„� i �Y ✓, t�: ��c �._�i � . ,. -
r M�••�)�i �'S4i'Y . ' •~�� S` .. � t- .. . . . n
f� ��,�w i ..�I -Z .. _ � .�'_ . ..- -
�t � •.,� �'C
�, . � � -:'(���' . �� . � �..s w .
.. �;, ' - . " .!1.� ��;'., .
_ � _ � � :�.'�#�v`^F: . ` •
�� . �.` � '� � �� � � ' � �� �
, yt�x;;, � ,_ ; v • ;► ,
. .�.� • .
4 �,: �t' � � �i�
•:�,„ , E '�,� �.- � ,, . �,.�,, . . , ,
_��. ' � , � .�
�'� �. '+�► bt ' , r , ,. :..� �` � ,iM'_
�e _� ,� .�
�4�•� :• X r `� 1� '' j � � � ��T��/
� 7 � . . `
^ � w�! � , �,• �
�t:�. � . Y��
. . ., . . . � .
_ N
♦ ; �, <
�
� � _ ' � T • ` �'�- ;��.;i���,�.
-
, � , - , � � �.`r �,f�`�; ,�
�,:, ' : o x,� +y�, �. -�� 'J �.� ,• ' . � ��,f�1 A�
' ,i,' , t k. i � ; �,` . ��
.� � .
- 4 `� _ : �,.� ` i ' � ' ��,,,'�. �,�.�.+.��'
-�rii�� , I � � �
�",`�' ^� � r: ' r.��� 1 �- _, � ��� � - '�.� y � `�(� i f"
. ��>.. '•.���f, ,.. � `� ,� �� ,y Y 'MS' �! S �. `r y' ,� R 1���
-. � ,
„ .,, " :�. . _ , z r: '� � ` ,.�+` r�,'..
� ,. . y�
` �,�,,� ""�,z � . . „- .. r ... :,,E- ;� '
_ _ "�
� - _ � -
, ,�'•. , � � � ���� �-� �� _,� �r - .
_ ���
,K . �v r `. .��„ ♦. .., AG.. C . z .'; . ' ��=.�:� ��
, �
- � '
._. ��,;,� . _
s `� t � k . . ,
, �
�-- t�
. .
n � ' - `1' . � i ' .;+�r - .�,►�/`'�''' . � .
'
. . <. � . . _, , .
;,
_ i.� , �, .`� � �, ,� �.�, , ' *� k .�+
� w., - ,�� ,•���
�_�;�� . . . .. � . ` , " ��.w,,:. ` \ , ."�j `r�G� �.� . .. _ i
.
: a - � . , _ _ . : '•� � .�.; .
. _..
�-. '�.`a.,� .,, �' � . . . - j� �. . .1 . � �r �_.r ;,,�,� . _ .
k� Y l r , �' � . '�".
.-
1 �. C !j
.
.,{•�''�t. .. �!w �R . , �'-Y4,j., w; �^ ." ,► M,� .`` ��t �. . - i
t �
. .,, _;,, ' - -
.,7� � , .:. .� �.. ..`� �',' � �'
�.
5� �c� .{,n, `'�' `� ,.� ' - . ' • '}�"�, �, �t 'ti'T'� , - '. . . . �� !f,�
�t � �
..,��►.�"�"` ,t� ,
-;,. - . _ -
. �� � ,.., a �. ��. k y-' � '� " ' ,�
- . .. ,
7 � ' . -• � — _ ., . `
, •aa .� s� '�J�v,,.. �Iy 'c", f. � �� � � ',r � ti ��:
.. � , - •- � , . . - `>
�
.. ti�S �. . �'' � t'r=T .
� , � _ � �.r � �.�� - � . __ �3�' _
. �� . . ,
...Ic'��.r= ''�:#, .f- M a. . � _ , ,y� �.r.- :�c.t ' , ,
. � ,� �.
,� � j � .
. ` :_ ..�. 1
. �.. :�. ,... . ZZ'�'� .� .. 'S�y -.,.: -. \ r ,. �.''� s` .. T'.�+s--� -�qt•� �. . .. "�+ . �• \1
f� �«� . R t..:��� t- � I�.. 4
..�..A .••�'. � • • " i -. � ' . �,._
`` `l ♦* '� ... .�~ -.. 't` . ..✓ :?� ✓ �s �' ��,y *..� � � �•'
;.�.„�, ►�*., %� , r , ae.a ,� �`..'•t"+� t;,�,� . y�'� ��' -` �'`�t` e ' _
`` S`#'+,�"� -. {'• . , 'a� ,-'"�'� �",. � s a� .._ � �,. .. -. : �"'��' '►`` � ,,. +f. � .,
..�
..^.
�• -� �. - '� _ ' ,�. � �-,a� YC
�J�\ .. ��ii�.S-4.S ...� , � _���� 4� .��� �. �\_. /�`"'`�. ,.� t�KJ�,_.nc�� +:r\ � a't' _ Y A1'�.� \ . _� .
�' . . -
y ��..�r x - � �.. '\ ,��' . y;. , t'•� ,,,.. -' .:! � ;,N�
.
, .
, ,/4c, � 2 � :r-.� �� , `t - . �� . , i. �
�.�. `• � �t .`'`� • . aM�. � , � w .ir - �/`��„�' t " _...
t "� ` ~ A � �"x �� ^��,,��,r�
.
. .
.� � . �T,, ,. -. + � . , . .
.y
' �l
. �
r
' • . ..r . . . � .
. '• i i �
._ � . �1 k� . ,. �� 'r • �� _ ,Z+iK� � .. . .
� � �d. � .- ..4'b �'�i'fi,.,�► ..� � M- '1. � " j '� ... , . w+�"'�r .� . , "`��.
. . . . . �1 ����•r. !_'_�4 ,S �' .i'� ,
. ,�,` r �i.•'"��� �� :vr'`t*�,� ` . ^ , r,yy[.� .: " _ s• ��,' �� ' .
- „ar x �. . �R�
� �
- c }- . - ` - a
.-
_ ,
a` ' ^ t
l�' . •�. - t y y I�"
� �� , '� f Y,p,� ._y�.'� � �► 4r � '��� f` s ,�$���'�„� � .,.,
�r. s a . �/
.. :�"��y6 ..� -�a�►L . 1-�_� ��j�:�\ '_G.` l . .. n.:y $'1..�'.. \ .� . '.
� ^-�r 1
�. � . ... �tf _ . � �
� � .
� •
`�"�:'�„�,e," t"�-. � � �,�, i :a �,�=:� �� �h.
.
I( _
� ,�(y '1.i� 'i�.��'`�. .�- � . ` - � �+-�:T � ., YM '.�t • ! � � ' •.
. . .F \/'�. . �_., ..
� ' �� ._ � t r y '
�y
. .wr.. ,,.+.�,�• � "e ��-` . �� ',., y ��a, , '�a _ .� j . ..t.• i
, � -_ , „
<: , L. � ',.; ,��.t�-;�:���,� 'r::`x-!t� �, «�`` �� .' � { � r
. < ,a .,-3, :,` -
..
� _
.;
_. ; 1 `+. 'c+�f�,'''�"'- �J' ��' , 'M�
� � ' -.-� . - ,Y��,. .� :`. _ i.r �".,` _
� r
. �
�
. '.,.c: . .�
,,� . � r� . >,�.���,y_ y, .. ,
_ ".. � .
., . ,,,,... 1, t:y,�.�,
y�y.. � �F` �!�,� k v� �� } `--����', . +.
���6��r���i��' � ,�" :%t,• - � l . ,
._�-�`';�, �y+`.,�+ S: ` � .��� � , � .
,�: •, w:.w W�. ^-,_, " � ,. ''� � - <� `'.-^ ;
.1 �,y�y'"r� � � F �'='s .�► ,� � , '` . .
'' i ���}� .. �,�.�'#�t��`' �`_.�. ''�.. .y �wy. `.i'`� .. -
� =' �♦ +.' ., ilr _ E
' ` �t�^-•�` ,�„ � �« •• Sr ,�..
+'' {+ �`•�.,k ' �.�.��.�. � .;...�t' �o.a " �...�,,:�'„' � �
� � ..- - -�. -: r� .. #�i.`� '�7� _ .. r,;t�"�"'` �,y�.. t . � Jyr,, • .�� ��,` . ...
�,� ���t ..�:-. � 'r •► i�' .. '� :,�ra- .. . . . .
�� ��' � �k }ti. » _'�t ,J�% .� F� >Kt��.�; .. ' 'f '
+!. �,1C• �-' r�\� ,�, ��.
,.� � . . s` � � . , � � _
�
� �i �"3 M`y"� ✓�3, • ' , , ,' . , i .
} � '
�� �-. t
,�, _�, k.,�° ' -6;.' r. t�
C l�f �,�I - '� 1..'� +r. .S J . �j
�� .n�jk, '�qs � y+,• X,., ��` :�. �"`
Z�r � ' _ 4 a
���h - , . � `.. . � � 'i'{ ��k
,:.{Y 1 � . _ � .')
/ �
��,,�" i'
������� ._ � �`�, �i��
��`t�" � , _ . . , ��";
* �• �� h•� . . '-_ } ':� ' '-- ... . ;74j; .,,.;�_. � . , S``.
.��,�,.-•t� ... 'i ��. .. :} t , i�
_ y .,,�. - ;}l�, . ,
.t
k.
;
r"� �
f �. ti.. ti
I
I ' �
I �� j �
�
; ' �
�j � � � ;
�� � � � s
:�� ,��`,,��y� 1
.IVA�� r . , T^ '^�� � .� �
� J � `,I �
nY � r^ 1�'5.�+� k�����"�. 1�i�r� ,', �
� Y.�.,r� t '�- . . ' .'�� _
n.. '� ����"��.. } * � '�.� �
�� y..�w � '�P �.}� .1 ^•_ t.r i, ��
��,.• . .:�� T4 'w � �.�Z...
.. �:��y ' � �i��� _ � '� .
�'^ , '� � ,�� ���_.
/� . K �5
~c
. '` .� �..L `t�.. ��r.
.r, ��b'�
s
� ��`��
•.�
�'� 'w��i'�4""- # � .a,3r,•,. �`':�,•�� �+,y,R,��:�� �� t�i�." a ��._' �`� �`: �a~:- . - � �.� ,_ .. ,. y . J
,.,� R ��'� �{
.,��i.� � y� .� [� � ��. �'�`�4��'� '�� '�:�1�y;,{�.�{� y ��.�_jt�. ^`�.�? �F � �.s .i,� r_,��r�f ��. �y ��w h, - '
- _ v� '. � ,� q �, ��-e d Ji I�k��4 ���'� ` ��.
J� ,�. w v,' fti '74 �. , �} � .� k,.n p'f.t�;,� �` M �,. -0°; ♦
�` �� �t � j�, �P�� � �� �,�+.:f�R'L�:. t'.�'t�Y�. � iy N �1�� �� ,� '�` `- _'_ � -0,✓�. , l . ��
p��y,{� Y�? , . • . • - '�{
..� �':i •4���� .� .���,Ys�A�yp��� ,�v�•• r i� �w�♦ �,���r�.t ;4 . A.;��,' i.� -•w�� �,� y'! .rp �s �'� - ,
tl � p�.�y t S•t. .+,. T«',Y,':• v �_ � i .i���.! � �MI:� . „,f�is �` ` . .rl� "7�'.� J��1�� �„� �.
e • �_ w •1's ' ���. �.w i., r�. Z
p � ,�e :�►`,F. • � �� . �? �ti��� je w 'i� �+ �} ����+! ►' . [r . ~��� ri,JF'k�
��, � '�r• 1i �•4 � � y,� '.{'� js'.� �'iI� '�!'�V c�r��.w . ._• i_ . '�„ '�� ,
: K`� .�3'4 i- ►�" , �a .�'�. 'i'�l:xi: '_ ��f .." �+' i '�s'. � �j„y�y�,p���,i� g t�' . . �. , .�+ � . .. °':`;��r
. " �a- � � • ^�,, . �++�.t ='��.�a f e:'. ' y� � '` ,r
.:ti. K••`�• ,, r, .R `��','`. t wa .,"�f-�*,�r1� .� i"Jr=�. . . , . , . ,°"t+-�"�. i. �.'Alr r
'� �� •�,t. ��t`«i�,,,�./q i � , �' �y;�. ,�sar'���4 .�' "�� ��` .,�'a '�u�" � 'a,�N.. .�..,� � ',{•- `�i'� �
:V:�� ���2��Y0.'�,�-��ti. �.n , r � .�il ��-� "�" '�'.�.��,.'�K�r�j � ' -r�, �, ,•. . � :�•.i�+T;-+a.3
`-� � - m�. • . '�j � ti ' ` :' : .�.��� _'�rv ~' ��j,'ym� .��'7�. ..�, �
��y���+.� ��.,� ,,t��, •Y,,:.'�F �r�•, . �� . � - "'„J, /�,� ��.+ ��.�#.= ,�c,��z.�i -t.:.. �� ��
'�7�lii�. ��^��:.;:',�ti'a"!+J► :,��. '•�s.�y�� �:�+•�.�F_ �r°rL.��'•t5�,.��^ �;�;�����''^ y •,� ... _ � _.. : : yS"'��^ SS
. -��� ;37..� ,-.... �e '_4\77l�q►' ;, '���e��: •�� 1r;i. 1';�' +�.�-w` t► • �y1y' ` s . �'� � .
� ����, a ,
;1 . ����v�-,K�.,� -�� '.�y, �F1����� ;,!i: - ,�r - + ..�,�r ;r ' . �� ` '� _�.�
�� � .? 'wr�^;:. �I� ya. , r..t�.r �. ` $/.��i v ,���1 �p , ����V������ z//
y ����'Y"�r"�!R3t^''"w� 'i`■ ` �+� "C'�y`:��_..di,.7�., ��!�"�.•��4 +1'�^"'� • . ~'�_'�--..^✓�`� ��.��� � ` - ��r�'�7.''��t Y����s' �t
i� • ��� � r� ?*�� ��'—'" V��' ��N.1 SiJY� -�� • •~� `•^: �
� '��' '�".:y '�° � ra��i'G'•4 i�'-w s.,•�.^'�'(r ?- r, � �,.1�I� �yfG!'r�1:�;�< f F�. a��,,,.. �.
.�{�M M :�¢. ,i yr.,.' _.{ ""�F"' �['-;�,- � f " -�'
�1�► �q �� .�. �J�, -•�•l �`'�,A� � �j^ �. Y'� 'f � _- .�_ i . T �' .'�1���� `.{��C���e���� a�i 'M
, ����+�' '��1���+�,�:t•- �y+ .: ���X:Atll�..'�('���:, �T� .Z r'I „;�',�✓,�y��� � •
�, + ��.,� �' ;� �"
:.,,��,�: :� �� ., ,� s� r�� ;,' ...�- � r�,�= "' �
,,,�D'�x'�' �•�r, �:•L�� � r �: � �� y �".�`�.�"''�' s,� .
`i/� ! {�� » jti�M�!Yr-�_�!� �� . ,¢ ��� . ! f�
V�' ��r,�� �', r�~,i`I. ��,t�-�,�,r-�'�(ti� '�� * '1. •. �'-°- ��i�>�.t`yr..� . �
'Y� a '�:�'�+.� e ����\P'"�?-»},'iL--°' � ' ,� �j.�„� ,�p,gy� �'�Y,"K�ii�• •, .v+ •s-
•4 '� . • . Z"�.�.�fr 7 „
.���i6 ' 4� 3't. ,�"'�-`�r�• '���
�' �3k��s� ,y� . : �; +�
- �� ��'F k�::'*;.,�.` _ -. '.`�' 'a,."
.�y� }lw. �� �, �i +R Ns i
•y �� _-��f t�A}-�"f"..
� � '�
f,
�,
H 4 • ���
�4� \
' ,�`��' . .
�
�
�c•
�
b,
�
�
�
�
-'�"��Y �"
3 R�•
� �
r,
' �S
� ����
�ye-?'� � . '� �f� ^* . �, . . . �:r-• �F..i �� .i' r'. . . •N .. - ;�rrvf .jf'• '�
Zl; � ..��,► � {,�R.�,.. ' i��'. :�''•ry: '.. � , � , ' v ✓ +i'� '.� � .� '
� , �� • . ,: . .Y�,�'~ 'r. -w� 1 y '�"� f�:.• ' ':
i.w� � ��, � . . , .. r— . ^ , - • � 'Vy � =�:., _ • rs� ` . .����.• r'�'�ri•� % e' �. �. ��i/.•
" r p y �i . , . y� . ,r'- � . .. ~�. . , �F.r t •'�N. , � ,`i'±• ' r.
�I. . l ��w+M� - . y�� �'� ' . . � . � ' . .. '' �..: °'t�. .:`'' '� - , r:� �r����{��J ����/�'.�'�±'� �,..:Ti•'S�A.'�G"^�_"j{,:
~�JI� � �" 'f � I, •, � , 1' � , ' .
- 5�y.�.e �� � . ��a � � r•r. - • '"� . ' .1 " • ,_; .'/,. . -�c'•i.-`3:. -� '. �"� .�• � 't,;P;•'�':f.'X�
t e�.f t`+ ' . • " — � .r. • •�� i...' !r;' ``~• r+ .-J , _��• iy�r.'�:' _ ;�'��•'=,• :'�•w��r`,i :J�:�fr i b� �
y ' �.� t y .i , ..'�i^'{G�Y- . , ,J . - '�`J-" . ' - �?'' . 1 r.'..�trJ'°,
SA':+� . ' • 1 • . '�� : c. " + + '. . i� . .. ` _ ,. .. ..
. � •^_ � , � • • .�.�'� '.�y,:
t''
..� � . . ,�-� . , . - �� r � � . . ,. '� ~j. :. . y. �•:s ..;•:' ,•�:•'^ ." =F� ♦ :3`
� ' ���+ � �. .�::�' ,,,, .�' "'�•f. r•�^ � ',.s � �-,�;^'t:.,"��
• ~ )�• �,s+,r�.. `~•"� ir- i�N.�•^ ";- .f :.fry„'�,.,�,�:✓!�'•
�. '� �j+ � �'�C�i.yY`'. �• 'ri��.'' f'j.��'{;,�i�y'�' '.s'�r.fitty .••!;:` S✓`+ f�� ♦- �
r4 ei�w•✓� �t.��:i� ��-�:�r.+, j°'�' '� f '':i:� j� •:��s�'l?�y,�`,•�j'+..•�
.�� 7 �.s.+'�'�`"`i�r. lA.
s " ' ^`,. ' ` e �: 'Y � � .11�'-.'7"''' •�y�7`t-} ••.�•;f��
���;;P ' 'il � '�•f
;s 1rr
� Y w,�
,�^R .s � � �C`•'�,1 sT'iA' � .
� . c 'w $' ' �i �� �,ti �
�.
s'
a � �
, �, s��,,
r-
� '��l
�
r
� ' q
�•��•
�' 's�i"� +' '` 1
- - .r �..�
. � . s * � .•'w ' tl� ..� .;��" .
. �r r ..' ,, !. . .. :L� �M �� ��r,.- � . .
W` �{��A'�yW I .� +.y��':���� ..� r . . ,. � �.
�4/r�+ ,'�} � �� • ��„�. r
� _ - . , +.[� �?. yr�
. �It `^,�. �: _ t � . � ��+, -
- -,:e �� `�'� . . �. � y : � ''� � � � r
�' �x�. '►r 'a. `" � ' •
•'' �.. �,� -. . , . �� • . t..%�+ _• � .
. .. t � . .. . . . .Y.Y;
`+�c ^`t_ 'i � �,.. � � ��. ' �'..� .
, �,�w;' E,<`, •. �:�f��". '
w l 'id �[ �.� . ,.
: .,. �. ,��+�s f.aw��`� r 7' K�• ' „'
' 1....._r ' �1 � y. .-• ' �-�,�M
- . , � - � ..a.
� .� � ... ��w . �. i ' � �
� 4.
" . . . ty�,:� ,
' �1
~ il.. a,
u
r
, ,.�t'� . +. ��
' . �� ,�.�,. . � rSr:Ir �/u.�
� . . _ ..�:..
" , � F;'{,. .
� ��
. - '"1�t ��S^ r
` , � ��t�if•sY- , �".[ ',I
r
ih Y �
�,' y f
.. ea
ti�
` t
/ . �y/� _.:�,�:. • �
� �� w
, ' � s as. . ' , �
! ♦ � �
-w •'�/ �:)'
��'`�� � ,, y
� . . � `�
.� .s�,�t-
t .1� 'd�'• '�. �
;,
p � ,�""` Ai� � , ►�' �� K ::
� �� � , , � _ � .s.- - ,�'�'„>;,�+ _ ;�iti _, ti
�r,.,.,t
. wr;
- �i � / � , � �... �,
Y t���, �j^✓' f �: l f .�.v,
.t/ � . / �-Y��• r� � _�. ? . a ...
.�' � .w ���! � ' � ��
�? � ,�" � .�f ��, 1� ' � �.I' ` i�7 ��,q. , _ �-,
Ar�
, ,�i .. . .•Ii �� � /� c�" .' ...r- . .
♦. �` +r'. �` , #
j /. � P , .. ;.M!!� � '��'.
�
:�� . `Y:' '/ ' ' � .. . '"'- "'w .h�"" - . . _ �•
-��`_•';�':>..� .:.�,,�K'�n:"'r"�C;':i�i.• -'c��'# �.'•�,� ��.d •:�,. - ;.:._'.Y.�.. �.� �' •'rT'� 5..: �•r F
• `',o,i:�t��l.+�����.'aJ.r.f f .., '•��i$.'�w�`1�i�.K.v�i'jt. y.0�+�'.. 'i:�}�A a`t"/~ : . `` e R� � -•»,- :�;�i..;�,C"" r�yg'%•.w, . ' i'¢:..cR.''''y_s•,�- �'t.' .r
,.e:,rr���.Y YN"'t„ati��v� ,����-"iti"�T';. .'!C�_'�'i...'�r�: t .�' �. �rc`�.. .'"�l.. ``+-� �.' 1- -�.r�,+ s _ �=13d•.r �•t[!. •tn��_�'7A��•�•
.e:;� . • - • � �• �. ?�:;:'t��.s
'W'r- .'S;�+.;' -•' •�•;,c�_�• s. _��'':�..-�..1y., 1� .:.�'"' , `.�•� ..'1'.i.,.M3:%��•� '�c=. ,�, :�A....{�.:. ' '�' - %!' ,w_ �j'�,?„�-•'�
t',�, alr�'�_T�,'• -� �� y��1=.�'+d�4..��t,=�,.r.r.�4 Vy ��,i, ,�-:_ "� ' �F*r� .-r'r. .,,�,.'' � �...'i y�.T�', ^�Ji.yy�
' �T'a,�,,.�. %'t�'.r, a���p•.iU�`y .'-�`'.�r'�. �ys:.`:'K•�',�+,�,w;:t X�Z:�t�� _`._- ` .,r,_ �"� :L a .�s.i..':e� :'•z"•J� 4 .3'.j�'L� � :�
.i `a.a6�? .,,,,p;,,;Y,'f,��,'�^ ''W�.�j.'.'. `-r`•, 'e, ? �;^'�,..;_-u..,. s' yL, � - -'� _ ^ =.' rc�,:,;,':n�>_ - • � f�.:y �,,• ,� t
• .,,. � x^yy�4.. ` "►i-' "+,.�-�Y�'"'�'�r3". ' '�'`' �•f,.b � .. =3~'.��� �'^��� � �P'. '�`.�'"-��7��7yy-
.,�•�' . .a .�a�S. :;�i,� -• �• ��•� +^ij�.�'.'wy.�E'.�"�^�l t Y.-•` �", I�+ '� _ ' � i ��� • +i " i^
'ye.. �y, �.. .:..w:• _��r.+ . i•=�-at`:,j'Tr::s: . ,.iy;'<' -:4':r ��`" q� r...... .:•!�. •��,� %'�^„ '4'r ,. 3� '
? r'�:+�._.. .��4.��•� �.�,�^i�:�'Y _ . ' ••1'H_,�.=i"�.u:�n %Y�:y� .�'4`.-' •��VY'^'i •..! a[y�LA".4.,�.�:� I, .'1`.Z e�r_ r.c �" � �',_.../���+4,.
�F �~'` 4� � �"'-; : . .: .� 4 � - � �9A .�"�^ ��� ' � �rM i� �. '+�����
� �?j�: ' �,. ! �` ^1✓'
"� +� , 'ti.ly" .�i`'s ..i >',Is.c +,'r
�� .n'ti4=' •� ' �,d� .� ;.i.^'�`."t' _ •C:S��' .�F.��.•^.'�C=.J�:::�'� � `� .• � •A�'� •,-• t�T'' • •�..R�ic '""J.:e +.c?'�.a"�;r.��,n'. . ��."'
}�e'"�.."v���y bt:��1'. .c... � ...�n•'r+`,� .i•._'t„4;_..:4�,. �-� .. �:sa,,�•_ ��- .�-il�,_ _ -C:w�{�"� :��+'+7...,sr.,,�. _rT*��.
�.�����+r"..i.`=. :.'�ti=;•+� �� . ,.?r,'' +",.. e -' , 's!`''_'� '�- ,�' '���.: '� .,�
•^�w .�` �=i, ��,ay';���..��4.��. �c...r�,�r•'^ ti�' .��L� 'c 't�"i. :''.:�`f°a =s'-.'y.� 'f"� ' � ,e<..~ -�� . • �,,, ' �:s..� 5..,
�:J�'S'�,�+"f-'!�.f�+(�`�ji."� �'C�L��` 2` - �Y''• .tr+'r� •.!tiY� v�t �'-�:! �`ad'��'-�,2�.�."^• �v..Y.�. ���. 1�''`•�.: ^��.w �;I ••� T;� � 'r�
'h'r� �k wi�."'K' :'�i.,,� �'yfiy'4,ALS • �s ' _ �,4� :.�,��a ;.+: • � �+5.y: ..g r J'`.•'-.� ' . `�E"�.K4'$:.q
�� x' • •': v _ y .'•~y � �r�f ' : � -. E..
� �..+..� P.�,'�.''•.~,?�e.�-r?�.f:',�, :'aYF` ;t"�v� .. _ - .�,A�.t.-.-,4 ��� �'rY:_,i•�..r! -"T,"t c•.i. ��� «�1 �. "�,.,=�n
!'4 '7R.r.�. ,,`_ �.�t��rivaa;.:�j.` �-' ~ � ..�: T;,ti'_ " A..,�e(� � ,•+.. '� �a�: � � •:'ti^
��;-r„'� • . �.:i�wr• �,^'!�"�+r'�.� • L� ..:" ' ,•i� �'"`+�J'�^_:a :�&�-� r. _ 'V ya.r ^.•�, s . '� -^» '..s,'"
�x , ao'cC' :.!� 9h.-�.:n.T.'�f,�^•,�'C«'� .-t..'it Y � ' ' ;3.'.+v:'s.+�".3�' �-�••w�' _ �.f�.�: " - -
Y't: =<r. y}��. . . �`- , � �,: -s�; �= _ =e� -, '^ �,
�Sfij�1� 1^r �•.'y: " � w�{� '=t ,�l: � ���� �'i �,/iiK a', ..,{"e.�.�F. _, . "`�7: 4��:1� _ � :�ti.r .'i
��y. ...};, s' �}' �k:_ 1•.+:,w's5�'+� p.%'1�:.'= ' 3'-_ :Gs;� '.��:_.:... :§: a_:rr', r 's_-� '.�.�j:
L' s<��..' '•s,w;�.F'w?'. "`�-,s:, `-'�'D .i`;ii - '"` " r» ' :•i��f''�;� ,��:�' .a:�.,�r ''f•a�• '�•_ -T; �'Iy,.�
� s�- �,�• - ��� •F�`l-� � ���.-� •�:�i�•�r`a. .'��j. {.�" _ �.���`.-� _ .:�L. _ :1:� «�-•}:
44�• ��.vy� Af�.". .�...^t�"'�� �S��•�S 'y _ �s' ;Y�y�.'T�•.irt' ;ti.' . . . L:r f� �
�.;•.�'%{;.:�`►. "�+v „L"..�. ,.,.4,l4-i�. . �a� :i:7•~�'�^"<.. . ','"�• _ ' - �� . - ,..%"
�.�= r �,,���.,�� •�`^^ . .,ti..• ��s. ' '..� _ �.f?.• :.�.� .F; • " -•,C'�. , -J. '�_ t- '1
.�.• `"�~���i'%'..-.y.,.'c. ;o:F� :�'..��'J''3,'s. .}�. .`�n.r•.... �r.: - ',t";,� .-'I'� -:�,,•.+'.' .:c :�t� -.. _. . . _ _ _ . r'�
e ,�''' �"..�,e}W ,',��,,� '.�;.:,-�`.^m,p '..s's• `� � -'' -s 4-_,�A;�'� y:...s.,,. . - ,_ _ _- - . " - ' '
. "•�':M-�'a M.�� 'a r .,t+n.'r,',•': _��..�. �'.:.s"•�•:^ ''�":"�� f�`�ji-eY ' ,i�7.`.. . ,- _ , 'r� _ - � • , _-, P
_ ^� �'�- . �Y::._..�. � rT• - •'•�v "'"- _� _ '- _ ';� _ - _ . - : .�- - _ . y�� , � '_ �
� - -~.iS�.- - .•,T. ��„�_ - •'�_"-.�+yr.'' ,r`�J . •-..'� .:� ' -._� �..� . . . . a"�:' -'".:+i".� .� "r :r'
�yr- �.i• .- _ -�ti• ' w � ... _ '.'' -�-' ': . _ � , ._ , ' ' ` . ' � .J .�- : .%''' 4 - �t`:-: '''" .9
Y�y •��_ •�• �:-�{1�",•.. � �:. �z � _ � _ .y'
"��,'_ �'���1C��1...�_;.+.. ' ' ,` �� � _ _0�- - . - � , _ • • '*' ..- _ ' �•#' !� "
=i•�y.� '.�1� � . . • S _ _ ^ �4�. � ''I•�� ' t"
-��� 1��1.• _?:!'� �i " �� �- � _' .. _ . . .v� �� . � - ,•� •� �•
X ^t�.r , " ���' • , ` .,�,,. 'yidy� ' . ' _'r,,, - ..�.�:
��;'�� 1; »� �• , _ �i�, - • " ; �'�c. . y� .'..� " _ ' '�,.�,.:. r
" '�t _ :,� �,+ ,;, ..r�_.-' - - '�.'.,.--:.r- .,� =
?' -
: >
��,..
�
� ��.. j � }
�
�— �,�c��" - . -
- _ ---- _- - - .--. --_ - -
- - - - --
-- -. -- _ _ --
I �. � tEGEND ��s�
� DENOTES SANITARY MANHQLE � DENOTES WETLAND BUFFER �ce�ca�a�wrs
// ` 30 15 0 15 30 6Q � DENOTES ITYDRANT �qP�•
� � �o Eaposr
� � Q DENOTES CATCH BASIN '"
SCALE IN FEET �
'' � ��� ` GLE � DALE � � DENOTESSTORMMANHOLE •
� Q� /
` C C,� E L N. � � DENOTES STORM APRON
1 , I Q DENOTES SET IRON MONUMENT •.
� U �
` ' ' ,, as � E�EnAQhd�l4lC.1 � DENOTES FOUND IRON MONUMENT
Z �
` � 9 46,� TAINELE►!=>A0.4 6ts x 000 0 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATiON ��
PR�oPoisED�,t� * ` � •SO �4� `�
a� ` 8R� �A *�tP�"�� a`� � �`? ' .�O � (000.0) DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION � �
s ` -�— DENOTES DIRECTION OF SURFACE DRAINAGE NORTH (� �
�{ O� � � �
� �� '�� '` � 1 O � ��'� � � � DENOTES SANITARY SEWER � r
��1 ��*,� 0 `�
SERVICE ELEVATION � �
I ` ��,� 1 �1 �� + �;< � �' TRAN DENOTES TRANSFORMER TB DENOTES TELEPHONE BOX W 3
t h Oc'�' m Q
I y "� , . .� � � '_ ---- ,
` \ o .�pps,s � - DENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR 3
�` ' � � � ' � � ��s DEN07ES PROPOSED CONTOUR � o
� �
` `\ � � /` � NQlTE$; _ °°
� a _ O S)y,_ � � ,�. 1•j EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ARE SNOWN IN AN ApPROX1MATE WqY ONLY.
Q �
- ,, *da,n �$ � ''� � "� \O .1000,0 / � THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ANY AND �
���� ( �� � ��� y �Q � ,� �� ? � � � ��7 ( _✓ � ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. HE AGREES TO B� � �
� ` \� "� .S ' "" � X ♦� FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF HIS �yaa a�,�
1 '� ` � w� �3 �► �1.,�, �1i j �� < FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL EXISTING � '�r��
w°�� c � \ . �s�a'�tr ~� _ �� . ,oa.Q Z �• � uTr�mEs. � :.
� � �
\ 1' 't � \�` ' � j: 2.)MUST MAINTAIN A MINiMUM 2%SLOPE GRADIE ;
�. � � i �'j�` �� , � NT TO ACCOMMODATE °L�,�
` � ` " $, �7' !�` � ?.' �� , N' POSITIVE DRAINAGE. ti�� of.c�
� �y� � \ ""�O `s w j' /` ' 3.)ALL OFFSET lRONS ARE a
, ;� � �1 7�� �O, \ a ��,,,• �.. MEASURED TO HUNDREDTHS OF A FOOT AND
/ � CAN BE USED AS BENCHMARKS.
_ _=' � o ,� � rs�, � ,no�a +a�� � ti
ID
O� G�� � �C�►� �' � �`� � � 4.)THE PROPOSED DRIVEWqY SHOtNN IS CONCEPTUqL ONLY AiVD DOES
1 ���� � � �� NOT PURPORT TO SHOW EXACTLY HOW THE DR{VEwAY SHALL BE BUILT. },
t0 ' \�` � � �
�� � •� _� ��.- � 5.j A TITLE OPINtON WAS NOT FURNISHED TO THE SURVEYOR. � (n W �
� r _ wJ� 6.)PROPOSED GRADES SHOWN ADJqCENT TO BUIIDlNG FOUNDATION � W � �
Q � �-� � �:;�.�'. �� ,� � � � � REFERS TO TOP OF BU1CK DIRT. (n � � � Z
a \ �� -,. I Yi7.Z O Q > Z
Z � "` -�- � ...._ _ � _ _ � �,.,, � r ' r 7.)BENCHMARK: � W = W �
�� �''�"` �,. � .�„p���� p MNDOT GEODETIC STATION#81489-MONUMENT IN BRIDGE SIDEWALK IN W a �
�.� � ;�a SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WILLOW DRIVE. F- a W q �p
\ "„'�' �--- i� ..... ,..�.r ELEVATION=1012.81 {NAVD88) V a �" � �
N89'21 'OO�1N 167�25 �' � � Z � o
�, �= O ; ~
\`p I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION W � N V
\ OF A SURVEY OF THE BOUNDARIES OF: U
SETBACKS LOT 6,BLOCK 1,GLENDALE COVE,ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT
MIN.FRONT YARO SE7BACK=30' OFFSET lRONS HARDCOVER FLOOR AREA RAT�p THEREOF,HENNEPIN COUMY,MINNESOTA
MIN.SIDE YARD SETBACK=10',10' ELEVATIONS ARE TO THE TOP OF PlPE LOT AREA= 17,374 S.F. LOWER LEVEL=1430 S.F.
MIN.REAR YARD SETBACK�30' OS#1 =1003 51 OS#3=998 22 HOUSE AREA=2,388 S.F. I►ND THE PROPOSED BUILDING TO BE CONSTRUCTED AND OTHER
MAIN FIOOR=1441 S,F. IMPROVEMENTS AS PROVIDED TO ME THlS 16TH DAY OF AUGUST,2013. �RAW/CHECK
DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATA- WO os�z=,00s,3 os�4=9a�6, DRIVEWAY AREA=gp9 g,F. UPPER LEVEL=2062 S.F.
SIDEWALK AREA=88 S.F. MNlUDBp
GARACE FL�R ELEVATION =10d5.5 G��=��--� DATE
BASEMENT FLOOR ELEVATION =997,p BASEMENT STOOP ARFqs 222 g,p, TOTAL=5.880 S.F. ,
TOTAL PERIMETER AT OR 07-31-13
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS UNDER 1002.1 F007 CONTOUR=86.5 S.F. T07AL IMPERVIOUS AREA=3,60�S.F. TpTAL LOT AREA=17,374 S.F. BOOK�/PAGE
PROPOSED GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION =1006.1 T�TAL PERIME?ER =1�g F RECEIVED
PROPOSED TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION=1006.9 COVERAGE= 20.7% p,q,R,�,34 JOB NO.
PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR ELEVATION =997.7 COVERAGE= 50.3�o David S. Pemberton, Licensed Land Surveyor AUG 19 2014
Minnesota License No, 4p3qq 31202-138
DWG.NAME
CI'PY B�ORO NO C�RT�t�►�_,zR
- _________. _
- ---�--- --- --------
LEGEND � Revisiows
� DENOTES SANITARY MANHOLE � DENOTES WETLAND BUFFER ' �
30 15 0 15 3p � �
DENOTES ITYpRANT �F�x
�+ � � SCAI..E IN FEET � DENOTES CATCFi BASIN ��
\ / �LE DALE 1 � DENOTES STORM MANHOLE
t �� E ��� , L1 DENOTES STORM APRON
` �� r O DENOTES SET IRON MONUMENT
` ' � •
� -► �� �A � DENOTES FOUND IRON MONUMENT V �
Z �
` �D � , �!�`9 4�►� �'�EV=>�� x 000 0 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION �
� �A .R 1 • � ti
+� �� —` s�� `,� � S� QaQ� ) (000.0� DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION � �
Q� 6' � "
� R�� ��� *`�,p � �� '�1 ` � �-- DENOTES DIRECTION OF SURFACE DRAINAGE �
�' NORTH � �
�
�g ,��� � /\1 �� � DENOTES SANITARY SEWER SERVICE ELEVATION � �
�.� \ �
� �� ���� �i �,� � //� � r� � �� � TRAN DENOTES TRANSFORMER TB DENOTES TELEPHONE BOX W 3
a�' � � � � r,� m a
I �hy �. � , '•,�� o '1006.E ----- DENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR
�
� . � .�,�� �� �ppQ,3 l DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOUR W g
��� � ` �,�: �I .��
� `� �\ ` � � � � n� / � NO„�,,,TEg: _ &
\���� :� � � � S� ` „� .,.� 1•)EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN AFtE SHOWN IN AIV AppROXIMATE WAY ONLY. Q �
.� �
� THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE TNE EXACT LOCATION OF ANY AND
d�" � � �� � a Q e� AI.L EXiSTING UT1LITiES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. HE AGREES TO BE � �
� ` i \ �•Q��� �r '� �.�
',� � � � � � ry :�"� �� FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF HIS
t `� � FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE/Wy qNp q�L EXISTING 3�{0� �,,'�.
1 \ �� � �` �`��t,�G%r �$ _,.T?� '� �oo~.� Z �j�'� � uTi�mEs. � �
� � � � � � �
� � .���t � �� �� 4 � 0 2•)MUST MAINTAIN A MINIMUM 2%SLOPE GRApIENT TO ACCOMMODATE � '�
� �� � �� �� � Nu � POSITIVE DRAINAGE. �,
� ��a �a��
� O
\ � `s '` � � j` �/� 3.)ALL OFFSET IRONS ARE MEASURED TO HUNDREDTHS OF A FOOT AND
�� � � � / � ♦ �� CAN BE USED AS BENCHMARKS.
00 � rt� � 9� �` t�.e ooa.� � 4
O � � �-� ���� s� � 4.)THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY SHOWN IS CONCEPTUAL ONLY AND DOES
�' �\ � � � NOT PURPORT TO SHOW FJ(qCTLY HOW THE DRIVEWAY SHALL BE BUlLT.
� � �-
� �
� r ` � �� � � � '� 5.)A TITLE OPINION WAg NOT FURNISHED TO THE SURVEYOR. � (n W �
� 6.)PROPOSED GRADES SHOWN ADJACENT TO BUILDlNG FOUN�qTION � W � y
�
z `" ` ��`'-�*-� � '� � � REFERS TO TOP OF BLACK DIRT.
\ � 1Ya7 3 I �9D7.2 (n � � w Z
_.�DE_ -- � �- '" � � Q Q Z
1 w -` �— — -._. ,— � � 7.)BENCHMARK:
oo = � �
� '� .,,, '�,�9�0.1 o MNDOT GEODETIC STATION#8148g-MONUMENT!N BRIDGE SIDEWALK IN H a W � �
�� y� SOUTHEAST CpFZNER OF WILLOW DRIVE. Z
•Y06A
N89'21'00"W 16?�25 � � �' " ' "" "` ELEVATION=1012.81 (NAVD88) � a Z � o
�� � 0 � �
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION C� N U
� OF A SURVEY OF THE gpUNDARIES OF: W
SETBACKS v
MIN.FRONT YARD SETBACK=30� OFFSET lRONS HARDCOVER LOT 8,BLOCK 1,C,I.ENDALE COVE,ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT
MiN.SIDE YARD SETBACK=10',10' '—""'— -----,—�._ FLOOR AREA RqT�p THEREOF,HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
MIN.REAR YARD SETBACK=30' ELEVATIONS ARE TO THE TOP OF PfPE LOT AREA= 17,374 S.F. LOWER LEVEL=1430 S.F.
os a� _�oos s� os�s=ssa 22 HOUSE AREA=2,3gg g,F, MAIN F�ppR-1441 S.F. AND THE PROPOSED BUILDING TO BE CONSTRUCTED AND OTHER
DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATA- WO OS#2=1005 13 os�a=sss,si DRIVEWAY AREA-9p3 g,p, IMPROVEMENTS AS PROVIDED TO ME THlS 16TH DAY OF AUGUST,2013. DRAW/CHECK
UPPER LEVEL a 2062 S.F.
GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION =�ppg,5 SI�EWALK AREq-gg g.F, ��G _�
BASEMENT FLOOR ELEVATION =��,p BASEMENT $TOOP/�R�,qs�2 g_p_ --� -�s-F- (�D�BP
TOTAL PERIMETER AT OR TOTAL=5,880 S.F. ,
PROPOSED ELEVATIONS UNDER 1002.1 FOOT CONTOUR=86.5 S.F. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA=3,801 S.F. TOTAL LOT AF2Eq=17,374 S.F. 07-39-13
PROPOSED GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION =10�.1 �T�P�RIMETER =��s F RECE��/ED BOOK�/PAGE
PROPOSED TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION=1006.4 COVERAGE= 20.7% F.A.R._.34
PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR ELEVATION =�7.7 COVERAGE= 50.3% David B. Pemberton, Licensed Land Surveyor AUG 19 20�4 �OB NO.
Minnesota Licenss No. 40344 31202-138
- - - �
CITY O�ORONO ��;��
Melanie Curtis
From: Robert Bean (bobbe@bolton-menk.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 3:33 PM
To: Christine Mattson
Cc: Andrew Mack; Melanie Curtis; David P. Martini; Brian Simmons
Subject: 2013-00858-2325 Glendale Cove Lane
Christine,
I performed a site inspection regarding the Asbuilt Survey for Glendale Cove Lane on 8/26/14. Following are my
comments for your consideration:
1. A retaining wall on the southwest side of the property was constructed within a Drainage and Utitity easement.
An encroachment agreement should be submitted for this wall.
2. A retaining wall on the west side of the house is over 4' in height. Walls 4'or greater in height should be
designed by a Professional Engineer,and plans submitted for review and approval. Verification from a licensed
Professional Engineer should be submitted stating the wall was constructed per industry standards and the
design meets required factor of safety margins.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me to discuss.
Thanks,
Robert E.Bean,Jr,P.E.
LEED Green Assoc.
Water Resources Engineer
Bolton&Menk, Inc.
Consulting Engineers&Surveyors
2638 Shadow Lane,Suite 200
Chaska, MN 55318
P:(952)448-8838,ext 2892
F:(952)448-8805
email: bobbe@bolton-menk.com
www.bolton-menk.com
T'his email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
1
� Pl�cting 8 Zonirg Plan�r:�w LEGEN�
' Si1e Ptan Re+risw OaAa: '� • ��s�
RECEIVED DENOTES SANITARY MANHOLE € � �
�
3t1 15 0 15 30
60 � DENOTES ITYDRANT ��
SEP ' 6 �013 0��ovEow���v�rcrvsise•na.s' -
�QENI� � SGALE IN FEET ❑ DENOTES CATCH BASIN
� ��'�Y OF ORONO � � � GLE ! DALE `
� DENOTES STORM MANHOLE
GO E LN. � � DENOTES STORM APRON
�� -� �� � O DENOTES SET IRON MONUMENT
� � � / � � U
S[TE P �GI���NG P�At� ' � � DENOTES FOUND lRON MONUMENT
Natm Z �
APPROVED� VISIOP�S :iF�.8 �^�� RS946'� 4 ` x 000.0 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION N
* F,,, �
Q{�PPROVED �� �A �� s�Q n_ 'X � (000,0� DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION � �
vQ =
�� s � f- DENOTES DIRECTION OF SURFACE DRAINAGE � g
BY � •�j�• q� � �►,r � �„
D A T E / ,+�1 O �� '`��t� •� 0�•� p ��,. 0�0.� D E N O T E S S A N I T A R Y S E W E R S E R V I CE ELEVATION � ~
��'� % t0��3.5� � E ��t�'� -'• � �
�,_ T R A N D E N O T E S T R A N S F O R M E R T8 DENOTES TELEPHONE BOX W 3
. � ,5 � y
� � � �_"t a
I � �y� t �� S` �;;� � �, �p R� 12755 ----- DENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR --- � o
\ A � � � � �` ��g.6 � DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOUR � o
'` \°�`" � f ' �`�. a� �o�o��.�� / � Np=� _ �m
� �
� \� �Q 1.)EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ARE SHOWN IN AN APPROXIMATE WAY ONLY. ~ y
$ � � ` � f� THE CONT R A C T O R S H A L L D E T E R M I N E T H E E X A C T L O CA T I ON OF ANY AND Q g
I �` �� � 1Q �j,7' , � � w �i � ALl EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. HE AGREES TO BE � �
� � �� ��� ,, � � � _.,�+� F U L L Y RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF HIS ,��a� �.�
tpv--
I �a � � {�, � ry' t? �.�, �„ � FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL EXISTING J°` ,c
� � ��l OOG,13 � UTILITIES. �t ,
N 6
�• J t ,p � 2.)MUST MAINTAIN A MINIMUM 2%SLOPE GRADIENT TO ACCOMMODATE °' �r
� ' POSITIVE DRAINAGE. r
� � r z �
� ��'�� ��r.e� �rs � . :, o , ��,,+► �� ",,� �y.
� • - �� .
�. � � �� " r 3.)ALL OFFSET IRONS ARE MEASURED TO HUNDREDTHS OF A FOOT AND
o �
� �2�► �� � ? �f�� � ..L �� � � CAN BE USED AS BENCHMARKS.
p 991.7 � � �.t00Z. q. � L
O -� �� C,�-�'�\ � j� r, 4.)THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY SHOWN IS CONCEPTUAL ONLY AND DOES
� 992.3 �� Z �4'�'� ���"'�0 0 0' _, � �^ `,� � NOT PURPORT TO SHOW EXACTLY H O W T H E D R I V E W A Y S H A L L B E B U I L T. �,,,
= 991'3 991.9 s91� .f � �"`��,J `..j 0� � / � � 5.)A TITLE OPINION WAS NOT FURNISHED TO THE SURVEYOR. � (n W F
� � r � •998.8 � o
� ggy,5 \ �I _ _ .._ --� 6.)PROPOSED GRADES SFiOWN ADJAGENT TO BUILDING FOUNDATION � � g �
z991,2 99�99t�� '�--� �` � 87. q��3 i � _ _ REFERS TO TOP OF BLACK DIRT. (n O O � Z
� 6 ` �- LL � �
991.3 991.7 �9 .0 \ � �6 ' ,_... � c�n- - - - � '� 7.)BENCHMARK: 0 0 = o
992.5 gga,� 992.0 1 o MNDOT GEODETIC STATION#81489-M O N U M E N T I N B R I D G E S I D E W A L K{N W � Q Q z
�.� �'� � 9 9 5.2 S O U T H E A S T C O R N E R O F W I L L O W D R I V E.
FO 1" SOUD � 993.7 � I •�� �� -�` "" �' �LEVATION=1012.81 (NAVD88) V � �.. w O
N89�2� ��Q� ���� � 993.4 � FD RLS � O ,� O
' � N �
� S• � �
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION C� N U
1 t� OF A SURVEY OF THE BOUNDARIES OF: W
SETBACKS r U
LOT 6,BLOCK 1,GLENDALE COVE,ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT
MIN.FRONT YARD SETBACK=30� OFFSET IRONS HARDCOVER F L O O R A R E A R A T I O T�EREOF,HENNEPI N C O U N T Y,M I N N E S O T A
M I N.S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K=1 0',1 0' ELEVATIONS ARE TO THE TOP OF PIPE LOT AREA= 17,374 S.F. LOWER LEVEL=1430 S.F.
MIN.REAR YARD SETBACK=30' OS#1=1003 5� OS u3=998.22 HOUSE AREA=2,388 S.F. MAIN FLOOR=1441 S.F. �D THE PROPOSED BUILDING 70 BE CONSTRUCTED AND OTHER
DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATA- WO OS#2=100513 oS ft4=9ss s� DRIVEWAY AREA=903 S.F. UPPER LEVEL=2062 S.F. �MPROVEMENTS AS PROVIDED TO ME THIS 16TH DAY OF AUGUST,2013. DRAW/CHECK
SIDEWALK AREA=88 S.F. MNK/DBP
GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION =1005.5 GARAGE=947 S.F. DATE
BASEMENT FLOOR ELEVATION =997.0 BASEMENT STOOP AREA= �G.F TOTAL=5,880 S.F.
TOTAL PERIMETER AT OR 07-31-13
P R O P O S E D E L E V A T I O N S UNDER 1002.1 FOOT CONTOUR=86.5 S.F. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA=3,601;;.F. TOTAL LOT AREA=17,374 S.F. BOOK/PAGE
PROPOSED GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION =1006.1 T9TAL PERIMETER =172 S F NA
PROPOSEO TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION=1006.4 COVERAGE= 20.7% F.A.R.=.34 David B. Pemberton, JOB NO.
PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR ELEVATION =997.7 COVERAGE= 50.3% Licensed Land Surveyor 31202-138
Minnesota License No.40344
DWG.NAME
CERT 31202-138
� '�. 'l � / - --
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
QUALITY OF WATER QUALITY OF LIFE
1"he�4�•rn�hoha C�eek
'J,'a`ershed G;'st�ct;s
November 24,2014
committeci ro a
teadership roie in TO: Melanie Curtis,City of Orono
protectrng. ir�proving CC: Casey and Jill Hoehn
FROM: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
and n;.�i,nging the �: 2325 Glendale Cove Lane
su foce ���aten a��d
The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District(MCWD)has reviewed the as-built plans for the above
nj}1(+o�ed grourn�i�•vate� re��ced property.Based on our review,we offer the following findings and comments for your
rrs�urces���ith;n the �nsideration:
n;stna, incluclinn[heir 1. The as-built survey reeeived by the Distriet on September 10,2014 shows a boulder wall within
,el�tio��shi��s to t;�e �e wetland buffer.
e�osyste��15 G,F 4,-hrch c��e� 2, The as-built survey received by the District on September 10,2014 shows wetland buffer signs
a�e c,n in�e�.r(p,rt. located on the wetland setback edge.
'1,'e achieve our niissian The District recommends that the property owners remove the sod within the buffer area and seed the
buffer area with a native seed mix approved by the District The District requires that the buffer
ihrougfi regulatian, veget�tion is maintained in accordance with Section 7(a)of the District's Wetland Protection Rule.
capita!p,���ects, The District requires that buffer signs are installed on the wetland buffer edge in accordance with
Section 5(d)of the District's Wetland Protection Rule.
e�ucatior, cooperafiva
e,:d�avo�s, ar,d�,ther If there are any questions,please contact me at(952)473-2855 or at chall@minnehahacreek.org.
proc�ra��ts based on 'I'bank you,
scu;�d science,
�,���cvative thi,7��ns, e;1
Courtney Hall, District Technician
i��foimed nnd er,caJeh
consfituency, nnd the
co�t effectis�e use of
publi:funds.
� . °� o
� � � .��C�` I A►� N 0� 1�� � E-�V� � N�� E R S
. , �
CRITERIUM-SCHIMNOWSKI ENGINEERS
161 DUNBAR WAY
MAHTOMEDI,MN 55115
TEL 651779-7700
FAX 651779-7114
www.criterium-schi m nowski.com
September 19,2014
Aaron Madson
Natural Creations Inc.
5700 Vagabond Lane North
Plymouth,MN 55446
RE: Boulder Retaining Wall Evaluation
2325 Glendale Cove Lane
Orono,Minnesota
Project No. 14-1413
Dear Mr.Madson:
This letter is being sent per your request for an evaluation of the boulder retaining wall construction at the
2325 Glendale Cove Lane project in Orono,Minnesota. This evaluation is based on verbal information
and project photos provided on September 15,2014(see attached photos).
The construction of the retaining walls appears to be structurally stable and in general conformance with
boulder retaining wall and construction industry standards. The walls were constructed with boulders of
sufficient size and setback. Other typical construction details such as use of drainage elements and filter
fabric also appeared to be followed correctly. As is normal for boulder retaining walls of this type, some
wall movement and soil settlement should be expected.
I recommend that gutters and downspouts be installed and maintained on the house in order to direct the
roof runoff away from the retaining wall. Concentrated areas of surface water should also be directed
away from the walls.
Tfiis evaluation was performed using the design guidelines presented in the third edition of the"Design
Manual for Segmental Retaining Walls"(DMSRW)published by NCMA in 2009. If soil conditions,
proposed layouts,or other design parameters vary from that assumed a revised analysis might be needed.
Please call me if you have any questions or need more information. Thank you.
Sincerely,
U �� —
� � _
Paul Schimnowski,PE
LICENSED
P ENGINEE S� RECEIVED
H S'TRUCTURA NEVA UATIONS S �OV — 7 ZO�'t
ASSOCIATION RESERVE/TRANSITION STUDIES
R ES I DENTIAUCOMMERC IAL
RETAINING WALL DESIGN&EVALUATIONS CITY OF ORONO
2325 Glendale Cove Lane,Orono,Minnesota
September 19,2014 .
Page 2 of 2
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
This report is expressly made subject to the following terms and conditions to which all persons that receive and rely
thereon agree:
1.The Engineers services shall be performed with the skill and care ordinarily used by members of the engineering
profession practicing under similar conditions at the same time and in the same locality and applies only to facts that
are within Engineer's knowledge or could reasonably have been ascertained by ENGINEER.
• Our observations were non-destructive,and limited to those portions of the facility that could be visually
examined without excavation,removing surface finishes,disassembling equipment, or removing finishes,
furnishings and equipment.
• Our scope of services did not include an exhaustive technical investigation.No material sampling,analytic
tests,precise measurements or engineering calculations were performed.
• We did not determine whether the facility and its operation or use conform to any building codes,or
regulations,or restrictions that may be enforced within the jurisdiction.
• Pmbable cost estimates figures,if provided,are based on statistical construction records,past project
experience,and judgment.The actual cost will vary based on economic and bidding conditions.We
recommend that the actual be determined by obtaining competitive bids.
2.The report is not to be construed as guarantees or warranties of the condition of the buildings and grounds.
3.Said Report reflects and is an expression of the professional judgment of ENGINEER.
4. Said Report is given as to the best of Engineer's knowledge,information,and belief as of the date hereof.
5.Said Report is based entirely on and expressly limited by the scope of services ENGINEER has been employed by
Client to perform.
6.To the fullest extent permitted by law,Client and Engineer(1)waive against each other,and the other's
employees,officers,directors,agents,insurers,partners,and consultants,any and all claims for or entidement to
special,incidental,indirect,or consequential damages arising out of,resulting from,or in any way related to this
report,and(2)agree that Engineer's total liability to Client shall be limited to the total amount of compensation
received by Engineer.
'7.The parties acknowledge that Engineer's scope of services does not include any services related to Molds or
Hazardous Environmental Condition(the presence of asbestos,PCBs,petroleum,hazazdous substances or waste,
and radioactive materials).If,however,during the inspection,we knowingly encounter such substances,we wiil
notify you of the presence of these substances without accepting any liability whatsoever for any damage or harm
caused by the substances.It is your responsibility to determine if further testing is required and to retain an
independent,qualified professional to perform such tests.
CRITERIUM-SCHIMNOWSKI ENGINEERS
TEL 651 779-7700
Location: Photo Taken by: Date: ,��,�TEF�1 U I`� �
2325 Glendale Cove Ln. Natural Creations NA
Orono, Minnesota E X C 1 iV E E i�S
Description•
View of boulder
retaining walls. No
� structuralissues
noted.
�,�:
�'
Photo Number
1
a Descrintion•
View of boulder
retaining wall. No
structural issues
noted.
•�s
S
Photo Number
2
�+�,� � �r-
� `� "�� (
�- J � �
�
%; A� � �
/ I
� �ro �
,.- c, � �
�s � �
,
�
J
�\ � �0 �� �
°/� N� ���s' I .
� ��
� � � w ���
� � `. 1
i N `:y I
� � �
�/ 1
N 89°21'00"W 321.�55 (14.97 I
---------�--------------------------------------------------------,-��
154.00 167.�5 cn_. N 89'21'00"W 214.00 �
� � ,w, � �m I
�'_ � _ 70_ _ �- - .....�.._8,�.�..�.+..�...-- �'�°�' , i
� Z �m i� ��'`� .: i
�` i
� N n ; ! � '�
p i
�/ �� p ,�� � '
/ �
N I g � j�'•. 1
/ -� a'„� 7 -'�
/ i' � i.l � pp y 1
, � W_ � i
-�; �; � � � ;-., �
iv/ 0°� I " '•--� � �
i �� I
.�;i �v �'I � ,� �� � I �
;r`' s\38.� � ;� a �^ ,�e � � , � ;''•. I
� a,� .� . . ;
' \• �%� � C`S 9°46, + \ � +`+'`'` � 1
� ��� -,, `''� 7�QS ��,���� ?76 �4. ����` \\ � � ���� �
� �� ���j� pU o00 i 4,0 I �.: '��• i
� � a � �=D � 1, � � ,, � ,
��\ '� �,� �i � �`. � S 89°21'00"E 181.00 �
�' \ f ,', ' � 174.00 �
„ �
i \1 � ��� � ��p' � �
� � I ��� � � d ,
,�, p 2 �, �
p� n ?,'�','L I�� I $\ \� `�ao i
n f�'ti ��� a� �,% i ,cP�o �� �v`N � ', ? � O - �
��pe� ' v: �p�; p� �c`'o O. � Q � �J\e� \'� �
� �a o3\ � y'�� � �` 47 O� � t1 ' � � OZ� a"' O 4•9� c� '; �
c4�o '$ ' 1 ��pL -- �' ,--�'"'� 'oo �Qa ,9� � i
��, �;,o ► � , �r �'e�� � '�..-,� �' _ `� y O�.M,�tl�g�;.. � I �
� � / � ' � / •z ' \ _ �C{ �0 �i I
� — — — — — — \�N 25 �0 25 � ��� ' �,6�/'L� .�" '�� v__;3J�� �":li� �� '' I �
ol � �
:.� - - -- - -- �p g � �-- �� y� � �j - ; � .ao� � /�ww�A�� � ,
- — — — - — � ID i' � �;��' ' � I rn�V � �� .� O° WV'� ' I t
West 142.54— — — — o J�, ` ( � � � ° \ � /� ,� a.rn� �n� (
� � � 'm .� �' tPA�� -' I '�v ca � ���'1'`- `� �� �0 9S� c,'- I� �c� i
� � � � � y � � i
i � � N `� ^� � � oo� �y' � � o�'i� S s�o��•Q�° o g j� ;�' I
c, :a � � i '� � / , �
I ' � IN N I �� ` y +'��� .'°�W� zl It°' I
� f/ � I / �
� • ,
. , e p
� rp I �`,% ��� ��w cnl��„ 33 ' 33
u �� _ ------ --I-- �' •� / 1,^' ° � � i
/�y� > �I �co �
i N j�1 ----�' � VV �'�g5 I��� /�I} � �� a� � i
I �l V, '�'' 1 �.�92° / cn ml�; ; I I
�- - - - - - - - - - - _ — � ���b`1 r \ ts`" / / ,�1 ao��, � i
� / c' ' I �
o a, � Q a+ � o� ; ;'`� wl � �
� t1�I� `wjo � �/ i� ;t�� � i i � � '
-� — --r- West 149.17 _ _ � o � q��lf,o �;Pr c'�s� \ ♦ l a� �_• % ' ;� � �
, I
1
�� ��r��� `\v, /�%�� i $� East 139.00 � % � 1
�� �N� ���\ '�\ / /,Lp � _. '�� ;28.31 i
�a,'�o\ '�,/� . \ i /�,c,�' I 28.43� � 110.57 ' ,/ ; i �
,.W� �` �,�'� rr6,\ / /�, / / '!,�'' ', / ' i
�,\\ , " \� �'\\/�,�"66� I ;``` �/ ���/ �p�L�Z```�� I � _
\� \�o `v� ( � I ���� / / � e w�� I � ,,�_';
\ •� \ I �+w� / � / ���, j ' �
� \� � I / '� / � -� N �•
�\ �� �\� ��\\ , �p�p/ �'t �11 O ' i ;��',
1
\�\ �,�� ��� ,� Q` I +`f 1I �// �.L Nsza ss s2 , i ; `;.
� � V1 I � � Q� ( Z 1 �
\ �(`�fi �� I �c�' O �'t'II i o � `.�_:
\ '��� �g2qSSfj�, � y� � �� 1 � j `:�-
� / � II� 1 O ��L
\ ,,c,2
. � / � - - - -� i' t � `.
�\ 'f�`.� �� / / �=35°53'13" ,1tg�� ' � � 22.90� g �
�Sp` � L L=T8.29 •� �; ,'', gc,_� � m �
\ � •�� — — — ''F.; „ £0' N N � i
�\ i1.� Q, t,r ?53 __• ', ', � oa•n5�=a�z2.soo � I
-�r
�� ��4°0, ', ,��;vL 6��p�-�VV�— N i
�+�,� j/K w0 ' n1 0 1
�� \ L_`'�� _r-�' '1 ' �� � I
�`�7�8°�.� Ca�� I 195.p4 --- �e�LO'��, ,' �aV��'�l � �
,e3?���\ SS �g � 22.90 �
� � � ('� � `•..%
, �
� ` � � �=35°39'36" qg��' ' \ y � �;`�
y �
L=108.92 �( Y � "I`••
I � ; y ; i �--.
I crnn `� '� `O �, � ��`;..
� � �Y i ��„�
I � � �
i '
�
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- --- -I
� � I 66'OBl aSe3 I I
I � � �
� � � i
I � ;-
� .: � I
I , �"''� I
z � � � � � I �
� I � � �
? � I ,_ . I e
� I
I
N "�
I � 1
� � � I � �'�y
� �� N � ���.
I �fV0 � g I �
� �N I o '
� � (
� � � �� �
i i �� � 1
� � ���i i � (
I � � j
I � � �
I � � i
. ,�--___-T � ---����r� ------- -N 00°00'00" ..".r....,� ,��...,.
, -— - -
� 112+- 7 +_
. � �� �o ------ - _�_ v' � _ i 9 t- ��
;N O , FX/ST �_ � " _ f � �W _
�� ;� ` ------- -NG35�c ' . I �
' � �� NWL=991.5��� eUF�FR +_$.�.�1� � !___�- c�
,
_ .
�o ,--, c� �
���� �o �� , ; �, �s � � . r---i-�iAFl,r9;�3.6 ` - � �� �—--—--
�• � �i�r�� �� �C ' ;°� � ' ' �l �� c�►�O � � �` �� -�` � + � ' vZ '
;°0 ;' � �-- � o '; /� \� � �� �� � 99 � i
Z „ N �/ � � �1 a �
� � .� i���� y�i !—' ���`s nD � � f0 C � `
i i i �i � .; � � i i � `__�� 1 „r . + o�i G j �` \ � �� r
� i_ i � �( � �
; , ��'; � " � �;" W �-- ,r � � O �, � 30 � , �
L��� � :� i a���'; ' ♦ O t_�� � ���� , i i� � �� � i �
' � '- � ' t� I
� N � � � 5 i }
� rn � �,�
�
� � 4 � % N � °f NV 9 .¢3 ;
� �� P I
� � � �� --- -.�..--�� R�pOsr38f ' � �
' - - Fp s �� ' �
� �k` _
, . -
� �' � - ?a �� �--
; ��'-�=r ,��1 _� 4! R�ys ' ----
, - � .�, ��. � -�. F
, _ _ �. - � t�� -N� � w �.
------------------------- ' _��� � '�� - �2n2+-S.F. � 14090+-S.F. ^ -
813.55 �' - -�_ � �4� �, wr,, �RrEh'An16 �I — ———— ——— — � — C �
-�w` '' '�: _ ,2',St'',{' *� �� ��� ���� \\ �O• t VO� .
. .� • -:1.-- ,.<r4 _ '
��j,_'-'�- _ - '' c'� ,�^ \ //� /
- , _ _... "� 2�+-$ .':� ~�'� 6 �
. .; M 2
9.13 / �
� 996.5 x .F. '�� � ,---------- -----
\� W O ' '+ DR `��x �'i�'r /'�P � H 3 �
/
. � � �
� /
x
. . ' o�°�rO� ` �• 1 / ��
� / / �
(' �� � /
/ �� .
�
i
i
�—� � �' /
i
h
��'���G�M� �
- � + \ �� / /
{�jf S/p� , 20 24(
.._, E. ;;.�;�;� [M � u 1� � �� J 1 0+- 5.F. c�P�/�pQ �� ,
":;�;R:.�<- : � '���i'"�"'� � � 17370+ �• • 4i'- - F. .QJG�Q`'�/ � � �
i; � 16060 -S . RY�� � Y 3k_ ��� '��9%//i� ��/��kl ,•� /
��� I�'� � ��� , ,
wc�lan� �I1� � ' � � �� �� MH4 -� % � -," _
' �' f INV=991.0 ,� i �,.
o # ' '
t� . �j � L---------� .0 1 MH3 i� FES o .
,. Iv � � � �V--� //
..,
144'8'.
�p � l'�—' N - 118+_-- ~�-'�' �/ �
; ; ; . ;__; N r– —� ,�'� EXISTING BUILDING
' s� '�.� "' ;� � �� �`� �2+- 98+- �� CHURCH
',__= � = � � x �- � � —
o i ` ,— —
.
� � 0 r� R=50 �$}� � ---- ------� ' �
, � •s �� 100T.0 � �
� ' -
� � � � � -_ 007. -'��' � 998.
; �s27o+- ,� ,' � , , .� BLACKTOP —
/ i � N � I
� �/ x �' ' � I 14150 - ;
� ^�� � i . • I
�
�� ,� �' 10�'�'F• I �
, , � � �.�.
� ' ' i �
� �-------- �----------' ��
� 999.0
�I � � PARKING �
.�__ 813.55----- -- - + �
, ------- ---- - --
% S00°00'00"E 310.33 — -- — --- - ------------
� ' �
A •
, AUG. 29, 7007 8:05AM Mail EDINA REALTY TITlE CLAIMS N�. 8272 P, 6/38
,� .
. .�� � . . .��
c '
S1.N�yrVa(�t�J �Y�� D�r�
����� � � �
i�.�,aa•srs �
ans oQ•o`z .
ooa os•��
a�� . ,
�Z� 1�8896�al�l
�sRaaoea�quno�J'y�uun�•H I��IW
; a�wuu�'�qunoa u�deuu� .
. +•a�a�w��u��uw
• ��P�u�P�p�ooea�o pus Pal6�P�
w�►zro:��goozr�tirea �a��a
� �. . �
� � ,,
. , "�•� . .+- �.
. , , �- '
' �� � r t " '
� t
` C�
. '
�y�yy ��
�N/�II�IT 1I�111"/�1�7�
� 6 `' D06 ..
.�' .
D
;
(iina�wd.�ibr�roardln�� ;
. G�Nr oF PE�r�lv�r
FI�OR�AGE AND CONSERVATIOAT EASE1ViENT ,AND
RESTRICTIVE C�VENANT
FOR WE�'LAND AND WETI,AN� BUFFER
nv�Txun�r � � � 1� a� � zoo�, �► � �
HOHL�A►ND GLENDALE COVE,�M'inne� tY.�Y, � ��r�
aad the C1TY OF ORaNO,a Nl�aop�esoaa municipal co�po�tion("Ci�. • -
M�etra L+�PI Sawicer Hox 491
�I[tBT 4687022 8
���aT� 607Q9b R�AS 4?3692 ,
L �
The , s)on be�alf of itsel�its hei�s��ors a�ard��s;ia��of g�ood
acknawledged.hereby covcnan�t�and agrees a�011�awe� a�d ud�ai�eocy of whic� is 2�oby
1. P�mue���nd Conse�rvatia�n Br�a�t. T�e(�brm�tAr l�eraby c�tes�td
- grna��ua�o the City a�:flowage ffi,d conoe�vat�on eaeeau�t f�tl�e
purpo�s s��.in this�t,ov�r,un�,aa�d�tho WdJ�rd med
W�av�d Br�`er as descaib�in tha a�te plan attaahod he�+eto es Bxhtbit A{the
"�9�Cdlt pl�Oln18�S3°�.
2. � a�8 8bOV1+t1 Ori�Cblblt A., w� BU$'�'8 �
��01 ttLC�S eb11�1$ �QWIII�10�8:
�1�BiQC�{�,and Lots 3 through 10�8100�C�,and(hxtlots A a�d Bi
. CtLL�1VD,ALE COVB,Hannepin Countq,Mi�nu�ota.
The W�d Bu�is the zone ot area loc�ted witl�in 2S�from the edge�s of all
of the wedands shown an Exhibit A. T1�►►e We�lla�d BuS�sball be esl�blis�uod aad
imp�o�red to becomc aa"a�coeptablo bu�er m�ea"aa desc.ribed wlt�in Chy
O�,awd�hall thareefl�ar be�o�pn���od b3'Ci�ra�tor(s)�n Perpetuit�►$ee Ero�on
mowiag or other vegetative d3sbx�,f�xer applicario�,yard a�r oth�w�stie
disposal,the placemeat of strvu�ures or aay o1�sr al�ration that impedes the fi�ctioon
125005 1
8�/C 'd z�is 'ON SW1V1� 311I1 Alla3� dNI03 l !�W Wd50�9 COOt '6� '9flb' �
x • ✓ . - .
� �
. t
, of the buffer in prorooct3ag 9�o quality of w�bo�in 1�e w�land ar bu�a3ag�ovpa ir�
t�a v�+�e�tlmd.
3. �iffi�noe of Watisnd Bul'�. The �Vehland Bt�ffea aha11 ba � by
��o�(s) in p� � a�► "aocep�table buffer a�+os" aa das�bed wli�n
Ordinen�as,fl� or o�vega�tive di�turba�oe,��appiia�,
• �a�+d c�c ofih�vvasbe ��of atcuat�a+ee oa�at�other aibocablo�tha�
ha�t
�u��tho fimdion o tbue b�uffer m p�ng d�e q�lity of watar in the are�d o�
floR►s i�a tho vu�e�]aad.
. ' 4. ' �� � As � on Bxh�'bdt A� "nabuild" areas are
c;�od�or tho lo� ng tha Wetleada. No s�uaturemay bc bu31t witbia 20 foat
fi'om t� edg� of the Watlend Btt�ar for all lob, �ttb�t Lot 10 �s � a
reduot�an�n tl�e no buitd aroa$o�m#ba ed�e of th���e�t�a�ad bufl�$+osn$0 fbet to
10 feet. A ZO�oot gtructuro eetbaak ie aleo roquired fivm the r�pla�ent bu�r
. areas. �
S. �e�]a�d Ro�tioi�.The follawing a+e prohibited in pGrpa�iuty within the Wed�]�md:
A. Canstructi�g, . . O1,�qr�a�lli��bY mea. ina1udin$
, but not limited tio buil , s�rua�rs, Ya �e�oes��in�8 wa11s,
i�+eplaces, dotlLea line 1� ��YS�� �P��, �, �cover of
�raffia sigaals� ,�Sulat�uY�i�s,mailboxes' e�c,�cept.�l &��bi d
.
houaes, a�d otb�ar dev�ices into�ded to foebe� w�1dl�fie; 2) docke ar
boardvvatl� whon allow�ed, by City orriaa�ce at�d � a vali�d G'ity
��
B. Cuttia& movving or romov�ng gbiatvbe ar other vegt�tatia�o, a�d att�ln$.
de�1m 'u�or re�noving t�eae gi�ater than fot�r is�hes in diame�ar, o�ccc�pt
for tree� disesae oontrol by rnr as direated by a gove�nmental agen,cy.
Gh�aatoKe) may �move bn�h, dieeesod ar doad troos o� atty si�a, and
noxioue weada.
C. EXCavB�[OA OT fiU�311g Ol'IIlSbBT18I All�OII 0��B, �11Cit1�U1�C�$�lg tq
tt�e size, depth or conto�r of the w�tland; dradgin8. n�g ox r�nov�l of
ca�,loam,Peet,Siavel,soil or any other nat�nal nnat�i�al.
D. The cleposit of wssta.yard waste,02 debria.
B. Activ�#y datrimontal to t�screeaaiag of the ne�ighboring properties.
F. Agplication of fe�tiliz,ers,wb+�nahn�al or chamioal.
G�. Applic�rdon of c��emilcala for the d�truction a�ra�srdatian o£vago�lon.
H. The appliaation of h�bicideg. Pasticici�s, and insecticfidee, oxoopt fer
. naxious wead control by ar as dirac�od by a governme�agoncy.
T. Outa�ido storage of eay kin�d.
J. Aativity d�rimental� to the prosetvation of the soauia b�uty, veget�don,
and wllilife.
6. ��I��j�, The fpllawiAg are probi"b�bad in perpeluity�vvith�n the
A. Constnu�tin�, installi or mmntaiaing aqytbing m�ade by man, it�cluding
but not limited to b�,. �tructttres, wall�ways, fenre�s, �reple�oea,
clothes line poles,P��YB�o��1�P���ds oar 2�anicover of any ngture
i2soos 2
R�/8 'a Z.!tR '�N SWi dl'l al I i I A I 1Va?I dN i Oa I �pW Wd40�R 1 f107, 'bl '�I(ld
a
c
c
$ � � � �`s � � � �' �� � '� � ,g °�p �� �`� �v �
,., � �. � ,� �.:
� °° � � � g . �, �� �'� > _
�
• �,* .� � � � '� � � :� � � � � � � �
��� �� s � �� � _� --
�,� o� � o � g � � � � `�� o �� �
�� g �.� a � ,� �-� � �'' � .� �
$ •� . � � �� � � � �
� � �.� � � � � � �� � �� � �
�� �, � -�� -� :� . > o �� w � > �-
� , � � _ � `� �� � �- � o � .� —
�� � w � � � � �. �
� � �.� w � � � �y� � � .�. ; � � � -� ,� �
w � � V�Y � � � � � 17 �� �
°� G� is � �"' �� Cw O � • �� d � 0 �
� � . . O o � � ��., � �'� � . --, g ��
� . �... � - '� � `� � �•o .E3 '� ,Q � -� � � � a�y �� � '� � �
.�° � � � � � � � • ''r! �"
�^ � � D+ �° a� � v �+Q w � p '� r-
� M :� �� � �, � � � � � o �` �
-� :.�. � °°� � � � w � � ��� � � �' � � —
� � � � � � ,� �� � a�� � �' �
� �, � �� o � ��a —
� �
� � r
g � � '� o � � �S , �
g J� `� � �• � o.� � � '�, M
� �..� � �, � � � � � � . �.:
� . � � � � .� � . � ..�o � . � m � a
� � �
� . . �� � � � � � �
�� �. � ' � w� �
� � � . � � �� ., w oo� � v
N• � � � � � .
� � � �� � .� �"'r � >- . �. �
� • � � v � � O O Q � �� v�+ • � �
m� �� �. �� �
-� �� �, � . � . .�' � o � $� �
'� � � v
� � � �
� � � .� � � �.
� �. � � � � �
� � � � a.
o �� u � o � �� �� � � a � .� � �
�� � �� � � � � � m .��� � `� �� ��
� �� � �� � �
'�� , .'' �° � '�j a .
3 �, �
a� Ci A r� r� C� x � � � �
� �; � � ca � � �• � w �
� ��� � �
�
�:
—
� � _ o� c � �'
� � �
9M ,� � �
�:
_ �
,
.,�
.
. . . . . , . . .
.
� a
ti f �':
�
`— �; � ����� .`� p� y .� -
� � � � t� � ~
� ^ � oo Q� � O �
r � �� � . � � � �
� � � �: �
� � � �
� N �
~�� � .� �
� � 0
� , 4 _� '" I ' ►� �
� `� � !I �
�> ��v
� � � �
� � �
¢ • � ,... � bd W ,� �
� ,� o �, :� o �
W . �`' � �
� ' �
} �
¢ � ' o a �'
� � �
� � o �
¢ � �
�
0 1
W
^ p � � �
- �
� �' �
� �
� � a �
o �
� � � �
� � �
� � � � �,
N �
V �
N � v
�
�
Q
AUG, 29. 2007 8:05AM Mail EDINA REALTY T[TLE CLAIMS Na. $272 P. 11/38
� SOO�ZI
���)
. �
� v��
f • � �
. , .�, ; ,. .
s
� % ,�
t �
\ / .
l�y y )
� ,. �:
:+n j�.
,^�i • ' �
,— . ti
1 � GLEND�kLE COVE `
,� wEn.�wu eu�a�e�rwwe�e � �
:r BOtN.AND DEVEL�PM�1'1YHiCKORY�7l� AND KEITH WILLIAYSON ;
N OF LAT 1.BLOCK 1�BEII.E NRE PBTA7E6 .14ND �
ao lOT!4.�O�CK 1.�iE AIFtE E8TATBB�M1D LOT t.BLOCIC 1.l�.11�t�TA'Iffi.AIiD ��
IN 7HE SW 1/40F SE�94-i 1&2S
z HEM�EPN OOUM'Y.MM�N�O�A (
s ���
a .... ��
�
� �G s � ��
£ ,r � A D aww��� �
U L �1 �" R �,, T r ' S...a
� � �
:n � �
� •
¢ h, �, � .
� U 6 �� �
J G ,Q N i- '� �
� e �- �' ,� t .,,,,,,. � �f-,
- '� s °-'
> � ,. .� ,
�
-� "m' �
4 �#�� �
-L � f '�°�`
Y
Q �
`
Z .� ��� �
�
� �����i��a � O ,
— t S.'L'i�a'7`..�� A� "a�.r`,rw
�,a � . .'�`.".�.ri"`�2. 'r� f.eJ�� LE�1Yl T� '
� `�� �".L�iti�'IL"'li'L`�;SC' II�Nelt
� �'��.' �' �.��Cr'�tt.'��'..�s.�
¢ • ��1.'f�L""�••�••�•• C�L.EMNLE t11f11E
� • �� r�r,.r+�.►�r.w r �1�
0
a . jC����
�
. �.�.. �.�:�..r.��..... �
�r...,..,.....__...� ,
..............�......�..
� �~rrf.. ��r�w.� a:�.�r.rr�.r..��rwr �
4� �_ �rrw�.��r� < 1
� ���i� �e����. rwww�w�t�����r �IE N i$T
N ��r
a
�V
'r'3
�
Q
. , , . . .� ._.. ._.. � i
� . . �
. ;
� ,
� �
' Doc No 8�Q4� 0?J21f2�7 04.OQ PM �
� CerttAed�led end or rreordod on sbow dabe: �
� Orflce d tlw County RvGordrt
i Hann�Pln CvuntY�Mir+hewte .
Mic�aei N.Cunnqr.County Reaxd� `
TnmslD��28 peputy 46 (
�eee I
i95.b0 DOC
�10.�0 8UR , .
aa�.ao ro�.�
�
�1 c:w p f��� 'D�t'�1477n1�
' �..o��- �
. ,
i
� • ,
I
I
� ;
,
�
� �
, i
� '
� .
' • �
, ,
� � �
�
RF�E7 �� llt.� �nN swTd�� ai i r i A llldaN bNi(la i �pw wd4��R l�ol, ��7 �nn�
. � . ... ,
. �
.
r O��,o,Al�i�A�'AXES PA@
���
F'EB 21 �lIOT
unr
AMENDING aad!�'UP�RSB�DING DECLARA.T�ON
This Amaidin��nd Supasedieg D�claration{�eclaration'��s�e this�
' day of�abruary,2007,by Hickory Fine r�one�es,inc.�a Miarx�ois co�poration
�•�EC�BI�ilt"� .r,a�n►,.r�.�an�.�,s�nva.a,
�f 81�665 A
�$'r�`�a� 673464 OTH 4�d4
WHEREAS,D�clarant is tIm owr�er of real p�ape�ty within the City of Orano,
� Hennepin Couaty,Minnesota,pla�ted�d le�atly de�cribed as:
Lots b.(3LENI�A�E COVE,He�epic�CrnmtY,
��"�F�Y'��and na ane ather thaa Declarant bas any r�ght,titla or icrteraet ln thc 1
Propany e�acept as fouaws;
�
- Alpin�CapitaL L�T�C,a 1Vlinnesota Iintited,liability company,whfch is the j
ma�Egagee in thet certain mortgage af the Property daoed August 19,,20a6,
recx�ded in t�o.Et'ice of th�z�ennepin County Recorder on.P�ugu�t 7,6.20Qb '
es Documsnt No.884b785,in the original p�nci�l amonnt of$540.�0.00;
arid
vV�Ag,tha�operty const�tutas�portioa of t#�e land tv which Minnahaha
Cr�c Watorshed Diatrict("Di�trict")Permlt#06-046 applies;
��,�CC�8i8ilt t�89�bD 9LIbJCCt Z�0�p��0 CCPId]A C�AdItIOAS ffiiit
r�trictions impo'ed by thc District es a�n�dition to issuauo�o�thoir Fe,c�nit#06�OA�5 f+or
the bena�t of the ovvriers of the Pmparty�nd tha Di�ic�and
WHEREAS,Dxler�t and tht Aistrict iut�m�d that th�Dsclnr�tian supersede snd
replece two priar declaration�rcco:dod o�n the Proparty as cvn�ditions of permit�issued by
the QisorIct;
NOW,THER��'0�`.,D�clara�t malcea tlna Decl�rndon and heeb�►d�c]sres
theot this Dealar�teon ahall oanstituta c.�v+e�nar�n to nm with thc Property in perpe�uity;a�d
finther declares that the Froperty shell be ow�erl.used,ovoupjoc3,aud eonveyed�ubjeet
RF�tiT �a�'7.17.R �nN SWid11 �1 I i I A I lVa?I dN 1 Aa i ��w wb40�R 1�nl �fit, ��nv
1l�ww�l l\I�� � -
• � . �
r ,
�U'�}1E C�Y8118pt'd��pCh01lB,088Q�Ql1f6�Cl]SY�OS�i1C�W 11Ct�Olrt}l Itl�DCC��t'�Lt10II�
, aU of which sha12 be bic�ding on ell per�oas owa�ng or acquuing anY rlgh�tltle or it�x+est
� ia tLe praper�y,and their henr�,�ucoe�so�,pdcaana!rapre�ntativca,and assig�a$;
� AND FtJRTI�R that t6o cov�nts hemin an estsblished for the benefit vf th�o
TJi�ict os s public body and for thc benafit of appt�ct�ant publto t�aur�,a�td er�aat
inteaded es'Rp�ivate aovenants,con�didons or reetr,ict�ous"within tho meaoing of
. 1K'�nn�esota 3tatut�s§540.20.
• 1. r�l►adaa,a�uffer. The v�getacea bt�er surrounain�clu wetlena,as
delin�ted oa tha�it��lar�far the Property at�d hcreto And incorpvnttcd he�reitt a$
Att�ebtnQut A,w111 bo ivain�iu�d by D�Iaraat in parpex�aty free from mowing ar trthar
_ ��dve dishu�ba�va�fextilizsx sgplioation�ysrd or othar w�aata d'ispos�ch�e plecement
a�shuctutcs or mp►ott►a��lter�ion thBt im�ede$tUo�nction of the buffar in p�leatin8
the quality of w�r in tho vvetI�d or buffp�in�#lows into the wetland.
Z. 9treet�waepin�A11 sheets and pubiic wnys vvl�the�roprrty will be
swept at l�st twiee each�►ear,in the spri�fallowing�rtawmelt and ia the fall�c lesf
f�li.
3, �4ton�mr�tcr Facilit�Majntenance. The terms of Att�hnnont�,
i�hecein,wi11�pply to tho storm,w�,ter managerncmt faeilities indicatod on
Attachmart A,ide�ifled ss follows:
3formwater Paad
Rsin C�srdea�
4. Rec�taV. T6e rccltals sat forth ebove eces exP�Y�P�ratad hereir►.
5. Priar Deciatrstion�8nperseded and Vaosted. The twa docu�tent�fitled
"Declaraeion"filed on the Property in the O�ce of t�e Cauaty RecordeK,I�en��egin
G�mty,Mintiesota as Doowr�ent N1�c�bar?'755298 on Jwie 24,2Q�02,8�d as 1�C►wment
Nwnb�8846351 a�re Aug�st 15,Z�Ob�era deemad�eded a�d v�acet,e��s#he$ling
of thig Declazation.
�remafnder of this paga intar�fottalty!c,}�blairA�,J
2
RF/S7 'rl T/7.R 'nN �� SW1d11 �1111 allb�?! klN1(1� I � pW WdSf1�A ^/1107, '6l. '�Ifld
�p Y
:Y'1
.\O� •
� �
I
� .
i
:,, ��,O�G-O � r� � � � �7 � �
�� �6- r
� � � �� � �
�
� ����� � , � � � -�,� a
� �� � M � �p � �
� � � s�
�o�� � � a w 'i
r. � . � d,�
� � �g' o � � �� � �
�� � � �
� � �
.� " � . o °�� �
� � � a � �'� � > �
O '��- ��� �.r D � � � �,r � � �
W
eY � Y fi7
� � � � � � � � � � �
� �
J � � � �� O � �
W � �
� a � � a � � � � �
� � � �� � �- ��
> � .� a � p � � �
� � �
¢ �' �
'`'' n " ri� � � $.
Y � � x" � �
�
� � �
�" � �
� �
�� � � �.
� � � �
� � �
� . � d - m � �
r �.� �,
� �.
� � � �
� �, � � a
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
. �
r
�N9ffiV'I'AriTD fiU80RUIIV'ATI011Y
Alpine Capit�L Li�,a A�fruiesota 1�m�d]iability cxrmpany,th�holder of
a morlgage dated August 1�,2006 aa�d recc�+ded in Nte aE��e af t]u Henneptn
County It�carder on August'16,20(16 as Docunaet�t AI�.$�46785,hereby cotisents
� to#he recording Qf the att�hed Amendi�g aitd Supe�ading Declaratian and
agr�that its rigtths�tltie propezly afEected by sa�d Ar�ending arid Sa�perseding
Dec3atistiott sI�11 b��ubordinat�d therebo.
YN WITNB&9 WHER$C)F,A1p�t�e C'apaial.��,a Mmnesot�Xiva�ittd
liability company,has�aused ti�t�Consatt and Subnr+dinatia►n ta be e:xecuted this
1�day o�Februaiy,2007.
Alpine Capit�l.LLC �
$Y'
Ifs•
� �
�
STATE QF 1VII1V1V'�5fJTA►) I
e�. �
co�t�F�s�nv�nv)
• The foz�e �str�tn�c►t�waa ac�ano�wledg�ed���m�� l_._._day of
February.2447,�1��': Sw�nsa� .the af A�.pine
Capltal,I.Y,C,Mizu�eaota limit�ed liabiIity com� y,�oo�t�h�lf of tive Iimil�ed
liab�iiy camg�uty.
�
_i►.,.,---�
t�iSTOI�RJ.piERS01'1 ��C
r�ar�wtt�euc•�
�►aa.��+M.n,�a�o
4
AF/1 T. 'd 1.17.R 'f1N SWid11 al I i i A I l�a?I NNifl� I ��W WH4A;R I(1(!7, 'fi7 �nnb
AUG. ly. 1U01 8:UhAM Ma i i ED1NR �EAL I Y i l I L� CLAiMS • NU, �11'1—N. 1�/38 �
.�
,.�,t«.,��.�.�
'OIII�1 �OlislNOdD
---,,..a��a.�._..�._ �
� � � �
. �
� ~� ! � �
1 �
� � ' `" ' � ° �
.,�..� e
��i � ��V
Q .� . �� �
� � . i ���1
�� �J � � ;��� i
� ��� � � � � �f;� �
r �
_ �� �'' �' � �it��a!
� ��� � � t E�Ifil�
� � - - ' ► it�i��
c ���� 1 � � t �
��� �� ,, . � � (
°� � d� � �
� ����
� � �
��� K �
: v
�� ' � m �
�
� � , � ` `� �
. � � � �,� � i i�l�
� � � �Z f�� � � 4
i� �4 � °!
��� �� 1_ .
� ��
� �'� �til'� � i! i;� I
h �� � i
I �� l �� � � �" �
� � � a� � � i� �� i
� � ��
..�...� . �. .
. �� , .
�....._.��..� �_........�..�....a
. �
. �
�
ATTACHMEN'r B
STORMWATER FACYLITY MA�N�'ENAI�TC� •
Th�tcrnis appjy�o ti�c s�onnw�oor facilid�s conshtacta3 pucs�e�nt to 1V�itfneheh�
Creek Wat�rshed AiStriot pm�it a�plit�tion numbe�Ob-q46.
W�LEREA�,app]ic�tion hes baa m�ede fa=a pcxmft fro�tho MCWD pur�u�tt
to MCW�Ru1e N� Stormwator Matta�snd
VVH6REA9,the luopertY#h�t is du sobject of thr pt�o�it is legally desa�ibed in
the�cfar�tlor�icrtfl which this Atta�c�naa�t ia iacorpor�Eed,a�d tho f�illties oz�the
P�'oF�Y to which thase meiatanence zequir�manb apply ara aa FoUows:
Stora�vv8�er i�d
Rai�a Ga�+clan .
�
WHEi�AS,MCWD Ru�e N provida�t�at a mai�agreeme�t ghalt be
Bubmitted,for starmwatar O�nent ponds,outtet�ar�s for such ponds,culverte
autfatl st:vcturee and all ot}�r stormwamr faecilitia�,end that the mawntenanca agreement
shall ep�cify m�thodds„sc.hedule sud respo�ble partattee for mai�uancc sad must i�ude
at a rzununum,tbo elomca�ts oonUniued in tba Diatrlot's Ma�o Ag�reemvnt Forna.
NOW,TH�FdRE:
t. The praperty owner sltail iqspeat the stonnwate�iotontian and treatme�t
basin($)at a minymum of o�oe a y�ear to d�e if tZre basin's rr,tention and�ncnt
chsrs�teristics are�dequato. A storage t�eatiinent b�asi�a will tx conaide�ed inadoquate if
a�edimart has decreas�d th�wet storage vohuae by s of it�orZginal desig�votuma
Baadd on this iaspection,if the�tarmwater bssin(s)ia ideat�tled for aedi�t clesnout,
the property owner shell restare�,e basin(a�to tta orig�cksi�n coatours within one
year of the inspection dete.
2. The Ps'oP�Y ov++�stcall i�peat tlbe gzit c.�ambe�rs,sump catch basi�as,
su�np ma�alwles, outlee stru�tnres,ouiv�#s,o�Il e�r�uas or vt�er atormw�tvr facilitiee
for#!�e prvjoct in the sp�g�ed fali of eech yeer 1'�pwpaiy owner s1�a11 ra�wv�atl
sddi�ment end debris dorin�the i�spations svch t1�t th�st+ozmw�t,pr f�ci�ities operate ss
dtsig�ed and permitted.
3. Rain gardens must be kept ele�of e�ccass 9edimout aud d�brle.Heaithy .
� pl�xt�rdwth mr�st be�i,ntslned ia the t�in ga�zicns by romo�g dead vegetativa in the
�g af aa�h year,
4. Violation d�the it�spoction sad/�x�sintieflantx pm�visions of this
A,greement ia a vio�ation of the MCWD pernnit for the pn�ject for wl�ich the 1�4CWD m�y
tska actiar�ag�nst the Aroperty own�r• .
R�/bT '�I 7,17,R '(lN SWid1;1 al I 1 I A I1baN bNi(la�l �pW Wd�()�A 10(17, 'bT, '�}fid
, � ' ' . , ,
- . , r
• , �
• �
5. "P�aperty ownet"se tn�ad iu this Attaclun�nt meac�s the Ow�ac�'o£tb�c
pr�perty at whlcit is located the atormwa�e�r faGility�w�eicYt th�obIi�ttions'herein
apply.
A�/0�' ',I 7.Il,R '�i� CWidl� al I i I A I l�aN bNi(la I �EW Wd4()�R I(1flT, 'b7. �nna
�
m
�
�
N
O
O
O�
�
�
a
� � � � �
N � �- �
T� w Ip �[i O ' �
� d- O I�f O
� 8 � ��� � Q
� � � �
,.. .� .� . �
� � � � � � a
� � $ � � �� �
� � ���� . �
� � � �
� y� � � � . �
m
■r� � � �s a� Q �
� � � � _ �
� a � � = � � `.'
� � � g
�
�
�
s
a
ti
, .o
� �
.�
r �
• . .n
. + .. ' o
\
. � �n
� e
: �'
SEP. 13. 200b 11 :40A� Mail EDINA REALTY T[TLE CLAIMS N0. 2964 P. 51/59
'suS�eae pn�s`sa,►A��saxda=�asrad's.wsea�ons
'��I�F�'�=d�#��uF���'���z�txe�u�,imboB,�o St�n�o
s�osa�d�a uo SurPut4 a4 II'�Y'��M 3�Iig'�l���Q����as eua�Pu�
�.i�'��'�'���#n����s pa�nuoo�pu�'Pa�dn�o
� 'Pasn'p�o aci II��x�at�.��sa�1�P�3�`���� �
�adasd a��,�mx o}�us�eo�a�x�p.suo�Ii��R�I�Q�3��l'
� ' ��xst,I Pus uo?��,I1aT�Q ett�sa}Ieux;u�ax�T�aQ,�g�ip�I�I,'M�N
'�.�do�a'u'+3p
g�����i��''��m3 9�0-90#��d�3o a�r�ssr aq uA��puoa •
�se��s�Q�gM�c��a�i��[Pasod�s�ap��u Pue
guo�.�°�t��a4��d��t9,�at�P�ug=eI�CI'S'^6'82I�IM .
P�'�I�9'�0�9a#��d���Q Pa'�I�4gM�xJ���?'L1i
'�i�?�IM�P�I'�3a�G�ra e�ea�sy�r�s�m��7�ada�d a�'��*g�HM
p�e��adoxd��
�ea�#u's°���� �Q�xa'�o�ou I�'�,��d.,�F)
� `�Q��H'SAO�Srl�dQ1�IS'T�
� '$P'��T�T�Q P�0�����"i
:es'pa�P�II�I P�P�gid'��Fl�i'�aJ'�F�II'���0
;Q�t�����a I������F��Q,'S'�g�gI�ty
Sf'I�J.�J'S�
'(„}uei�►t,�aq,�dir�dtuo�
: Fa4?���Y+I��TI'�J�IBP'�L)�'I�ofl�'900Z
;
�o�vp��sp�ap�sF�.tm��p�qN)�IULL�r'�''I�SQ SIH.L �
��
, r— • -
1�tO��Q
t69£Zb 08Q 960L09
s �ots� sa�uas
� is�:ae,���o�����r
, � .
.
�r
!
� ��a �� ec�
; �
� � �w�r
, � . .
. . .
. ' � .
SEP, 13. 2406 11 :40AM Mail EDINA REALTY TITLE CtAIMS N0. 2964 P. 52/59
Z
� �� :s�
� :d�
�"I'aeoJ afiP�IJ 1�"I�S
�.Y.I�tY2I�'L'�g4
���s�.p�n�axa e a �°����a�i puB�Ctap a�
- �I P ��P��A'd0$?I�3M S5�11LI.IM l�I
�Pa4s�odw�uF�ilesauIx��aeoq���as s�es a�L '&
�'�'�����aC3��3Q��b�iti Sun�uc ur
�nq,8�aie�us pa4�aSan a��uo�a�}gaP�������41��o�ug
. �°�u'��qs 3°���Id at�`P�eodatP a�M�o�a p.�"ao��dd�r�azt�
'a°'u�c�.xt�eFP ae��a,8��rn�°�$uFMozu�aar3 6}m�adaad u��.ttv,�IaaQ
, �ci P�i��i�''�l'�u��'d'se�1�►�p��u .
P��$�do�d at�{aco�u�Id a�?�e�}vo ur�ous�p�zu aaa��Sw�seatu
� '�'L�s pa��an Anern��tx�'�3.L '��'�o�d��t*M8 '�
'�P�'J�i I
P'�d�uauraS�usy���cx►S I
: :sMo�ev pa�}uapi^y�t�cat�rn��}�r uo I���pur
i �?ir�g�;u�tap:a���uc�.��s a�}04 didd�IT������odTo�ucE .
'fl���*3��4 e�Iy '��u�rF�Ni�R�d��� •E
i
� m P�����I[�3�d���'�ea�f 'IIe3 3�t�I�3�
���s�t�g�i��i T�I�
� � ��d��r�s���Iqnd pu�9qaar�s I�''�daara�S aaa�g 'Z
�
: 'P�lal
���s�wog 8u�t�q�a puel��.ui za4��s h�enb���
� ���3'��1�3���}�uax���s r�O dure xo saxt���s 30
. ;��td a�'��ods�P��o�o pa�e�'tronp��dde�a;���'l�p
. �x�o.x�$u�n�O�x�a�}'�?�d�ad���4'pau�ure�u
�t It��"����nY�d���P��P��'�Pa���i�a+�o,rd
�R��i��i�g�un t�a4ea►'a?IaP e�a e�pt�pa���nea4ms e�u�od�e
�����3 OZ�ur=�at�'�a�q p�an�,�L '�33�8��M 'i
. *
a. • .
�, �
� '
m
�
� . ��� � � g � � �
� � � � �
�
o � � �� � � � �
2 � � � � �' ° °
� � � �� � �
. � � � � � " N�'
� �. � � �`� .
� , � �
� �� vvv
� o � � � � �
� � � � .
� �
Q g
J �
C? w y�s
G
W �
~ � �
' � � ��.
� .
J � �
4
.--. � �
�
¢
z �
� � �
W
' 1 � �
id
�
� � r
� �a
.a- � � �
� �
.p �O
O
CV
Cl
d
w
G� �
SEP, 13. 2006 11 ;40AM Mail EOINA REALTY T[TLE CLAIMS N0, 2964 P, 54/54
��[�u���e��u�r
�mo�da����Bor�a�a#
. �Q�ld�Y1i���nla�►aro��of�rd�A���Q�lS�i�A3o�eiou�s�3ao�o�o�►'
�}3o suo�r�noxd x�u�me�u io�pacte uo���o tiorual�YA '�
.���30��
e�►m tio}��aSan.p�vaP�ut�o��q�tmProe m�ac eq�ur Po��4�snaa�o��d
��Y'�47P A����Nes ssaoxo�o ue���acl�s�p�t� '£
��1�P�aP
se�qarodo s��}?ir�B�ra4'en�mrxo�s�3�,�ns s�op�d���►P�P 1���'peS
�°"�o'�ax tl�����tL ���1!�Pu�St�s a�i az�a�'o��xn3
�►���oqe��O ro s�it�3�`q��'��#�f�o`s�t�dmma
��4��`�'�3?����IiBRs�naA�ard�GL 'Z
'�sp aor�o�e��o raa�
o�o�an�nn.sttu�oo�svP Ia�oO�s a�(e�9 a��Tl��o�cud eig
`u��o yar�P�s a�Pa�4�Pt��B��s s+qa.�r'��sug u4 pe�g
- .��oA�Bcs�P�t�a�lY�o=iE�4�i��laes oq;Praea�r�P s�t�uo�trcpoa
�aosnbap'�PatapYs��9 IIl��!xa��� �o�nb�p��a sor�sr�s�q�
���Rtw��.���E����ut g a�uto�o����ra(s�q
� �P��?���s a�g�dsar�eqs�,0 6�aui�o��, •t
'�O��L�`AAOI�i
'�rI��e0�����W s���rQ��P��Xe eq1`uxn'ax,ra�ur$�e
QPn���Pus�u�ue�m�gvA�ed aiq�P'��'BPo��xrsds�eqe
�t�aa�$g e�cwa�q.u�c��T�`����ooe�gW T.�P�g�e�tno
`�� `��'���n�e�l�no`ep�r�d#����olg�P�
�l Il���oa�$�e�noasu���vpre,wd ri�i QM��I`fsV��HAd
�P�D� T
� P�d��oo�a8aa�ylt�S [
: :skwno�w�,�Xdds e�uo�azmbai��,��,�,aq,�� -
� �uo�agitr�et�p�`p�adtaom sc�am�r s���iM���aaY�ea x�
m��'`��AY������Q���A���oad�`�'i+'�!ffi��C1,
� Fug'•�am���t s�'ere�S`i+i vI�Qtl���i�3
' �QM.�J���3tao�d e m��p�m n�4��►��[dd�°�'�
: '9�bo-90�1���[����3��TQ lm'��t�A�
' �tY1T a4 i���e�i��eq�a4�tdd�eu��soqy
,
� �ld�'111�I.i.i�C�1t�i,Lt'�V��LYAd�At�4J�5
S�LN�"JV��' -
a
.
� . � , '
0
L.[l �
6C�
. � � S '
d
, � .
� � A
�O .
O� � �
� g F�
� � � �
��y � �
O m• �
� � �
� �
�
� �
� �
� � �,
... � �
1--- ��} �
�— „C
} �
� �
J
Q
i.•
C�C
4 �
Z �
d 0 �
� � �
� � �
�
V- �J"y
�
�
o '
0
cr
eYi
cti:
W .
�
� ,
�
� ,
w
w+� � �
1$� IR 3YI�B v�►w��..+.wr�wr►n� +'r:l�i��"�y�.'��� ~� o
� >� �r.�rrwr� r� �.Tr. �
0 t � � ww«w.r�w�- 0�'�► � �ai■ �
+M►M�w'�//1rM�/ �
�w�r�t��_Iw�� �
1 �i� �
�/��}�. � ,� ' � �
�7/ �'�� M�Pw�FNMIln/�Vw� 1�� • G
TN��l�M��� r a��t �
"5...`'`�.�iLZi��r�r,�t�L'"�'.i.e.ii�rd
.--- f � .Q,;�, .
L+i�3�X.+62�b3�r ��iy .,....� .�:�..-�".�.—� ••-�' �. �
..r.�.-�.. y3s3 �t�y 3 ,Y ""'."_ -i.���e���--- �
'�� m
� "^i��awi�s'�.� � C�
�-.+
... r s.�. , �' "' '�YI a
� � • fUTTF11711TIffTi1 � 7 s� ' a
��� � amr� j r
� �
� ; +� -c
�. ...o
� S
r, ! . °�.� � dr � � � i =�
� �'�} 1 � �-
�
� �� i � � � �
� I_____.— .� • � y y
� '� ...._.�_ - �''---�-- -
� :
�
° "�s . � 1.t ` �r � � �v � n
� , .�.�..,.e � � a y�1 3
� � � � �� �
� w'�a ■
� �} � .._ . , - --
� � ti.�o�nwn'�Nd3lIBH o
� � w-a�Fie-�a�s�v�rt�s3u�n
iMl`B91Yt�l�Mlf]`4)K)OFB't�A�'10�IM'g�71V.L9B 3!b�71�`G N30n6`F1�lpl o
► � QIIV'1M3F3 8�1V1�3lIV 31138'l�076`G J1Jl�O �
� 1 � NOS�Y�GII'1'TI1fft HL3��M1��i10H��A��Ja�rW�'1'N3�idO13113G �NV7H0�
' � 311Q'J 3"t�►�N3lJ �
�
�
� �
�
, . .o
��� �
MINIJTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,January 12,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT
3. 2325 GLENDALE COVE—ENCROACAMENT ISSUE
Curtis stated a building permit for the new home at 2325 Glendale Cover was issued in September of
2013 and a temporary Certificate of Occupancy allowing the property owners to move into the residence
was issued in January of 2014. Due to winter conditions,the site was not completed at that time.
The City-approved site plan associated with the permit included one pmposed retaining wall near the west
side of the home. When the final as-built survey was submitted in August of 2014,it was noted that three
additional walls were constructed araund the home. One wall extending the width of the property was
constructed within the wefland buffer and the drainage and utility easement had been constructed without
City review or approval. An additional wall exceeding four feet in height was constructed on the west
side of the home and a building permit is also required due to the height. Typically]andscape features
which vary from the permit-approved landscape plan should have City approval and a zoning permit,
which was not done in this case.
The wetland buffer area is covered by City conservation and flowage easetnent and a MCWD wetland
buffer declaration. Both documents prohibit construction of structures within the wetland buffer. Upon
review of the as-built survey, Staff notified the property owners that one wall was located within the
easement area and that it should be removed.
Staff further met with the property owners and MCWD staff on November 7 to discuss resolution to the
encroachment violation and the final Certificate of Occupancy,which continues to be withheld until the
issues are resolved. At that time the Watershed District was willing to offer a compromise solution which
involved removing turf and planting native vegetation in the required buffer area but allowing the wa11 to
remain. Following that meeting,the property owners chose to make a formal request for an encroac}unent
agreement with the City.
Based on the Watershed District's proposal,Staff is agreeable to allowing all or some of the retaining
wall within the easement area to remain subject to the requirement that the property owners enter into an
encroachment agreement with the City. The encroachment agreement would allow the City to require the
propeity owners to remove the encroachments if the encroachments become an issue in the future. If the
wall remains,the property owners should comply with the requirements of the MCWD regarding
establishment of native buffer vegetation.
The property owners have provided a statement from a structural engineer regarding the wall exceeding
four feet in height on the west side of the home as requested. The property owners should apply Por
zoning and building permits and pay the after-the-fact fees to address the walls construct�that were not
shown on the approved building permit survey. If the Council determines it to be appropriate,the City
Attorney can draft an encroachment agreement for consideration at a subsequent meeting.
Curtis stated Staff is looking for direction regarding the encroachment agreement.
McMillan asked if the buffer specifications will be worked out with the Watershed District and not
involve the City.
Page 4 of 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,January 12,2015
7:011 o'clock p.m.
(3. 2325 GLENDALE COVE—ENCROACHMENT ISSUE continued)
Curtis stated to her knowledge the City will not be involved in that unless the Council has a certain
preference for what they would like to see planted in that area. Curtis stated to her understanding the
Watershed District will require native species.
McMillan asked if the City would have required anything for the buffer area as part of the subdivision
even if there was no wall there.
Curtis stated at the time this development was created,the Watershed District had allowed some filling or
some impacts to wetlands and wetland buffer areas. The areas that were considered buffer replacement
areas were expected to be vegetated by the MCWD and the City,which was not done in this case.
I.evang asked if the documents sp�cify that.
Curtis stated the Flowage and Conservation Easement does specify that.
Casey Hoehn,property owner, stated they closed on their house the end of January of 2014 and
subsequently moved in. The retaining walls were not part of the original survey from the builder since
they were not sure what they were dealing with exactly. Hoehn stated in the spring they elected not to go
with the builder's landscaper and instead hired their own landscaper.
Hoehn indicated they then approached the Watershed District. Hoehn stated since it was a wetland buffer
area,it was his understanding the regulations of ihe Watershed District supersede the City's regulations.
There was some back and forth with the Watershed District on the buffer area and they performed some
site visits. Hoehn stated they informed the Watershed District that they would like to construct a retaining
wa11 in an attempt to address some severe erosion controls. Hoehn indicated they did receive verbal
approval from the Watershed District for that wall and that it was not until afler the final inspection by the
City that they found out the wall was an issue.
Levang stated she appreciates the letter submitted by the Hoehn's and that it dces appear they were
proactive in this matter. Levang stated she does have a question about their letter under the
recommendation section. Levang noted the letter states,"We will also work with the MCWD on a cost
effective compromise with seeding natural grasses and vegetation in agreed upon locations..."
Levang stated in her view compromise is not the right term and that they will need to comply with what
the MCWD requires. Levang stat�the Council needs to be assured that they will do whatever is
necessary to protect the wetland and buffer areas and that the language she read sounds a little
equivocating.
Hoehn stated when he said compromise,he was speaking more to a cost effective solution. H�oehn stated
under the approval of the Watershed District,they were provided a boundary,which is depicted in the
pictures as the second silt fence.Hoehn indicated they then used that as our boundary. Hoehn stated he
would be willing to replace certain areas with natural grass but that he has already incurred the cost of sod
and irrigation. Hoehn stated he was hoping he could speak with the Watershed District about a possible
compromise where he would not have to tear up all the sod.
Page 5 af 19
MTNUTES OF TAE
�RONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,January 12,2015
7:0(1 o'clock p.m.
(3. 2325 GLENDALE COVE—ENCROACHMENT ISSUE conti�ued)
Mrs.Hcehn stated they want to be respectful of the wetland. Hoehn stated following the verbal approval,
they went ahead and spent the money on the additional structures only for them to come back and say that
it needs to be removed. Hoehn stated it is based on financial concems and fiustration on their part.
Mr. Hoehn stated the lot dces offer some seclusion with the wetlands and that they want to go out of their
way to make sure that it is preserved. Hoehn indicated the part of the wall that is in the wetiand buffer is
the very tip of the concrete pad and the rest is in the buffer replacement area,which is land that was
designated by the developer.
Levang asked how amenable they are to removing the fire pit.
Mr.Hoehn stated they were working within a certain boundary and that there was a substantial cost to
that structure. Hcehn stated there are probably two rocks that are in the wetland buffer itself. Hoehn
noted according to City ordinances,the buffer is now at 35 feet but at the time they purchased the
property,their title documents reflect 25 feet. Hoehn stated he measured from the boundary stake for the
wetland boundary and the closest rock encroaches by roughly 2.5 feet.
Walsh stated he appreciates all the documentakion that has been submitted and that it is very obvious that
they were proactive. Walsh stated it appears the Watershed District failed to mention that they need to
follow up with Orono. W alsh stated given the different layers of regulations,it can become confusing.
Walsh stated if the Watershed District agrees to whatever form of buffer replacement or are willing to
compromise,he would be fine with that. Walsh stated he would rather have citizens who are attempting
to be proactive up front rather than citizens who do not make that attempt.
Mr.Hoehn stated the Watershed District inspected the property twice and that they had every oppartunity
to post the boundary or provide a map showing the location of the wetland. Hcehn stated the heartache
comes from having to remove something that yau paid for while working under the direction of what they
thought was the appropriate agency.
McMillan asked if they have a fmal agreement with the Watershed District.
Mr.Hoehn stated nothing has been finalized at this point and that they basically received a letter outlining
the meeting they had previously.
Curtis stated the letter is included in the Council's packet and indicates that the Watershed District would
like the buffer area to be native grasses.
McMillan stated there are two buffers here,the regular wetland buffer and the buffer replacement area.
McMillan noted the buffer replacement area replaces wetland that was filled on another lot,which is
tough for these property owners since they iose some of their back yard.
Mr. Hoehn noted the wall has a very minimal impact to the wetland buffer.
Page 6 of 19
MnvuTEs oF�
ORONO CITY COUNCII,MEETIlVG
Monday,January 12,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(3. 2325 GLENDALE COVE—ENCROACHMENT ISSUE continued)
McMillan stated she was wondering whether there is a final agreement with the Watershed District about
what will be planied and the location of the buffer.
Mr.Hoehn stated the black line is the wall.
McMillan asked if he is being asked to remove the sod.
Mr.Hoehn stated to his understanding he is in that area and that he would like to compromise on the other
side. Hoehn indicated he is willing to do buckthorn mitigation and other things to help offset that.
McMiltan stated from her point of view,whatever plan that is worked out with the Watershed District is
fine,but that she had thought the Council would be seeing a final plan fi-om the Watershed District
tonight. McMillan indicated she would like to see that if the City goes ahead with an encroachment
agreement.
Mr.Hoehn asked if the easement area behind the house could be designated to take the place of any area
that is impacted cwrently. Hoehn pointed out the easement on the overhead.
McMillan stated to her understanding that is not part of their property and that it would be difficult to use
that.
Gaffron stated the sewer easement goes from west to east behind the property.
McMillan stated sometimes the Watershed District will agree to move the wetland buffer but that she
cannot speak for them. McMillan suggested they speak with the Watershed District and come up with a
formal plan.
Walsh stated he would not be opposed to having the motion state subject to.
Levang stated she would like to see the plan so everyone understands what is going to happen since the
City dces need to sign off an the encroachment agreement.
Printup moved to direct Staff to draft an encrnachment agreement allowing the entire retaining
wall subject to compliance with the regulations the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District woeild
require for establishment of the nalive vegetation.
Mattick stated the encmachment agreement would come back to the City Council at approximately the
same time that the plan with the MCWD is finalized.
Walsh seconded the motion.
Walsh stated he does not want to penalize the Hoehn's with after-the-fact permit fees due to the unknown
origin of the permits. Walsh noted the Hoehn's thought they were dealing with the right people.
Printup stated he would accept that amendment to the motion.
(3. 2325 GLENDALE COVE—ENCROACHMENT ISSUE continued)
Page 7 of 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNClL MEETING
Monday,January 12,2015
7:00 o'clock p.m.
Printup moved,Walsh seconded,to direct Staff to draft an encroachment agreement allowing the
entire retaining wall subject to compliance with the regulations that the Minnehaba Creek
Watershed District would reqaire for establishment of the native vegetation,with waiver of the
after-the-fact permit fees.
Printup stated what he hears loud and clear from this application is that it is very familiar to another
application that had a fire pit encroachment. Printup stated his concern is that the municipality is not
coordinating well with the Watershed District. Printup stated he would prefer to error on the side of
people who are being proactive and attempting to do the right thing only to be stopped in their tracks by
all af the bureaucratic paperwork. Printup stated the question is how the City can work better with the
Watershed District. Printup noted the City Council has talked about that before and that is what concerns
him with applications of this type.
Levang stated Staff has been working hard over the years to establish a good working relationship with
the Watershed District. Levang stated if someone looics at the flowage and covenants,it was very clear
what should have happened with the property and that the property owners should have realizeti it was
their responsibility to understand all the conservation easetnents and covenants and that the property
owners should have been apprised of those things at the time they purchased the property. Levang stated
the property owners need to understand exactly where their property boundaries are and that Staff has
worked very hard to develop a strang relationship with the Watershed District.
Mack stated he does not see this issue as a conflict with the Watershed District. Mack statad the Planning
Department has discussed this very thoroughly and have actually institu€ed some measures that will help
prevent this from happening in the future. Mack stated the changes have to do with the way landscaping
occurs on a site and whether it is part of the original building permit ar not. Mack stated those changes
will help make sure the homeowners are not caught in this type of situation in the future. Mack stated this
situation involved different contractors and a lack of clear understanding of what was on the survey.
McMillan stated at times the developers fail to inform the property owners that certain areas have
covenants over them or fail to notify them of a wetland buffer. McMillan stated it is very diffiault for the
average person to understand how those lines are formed since they are often deternuned by soil types
and that when the lots are sold,they are not always marked.
McMillan asked for clarification on the fee.
Curtis stated a building permit is required for the wall exceeding fow feet in height as well as a zoning
permit for the lower wall. The zoning permit is a$50 permit and the building permit is a sliding fee based
on the cost of the project. Curtis stated the double fee is for the after-the-fact pernuts.
VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0.
Mattick noted this application witl be brought back before the City Council at the time a plan is finalized
with the Watershed I}istrict.
Page 8 of 19
�
• COUNCIL MEETING
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION FEB 2 3 Z015
DATE: 2/1�ZOlO,�f ORONO
ITEM NO.: �
Department Approval: � / Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name: Tim Amundsen /y Public Works Department
Title: Public Works Supervisor
Item Description: Replacement of Truck#424
List of Exhibits
A- Summary of State Bid Contract Pricing.
1. Purpose. The purpose of this request is to gain Council approval for the replacement of
Truck #424 with a 2016 Western Star 4700 with body and plow work to be done by Aspen
Equipment.
2. Background. Truck #424 is a 1992 Ford L8000 that has been in service for nearly 23 years.
The expected life of a snowplow dump truck is 12-15 years. It is used for various work related
tasks which include snow removal, street maintenance, park maintenance, storm water repairs,
water and sewer repairs and hauling. The truck has received several expensive repairs over the
last 8 years. These repairs have resulted in costs in excess of$20,000. With consideration to the
age and strain placed upon the truck it is no longer cost effective to continue to make expensive
repairs. Public Works recommends replacing this truck with a newer model as planned for in the
CIP.
3. Truck Chassis Analysis. The Public Works Department researched several different trucks
which included Freightliner, International, and Western Star. After careful consideration and test
driving the units on City streets it was determined that the 2016 Western Star 4700 is the most
capable vehicle to provide outstanding service to the residents of the City of Orono. The most
important factors were turning radius, visibility, maintenance, and quality. Western star
provided the best in a114 categories. It has a shorter turning radius making it ideal for streets
within the City of Orono. The visibility is exceptional from the cab allowing for the driver to
navigate with greater ease; especially during plowing. Maintenance repairs are provided by
Boyer in several metro locations whereas the other trucks must be driven a greater distance for
similar repairs. Western Star also offers point to point wiring which makes for easier electrical
repairs. The quality of the Western Star is exceptional and this includes the fully galvannealed
steel box with corrosion resistant coating.
4. Box and Blade Analysis. Public Works also worked with Aspen Equipment and Towmaster
to determine the best setup for the bodywork which includes box, spreader, plow, underbody
plow and the related controls and accessories. The new salt-sand spreader controls will allow for
150217-RFA-Truck 424 Replacement
1
the driver to manage the amount of material they spread; using less to produce desired results.
Public Works has worked with both companies in the past and both have done quality work.
After receiving bids from each it was determined that Aspen Equipment offered the best cost and
equipment for our application.
5. Recommendation. The Public Works Department recommends accepting the bid from
Boyer truck for the amount of$92,336.39 to replace the 1992 Ford L8000 with a 2016 Western
Star 4700. Public Works also recommends accepting the bid from Aspen Equipment for the
amount of$73,042.00 to install the Box, Spreader, Plow, and all related controls and lighting.
The total cost of the fully completed truck is $165,378.39 using state bid contract pricing.
6. Funding. Funding will be provided from the Improvement Equipment Outlay Fund.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approve replacement of Truck#424, a 1992 Ford
L8000, with a 2016 Western Star 4700 with body and plow work to be done by Aspen
Equipment.
150217-RFA-Truck 424 Replacement
Exhibit A. Summary of State Bid Contract Pricing
Com onent Com an /Model Cost
Truck Chassis Western Star 4700SF $93,336
Internationa17500 $88,120
Frei htliner $88,398
Box, Blades and As en $73,042
Spreader Towmaster $89,907
150217-RFA-Truck 424 Replacement
CODUCIL MEETI�G
FEB 2 3 2015
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF ORONO
DATE: February 23, 2015
ITEM NO: �
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Adam T. Edwards Public Works Director/
Title Public Works Director/City Engineer City Engineer's Report
Item Description: Appointment of 2015 Golf Course Employees
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain Council approval of seasonal employees
for the Golf Course.
2. Compensation. The pay range is proposed to be from $8.50-$10.00 for the Clubhouse
Attendants and Maintenance Assistants and a pay range of$15.00-$18.00 for the Assistant
Superintendent and Clubhouse Manager. This represents a 0% increase over the 2013 pay rates.
Seasonal employees are excluded from PERA membership if certain conditions exist.
Employees can be hired under the maximum earnings provision which limits annual
compensation to $5100 without any restrictions on the number of months worked or on a 6
month timeframe where the employees work for no more than 185 days. All 9 seasonal
employees will fall under the 6 month PERA Classification.
3. Seasonal Employee Candidates.
Nar�xe Posi�ior� Ht�ut�y�V�+e R"�ta�`,�
Ivan Corazalla Clubhouse Mana er $16.00 Returnee
Jason Goehrin Asst. Su erintendant $16.00 Returnee
Dale Skreen Maintenance Assistant $10.00 Returnee
Ed Kvam Maintenance Assistant $10.00 Returnee
Llo de Schneider Clubhouse Assistant $10.00 Retumee
Marshall Hambro Clubhouse Assistant $10.00 Returnee
Sandra Locken-Rauschendorfer Clubhouse Assistant $10.00 Returnee
Paul Tolzmann Clubhouse Assistant $10.00 New
Rodney�ensen Clubhouse Assistant $10.00 Returnee
4. Recommendation. Approve the hire of the seasonal employees.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve to hire the seasonal employees as indicated in the list above.
, COU�CIL MtET1NG
t FE� 2 3 2015
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF ORONO
DATE: February 17, 2015
ITEM NO.: 7
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Scott Oberaigner Public Works Director/
Title Public Works Supervisor ' City Engineer's Report
Item Description: Approve Rehabilitation of ' Station 8 (2662 West Lafayette Rd) and Lift
Station 15 (1377 Vine Pl)
List of Exhibits
A- Quote from Quality Flow Systems Inc
B- Quote from RDM
C- Quote from EP
l. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain Council approval to accept the quote for
improvements to lift stations 8 and ]5.
2. Background. Public Works has a maintenance plan for the 461ift/grinder stations that are part of the
sewer system. As part of the plan, each station is inspected annually to identify routine maintenance needs.
In addition to routine maintenance, the plan also includes the upgrade of two lift stations per year. A lift
station upgrade involves replacing discharge piping, pumps, control panel and all electrical that operates
. the lift station. The lift stations that are upgraded are selected based on a number of factors: age,
maintenance records, issues discovered during the annual inspection and the risks associated with the
failure of the lift station. Lift Station 8 (2662 West Lafayette Rd)was reconstructed in 1990 and Lift
Station 15 (1377 Vine Pl)was constructed in 1970 and both lift stations surpassed their life expectancy.
Maintenance costs are increasing due to their age and the outdated technology of the controls and pumps.
3. Quotes. We solicited three yuotations for Lift Station 8 and Lift Station 15 upgrades; listed below:
Gom an LS�#8�te�ab LS#15�tehab � •�o�al�
Quali Flow $35,450 $43,100 $78,550
RDM $35,950 $45,600 $81,550
EP $52,200 $58,100 $110,300
l. Did not include electrical costs. A separate electrical contract would cost another 5,200.
4. Funding. These projects are planned for on the CIP and funded from the Sanitary Sewer Fund.
5. Recommendation. We recommend acceptance of the quote from Quality Flow Systems Inc. Quality
Flow Systems Inc to provide a new control panel,two new pumps, discharge piping and all electrical work
for LS 8 in the amount of$35,450 and $43,100 for Lift Station 15 for a combined total of$78,550.00.
Quality flow systems has done similar work for the city in the past with positive results.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to accept the quote in the amount of$78,550.00 from Quality Flow Systems Inc to upgrade LS 8
and LS 15.
�
QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS, INC.
800 6 Street NW Phone(952)758-9445
New Prague, MN 56071 Fax(952)758-9661
December 9,2014
To: City of Orono
Attn: Scott
Subject: Rehabilitation of LS#8 and LS#15
Scott;
We offer the following bid for KSB/QCt lift station equipment.
Item#1 —Lift Station#8 Remodel(Existinq KSB F80-200/24X—230/31:
Two (2) "KSB"guide system accessories to include:
- 3"X 4"base discharge elbow
- Guide claw
- Stainless steel upper bracket
- Stainless steel guide pipe
One (1) "QCI"Nema 3R 304 stainless steel double door control panel to control two 3.4hp,230/3
heavy duty submersible pumps in a pump down mode per the attached scope of supply.
To include the manual transfer switch, 1500ct Controller,float back-up,alarm light,and
alarm horn per the attached bill of material. We include the automatic transfer switch and
a manual transfer switch with generator receptaGe. We will leave space for mounting the
existing Mission unit.
One (1) Provide and install retro-fit access cover and safety grate—3001b rated
Four (4) Float switches with 50'of cable
One (1) Submersible transducer with 60'of cable
Two (2) 4"swing flex check valves
Two (2) 4"non rising gate valves
One (1) Lot of piping to replace the piping inside the station(using stainless steel flange accessory
kits)
One (1) Lot of labor to install the above equipment
One (1) Electrical Install by a licensed master electrician.
One (1) Cable rack and J hook
One (1) Warranty as specified
One (1) Start-up and training as specified
Item #1 - Total Installed Price - - $35,450.00 (+ tax)
Item#1 Notes:
1) We include the concrete under the control panel in our pricing
2) New guide pipe to be supplied
Item#2—Lift Station#15 Remodel:
Two (2) "KSB"Model KRT F80-250/66X, 7.5hp,230/3,4", 1150 rpm,heavy duty vortex
submersible sewage pump capable of pumping 200 gpm @ 49'TDH. To include:
- 50'of power cord
- 7.5hp,230/3,explosion-proof motors
- Stainless steel lifting handle
- Leakage sensor
- Stainless steel lifting chain
- Handle
- 4"base discharge elbow
- Stainless steel upper bracket
- Stainless steel guide pipe
One (1) "QCI"Nema 3R 304 stainless steel double door control panel to control two 7.5hp,230/3
�
heavy duty submersible pumps in a pump down mode per the attached scope of supply.
To include the manual transfer switch, 1500ct Controller,float back-up,alarm light,and
alarm horn per the attached bill of material. We include the automatic transfer switch and
a manual transfer switch with generator receptaGe. We will leave space for mounting the
existing Mission unit.
One (1) Provide and install retro-fit access cover and safety grate—3001b rated
Four (4) Float switches with 50'of cable
One (1) Submersible transducer with 60'of cable
Two (2) 4"swing flex check valves
Two (2) 4"non rising gate valves
One (1) Lot of piping to replace the piping inside the station(using stainless steel flange accessory
kits)
One (1) Lot of labor to install the above equipment
One (1) Electrical Install by a licensed master electrician.
One (1) Cable rack and J hook
One (1) WaRanty as specified
One (1) Start-up and training as specified
Item #2 -Total Installed Price - - $43,100.00 (+ tax)
Item#2 Notes:
1) We include the concrete under the control panel in our pricing
2) New guide pipe to be supplied
Note:
We do not include the concrete pad under the generator but we do include assisting the city with the
concrete pad.
As discussed,we would propose to build the panels and procure the equipment over the winter
months with a late April or early May install.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with a proposal for this equipment.
If you have questions or require more information, please don't hesitate to give me a call.
Sincerely,
pat/�a�a�
Pat Matay
- �"_�,,- -
��- RQM MUNICEPAI SUPPLY&SERVICE,Inc.2650 EasE Ryan Raad~Oak Creek,WI~53154 Phone: 414.856.1300�Fax: 414.856.1342
�_
www.rdmpumpscom
�
E _
�0 �ty of Orono �3ATE: 01/14/2015
� •-
.x
FRO :- RDM MUNICIPAL SUPPlYAND SERVICE,INC.
�0.7TN:' SCOtt AGES: 4 INCLUDIN6 THIS ONE
P ON E: � ENT:
F lf�tlCtE: mdalessandro#rdmpum s.com
,,.
i'�'fR •
�E; REHABILITATION OF LS#8 AND LS#15
Sir,
We are pleased to offer the foilowing bid for KSB/Stacon!ift station for the above referenced project:
Item #1 — Lift Station #8 Remodel (Existing KSB f80-200/24X--
230 3
Two {2) "KSB"guide system accessories to include:
- 3"X 4"base discharge elbow
� - Guide claw �
- StainEess steel upper bracket
- Stain[ess steel guide pipe
One (1) "RDM"Nema 3R 304 stainless steel double door contral panel to control two 3.4hp,23Q/3
� heavy duty submersible pumps in a pump down mode per the attached scope of supply. To
include the manual transfer switch,1S00ct Cantroller,float back- up,alarm light,and atarm
horn per the attached bill of material. We include the au#omatic transfer switch and a manual
transfer switch with generaior receptacle. We will[eave space far mounting the existing
Mission unit.
�K
�� RDM MUNICIPAL SUPPLY&SERVICE,Inc 2650 East Ryan Road�Oa&Creek,WI~53154 Phone: 424.855.1�00�Fax:414.856.1342
www.rdmpumps.wm
Qne (3} Provide and install retro-fit access cover and safety grate—3001b/SF Load Rated USF Cover
Four (4) Connery Fioat switches with 50'of cable
One (1) Submersible transducec with 60'of cable
'1'wo (2) 4"Val-Matic swing flex check vaives
Two (2) 4"J&5 non rising gate valves
One (1) Lot of piping to replace the piping inside the station(using stainless stee!flange accessory
ki�s)
One (1) Lot of labor to instali the above equipment
One (1) Cab(e rack and J hook
One (1) Warranty as specified
One (i) Start-up and training as specifed
Item#1-Total Instailed Price - $35,950.0� (+tax)
Itern#1 Notes:
1) The above pricing does not include the electrician's costs.
2) We include the concrete pad under the control panel in our pricing
3) New guide raiEs are to be supplied
Item #2 — lift Station #15 Remodel
Twa (2) "KSB" Modei KRT F84-250/66X,7.5hp,234/3,4",115d rpm,heavy duty vortex
subr►iersible sevvage puKnp capable of pumping 20(?gpm @ 49'TDH_ To include:
- 50'of power cord
- 7.Shp,230/3,explosion-proof motors
- Stainless steel lEfting handle
� 20
,� . .
RDM MUNICIPAL SUPPLY&SERVICE,InC.2650 East Ryan Road'"Oa&Creek,WI�53154 Phone:414.856.1300'"Fax: 414.856.1342
www.rdmpumps.com
- Leakage sensor
- Stainless steel I'sftirtg chain
- Handle
- 4"base discharge elbow
- Stainless steel upper bracket
- Stainless steel guide pipe
One (1� "RUM"Nema 3R 304 stainless steel double door controt panel to contrat two 7.5hp,230/3
heavy duty submersible pumps in a pump down mode per the attacE�ed scope of supply. To
include the rnanual transfer switch, iS00ct Controller,float back-up,alarm light,and alarm
horn per the attached biil of material. We incfude the automatic transfer switch and a manual
transfer switch with generator receptacle. We wil[leave spa�e for mounting the existing
Mission unifi.
Four (4) Connery Float switches with 50'of cabie
One (1) Submersible transducer with 60'of cabfe
1'wo (2} 4"Val-Matic swing flex check valves
Two �2) 4"J&S non rising gate valves
One (1) Lot of piping to replace the piping inside the station(using stainless steel flange accessory
kits) �
Oee (i) Lot of labor to install the abave equipment
One (i) Cable rack and J hook
One (1) Warranty as speci�ied - .
One (1j Start-up and training as specified
Item #2-Total insta[led Price - $45.fi00.00 (+tax)
ttem#2 Notes:
1} The above pricing does not inctude the electr�cian's costs.
2} We include the concrete pad under the control panel in our pricing
3) New guide rails are to be supplied
3�
i
! -
' RDM Ml1NIpPAL SUPPLY&SERVICf,Inc.2650 East Ryan Road�Oak Creek,W I�53154 Phone:414.856.1300"'Fax: 414.856.1342
www.rdmpumps.com
Please Note:
The concrete pad underthe generator is not included,but we do inciude assisting the city with the concrete
pad.
Thank you for your time and tareful consideration of.RpM Municipal Supply&Service, Inc. Should you have any
questions or require any additional data, p�ease feel free to contatt us dired.
Sincerely,
���������
s.
M.A.D'Alessandro,Jr.
President
CELL#414-531-5993
O�FICE#414-856-1325
4Q
PaEe: 1
' QUOTATION
2014th Ave SW OUOTE NUMBER: 0168832
E� New Pragne,MN 56071 USA OUOTE DATE: �6/2015
Telephoac: (952)758-5600/FAX(952)758-7778 �I�DATE: 3/6R41 S
ELECTRiC P�/MP Toll Free 1-800-53C�5394
SALESPERSON: STEVE REED
www.electricpump.com CUSTOMER NO: 4015640 =
OUOTED BY: MKH
LS# 15
QUOTED TO: JOB LOCATION:
CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO
2750 KELLEY PARKWAY 2750 KELLEY PARKWAY
PO BOX 66 ORONO,MN 55323
ORONO,MN 55323
CONFIRM TO:
SCOTT OBERAINGER 952-2 F 5-8154
CUSTOMER P.O. SHIP VTA F.O.B. TERMS
BEST WAY NET 30 DAYS
ITBM NUMBER QUANTITY UN1T AMOUNT -
RE: LS#LS PUMPS AND PANEL 58,100.00
ELECTRIC PUMP PROPOSES:
0031270950033 FLYGT MODEL 3127 NP489-HIGH CEIlZOME 2.00 EACH
IMPELLER AND WEAR PLATE 4" I a230l3 SU'FM
FLS+FV GpH.FIVB YEAtt PRO-RATED WARRANTY
0000005401305 CONNECTiON,DISCH 4X4"CI 2.40 EACH
14000�407129 MINI-CASIUFUS 120/24VAC,24VDC 2.00 EACH
SR3P-06 IDEC 11 PIN SOCKET 2.00 EACH
*PIPING LOT OF COMPLETE PIPINC3 PKG 1.00 EACH .
*1NSTALL INSTALLATION SERVICES 1.00 EACH
*PANEL NEMA 3R STAINLESS STEEL 1.00 EACH _
DUPLEX CONTROL PANEL PER CUSTOMER
PROVIDED BILL OF MATERIALS
TOTAL 1NSTALLED PRICB: $58,100.00
ELECTRIC PUMP DOES NOT INCWDE SEWAGE BYPASSWC3 OR ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION.
PLEASE CONTACT US WITH ANY QUESTIONS OR TO PROCEED W1TH AN ORDER.
SINCERELY--PETE itEARDON 952-220-1611
CC: STEVE REL'D 612-325-998U
� � Patte: 2
QU4TATION -
2014th Ave SW OUOTE NiJMBER: �168832
E� New Prague,MN 56071 USA OUOTB DATE: 2✓6/2015
Telephone: (952)758-6600/FAX(952)758-7778 EXPIRE DATE: 3/6/2015
Et�CTRIC PS/MP Toll Frce 1-800-536-5394 •
SALESPERSON: STEVE REED
www.electricpump.wm CUSTOMER NO: 0015640 =
QUOTBD BY: MKH
LS# 15
QUOTED TO: JOB LOCATION:
CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO
275d KELLEY PARKWAY 2750 KELLEY PARKWAY
PO BOX 66 ORONO,{vDV 55323
ORONO,MN 55323
CONFIRM TO:
SCOTT OBERAINGER 952-215-8154
CLISTOMER P.O. SHIP VIA F.O.B. TERMS
BEST WAY NET 30 DAYS
ITEM NUMBER QUANTITY UMT AMOUNT -
Net Order: 58,I00.00
Less Discount: 0.00 "
Frciaht: 0.00
ABOVE PRICING EFFECTIVE FOR 30 DAYS Sales Tax: 0.00
Order Total: 58,IU0.00
� Page: 1
� QUOTATION
2014th Avc SW OUOTE NUMBER: 0168833
EP N6"P P�c,MN 56071 USA
OUOTE DATE: 2�6/2015
Telephone: (952)758-6600/FAX(952)758-T778 ��DATE: 3/6/2015
; EIECrRIC Pi�MP Toll Free 1-800-536�5394
SALESPERSON: STEVE REED
, www.electricpump.com CUSTOMER NO: 0015640
; OUOTED BY: MKH
� LS#8
QUOTED TO: JOB LOCATION:
CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO
2750 KELLEY PARKWAY 2750 KELLEY PARKWAY
PO BOX 66 ORONO,MN 55323
ORONO,MN 55323
CONFIRM TO:
SCOTT OBERAIGNER 952-215-8154
CUSTOMER P.O. SHIP V1A F.O.B. TERMS
BEST WAY NET 30 DAYS
ITEM MJMBER QUA1�1"I'iTY UNIT AMOUNT �
RE:LS#8 PUMPS AND PAIVEL 52,200.00
ELECTRIC PUMP PROPOSES:
0031020950017 FLYGT MODEL 3 l02 NP465 HIGH CHROME 2.00 EACH
IMPP.LLER AND WEAR PLATE 4"5/230/3 50'FM FLS
FV+GPH.FNE YEAR PRO-RATED WARRANTY
0000005401305 CONNECfION,DISCH 4X4"Cl 2,00 EACH
1400Q00407129 MINI-CASI)/F[)S I20/24VAC,24VDC 2.W EACH
SR3P-06 IDEC 1 L PIN SOCKET 2.00 EACH
*PIPING IAT OF COMPLETE PIPING PACKAGE 1.00 EACH .
''*INSTALL INSTALLATiON SBRVICES 1.00 EACH
*PANEL NEMA 3R STAINLESS STEEL 1.00 EACH _
DUPLEX CONTROL PANEL PER CUSTOMBR
PROVIDED BILL OF MATERIALS
TOTAI.INSTALLED PRICE: $52,200A�
ELECTRIC PUMP DOBS NOT[NCLUDE SEWAGE BYPASSING OR ELECTRICAL INSTAI.LATION.
PLEASE CONTACT US WTTH ANY QUESTIONS OR TO PROCEED W1TH AN ORDER.
SINCERELY-.pETE REARDON 952-220-161 l
CC: STEVE REED 612-325-998Q
Pae� z
� QUOTATION �
�� 20l 4th Ave SW 0168833
OUOTE NUMBER:
New Prague,MN 56071 USA OUOTE DATE; �6/2015
Telephone: (9S2)758-6600/FAX(952}758-7778 �1RE DATE: 3/6/2015
6L�Ctl�IC P1/MP ToU Free 1-800-536�5394
SALESPERSON: STEVE REED
www.elcctricpump.com CUSTOMER NO: 0015640 =
pUOTED BY: MKH
LS#8
QUOTED TO: JOB LOCATION:
CITY OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO
2750 KEL,LBY PARKWAY 2750 KELLEY PARKWAY
PO BOX 66 ORONO,MN 55323
ORONO,MN 55323
CONFIRM TO:
SCOTT 4BERAIGNER 952-215-8154
CUSTOMER P.O. SHIP VIA F.O.B. TERMS
BEST WAY NET 30 DAYS
CTEM NUMBER QUANTITY UMT AMOUNT "
Net Order: 52,200.00
Less Diavount: 0.00 �
Freiaht: 0.00
ABOVE PRICING EFFECTIVE FOR 30 DAYS Sales Tax: 0.00
Order Total: 52,200.00
� GOU�CIL UIttTI�G
FEB 2 3 2015
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF ORONO
DATE: February 23, 2015
ITEM NO.: �
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Tim Amundsen Public Works Director/
Titte Public Works Sup rvisor City Engineer's Report
Item Description: Bid Award for 2015 Street Maintenance Materials
The City of Orono advertised for two successive weeks for street materials, with the bid opening
at 1:00 P.M. Tuesday, February 17, 2015.
The enclosed tabulation contains a complete accounting of all bids. The accepted low bids for
materials are determined by availability and location of materials. Traveling distance to a
supplier is considered a cost factor when determining a low bid. It is possible to award the low
bid to more than one contractor when considering materials and equipment. The city divides the
work accordingly among these low bidders. In the event the low bidder is not available,the City
reserves the right to purchase from the next alternate.
Staff recommends that the City Council awaxd the bids, as indicated by asterisk, for the calendar
year 2015.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Consider a motion to award the year 2015 Materials Bids.
>
CITY OF ORONO
2015 BID RESULTS TABULATION FORM FOR STREET MATERIALS
ITEM#1,#lA,#2 & #3
#1 MN DOT #lA MN DOT CLASS #2 MN DOT 3127.2B FA-2
CLASS 5 GRAVEL RECYCLED CLASS 5 MODIFIED CLASS A #3 MN DOT FA-1
BASE GRAVEL BASE (SEAL COAT) (WINTER SAND)
TON TON TON TON
PIT DEL. PIT DEL. PIT DEL. PLACED PIT DEL.
Barton Sand&Gravet�xo BB) - - *6.60 11.96 - - - *4.66 11.89
Fisher Minin ,LLC(tvo sB) - - - *11.75 - - - - *10.15
Omann Brothers Pavin (tvo Bs) - - 7.00 16.00 - - - - -
TW Tu p•ra ss> - *14.85 - 14.85 - *22.50 - - 11.40
* Denotes low bid
ITEM#4 #4 1 1/2"CLEAN #4 1 1/2"MINUS #4 3/4"CLEAN #4 3/4"MINUS CRUSHED
CRUSHED CRUSHED LIMESTONE CRUSHED LIMESTONE LIMESTONE
LIMESTONE TON TON TON TON
PIT DEL. PIT DEL. PIT DEL. PIT DEL.
B an RockProducts(BB) *17.55 *23.55 *9.35 *15.35 *17.55 *23.55 *9.35 15.35
TW Tu �ro sB� - 25.10 - 15.70 - 25.10 - *14.85
* Denotes low bid
Page 1 of 5
CITY OF ORONO
2015 BID RESULTS TABULATION FORM FOR STREET MATERIALS
ITEM#5 #51VI1v DOT CRS-2
PICKED UP DELIVERED
Omann Brothers Pavin (t�10 BB) - �3.50
Commercial Asp6alt(No BB) *40.00/ er 5 al ail -
iti(�"1'I-;: "1'1 CI�,�}: 1'1'E;��`� :�I;1:i.3 13II� E3E):�1.)
#6 #6 #6 #6A #6A #6A
ITEM #6& #6A BITUMINOUS BITUMINOUS BITUMINOUS BITUMINOUS BITUMINOUS BITUMINOUS
NON-WEAR NON-WEAR NON-WEAR LV3 NON-WEAR NON-WEAR NON-WEAR
LV3(B) LV3 (B) (B) MV3(B) MV3 (B) MV3(B)
PLANT DELIVERED PLACED PLANT DELNERED PLACED
Commercial As halt(tJo BB) *47.65 - - - *47.95 -
*115.00<soton *115.00<SOton
*76.50 so-soo coa *78.00 so-soo ton
Omann Brothers Pavin �No BB 50.00 - *67.00 >soo co� *51.50 - *69.00>soo con
* Denotes low bid
Page 2 of 5
!
1
CITY OF ORONO
2015 BID RESULTS TABULATION FORM FOR STREET MATERIALS
���"1�(_; "9,�-[��.�1�, I"!'I�.MS 'sl;i°,I� [31[7 (�C:)\l�
ITEM#7 & #7A
#7 #7 #7 #7A #7A #7A
BIT'UMINOUS BITUMINOUS BITUMINOUS BITUMINOUS BITUMINOUS BITUMINOUS
WEAR LV3(B) WEAR LV3 (B) WEAR LV3 (B) WEAR MV3 (E) WEAR MV3(E) WEAR MV3(E)
PLANT DELIVERED PLACED PLANT DELIVERED PLACED
Commercial As halt o ss� *47.65 - - *50.50 - -
*115.00<so to�
�`7H.00 50-500 ton
Omann Brothers Pavin (1�ro BB) 51.50 - *69.00>soo ton
� ITEM #7B
#7B #7B #7s
� BITUNIINOUS FINE MIX BITUMINOUS FINE MIX BITUMINOUS FINE MIX
/SAND MIX /SAND MIX /SAND MIX
PLANT DELIVERED PLACED
Omann Brothers Pavin (No BB) *65.50 - -
* Denotes low bid
Page 3 of 5
CITY OF ORONO
2015 BID RESULTS TABULATION FORM FOR STREET MATERIALS
ITEM#8,#9,#10 #g #9
FULL DEPTH BITUMINOUS SALVAGE RECLAIMED #10
PAVEMENT RECLAMATION BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SUB-GRADE EXCAVATION
PRICE/SQUARE YARD PRICE/CUBIC YARD PRICE/CUBIC YARD
Omann Brothers Pavin No BB) *2.50 (1,500 sy minimum) *ZrJ.65 (350 cy minimum) '�2�.0�
* Denotes low bid
ITEM#11
SMOOTH INTERIOR 12" 15" 18" 24" 30" 36" 42" 48" 60"
CORRUGATED Per Lin Ft Per Lin Ft Per Lin Ft Per Lin Ft Per Lin Ft Per Lin Ft Per Lin Ft Per Lin Ft Per Lin Ft
POLYETHLEME PIPE
ALL PRICES TO BE
DELIVERED
Fe uson�tvo Bs> *4.97 *7.23 *9.36 *15.12 *24.07 *31.28 *38.00 *46.93 *92.32
* Denotes low bid
Page 4 of 5
�
CITY OF ORONO
2015 BID RESULTS TABULATION FORM FOR STREET MATERIALS
ITEM#11A
APRONSFOR
POLYETHLEME PIPE
ALL PRICES TO BE 12"
DELIVERED APRON 15"APRON 18"APRON 24"APRON 30"APRON 36"APRON 42"APRON 48"APRON 60"APRON
Fe uson�rtoBs> *104.78 *104.78 *140.75 *180.63 *439.21 *465.04 - - -
ITEM#12A,#12B,#12C,
#12D, 12E, 12F #12A MILL #12B MILL #12C MILL #12D MILL #12E MILL #12F MILL
BITUMINOUS BITUMINOUS BITUMINOUS BITUMINOUS BITUMINOUS BITUMINOUS
SURFACE 0-2" SURFACE 2-4" SURFACE 4-6" SURFACE 6-8" SURFACE 8-10" SURFACE 10-12"
DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH
PER S YARD PER S YARD PER S YARD PER S YARD PER S YARD PER S YARD
Omann Brothers Pavin �tvosB> *1.75 *2.60 *4.21 *5.80 *7.40 *9.00
* Denotes low bid
Page 5 of 5
' COUVCIL M�ETI�G
FE� 2 3 2015
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
CITY 0�ORONO
DATE: February 23, 2015
ITEM NO: G�
/
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Jessica Loftus City Administrator's Report
Title City Administrator
Item Description: Videotaping Planning Commission Meetings
Councilmember Printup requested an opportunity to discuss whether the City should videotape
the Planning Commission meetings.
Below is some background information that might be helpful during the discussion:
• The camera operator(Daphne) charges $80 per meeting.
• The cameras and recording software are "sunk costs"that are paid whether we videotape
the Planning Commission meetings or not.
• The cable fund could support recording their 11 meetings for a total cost of$880 if the
Council so chooses.
• There is some additional staff time getting the video edited and posted but we have the
capacity to do so.
• Attached are the latest viewer statistics from our Granicus software to give you an idea of
how many residents are utilizing on-demand video service.
Council Action Reauested:
Consider a motion to direct staff on whether or not to videotape the Planning Commission
meetings.
, � • C� ��cc�, b �t � -t� I �/lQ�t
�-�� ���
�
r ,�w� an-gwra.o�co � unl P•f G ,�Gra�w-nepan �
�
«.., m=.c._
�____.__� ___' '.__'.... '
'__ _" '_' _'._'_""_________ _ "__^_'_ __._"____'..'_""
" ' "'.' __'__. _' "_ _'-___.'
,�'OnWS. CltyofOraa �vatdan. µv.x.yt.ror
-Reaav
Anrwn�4b.a.11ecmn�r9+�u- A1NQ'Ik�OK11E00M �
6�t YHtlP'
^'LE
rao.mr� • rype • a •
wa�ievm�
,r.csp ,,-a � . ��r i� o .� � . 4^.Mt ^.12
.,�,.�: a .�wa �.� ar�n. .-,. . i . . �I�9eYm: 16:
•, A _'�n r rv n' 11=t✓ . 1.t 4RN�! 5:
.c�v cn.*� .�.... ...„ .i.�q<<e, ��_w��n�n��i��>,.i�u�.,�v . ��. t M1We 91
..n. i,o-. , Hoi .� ,i c- u.eerm• 97
,..n .�e-x�, n,:i�a�i� 1 i - MCM.e 82
,..u�.�„ve;n. 1Ae:u(l i:14 MIYvt �<
.n ,c+ _� .�� . A 1we >5
,.x��x,n. ,� �..� . , . MCMe 49
.,n�ntee;x�. .e.�r .,�a. Mentx %
_,,.�„nr�a� nt, '�.r���,-- MnNE 36
,,.m r�.,ec ++,Ti�A-- MfWe 1E
�_u��A•r��a. ..�._ .. Mhs 56
�n i.�m' .�,.;r.t'.. �r[mie 5e
,n-n1�r.m: Px�- .:"a- _ MMe 52 `�
�
�C3 y}1�¢N m�,�n-grmicm�mm5�., 'lr' _ D'LC yGnMu�-AeFah__"' _"""' �
"" '"___ "
,�Of11CLLS. City oA Olap lev4�ldw• ho��N1Y f�aw
PPpprb
�JillllNY t IC1<.ORCISOu'1�]LlI� ���Wf11 ��P� ��G� A
C..� I�MI� 3 11 1 16 _��y�! �
�,_r,{�ee4 y Sey:i�0 70-� ry�ye�p aG
r rn I�Efr�_:�t.dP�.l': kRAW�t 71II
..,K en:�,�:, =-c,au.�;,< ,we w,ae y�
�� �.e s:r�,. er�oa. 16
..�., e�ec-,y .a.,. : ia weerem n
.�.a r..e�;c -�q zu-� .4eerea- t�
�., �sea�-a t,. 2.,._�.. Mhre 13
c,r� r+>et�q y��.•,rn znc sreMr l9
.�.�c NZE4��G ,y 1ac lJiJ ,JY¢�14�1 l3
� �,I��sL'p fAe.�i . fa ,ytqK 9
�.r� 1�[�eli,q u.i, t_14 AICM¢ 9
c,n i�Ilwl i�y iu 1G� �i14 .y2lYNl. 9
r.uniil�a.trw �u:M�a�)n .YenEn! 9
.ci�K�InP�,V�p v v:al� 'G"c ,ryE�� b
a. ���An�-r��q , .n1�G�� .!!Mm 9
r„�m 1',e«t'ip ,ar, ,�a �pey��ry 4
V
�
����
�� �a��- ��� -e - � �Le�� :
� �a
�
a��� �-e c�e.� �vc�,�,J : -T
�
�e � t �e., : . l �
G�►�n �Pl� : � r��
�,� �.;�
� � . ,�. ;
e e ��a,
� � � �:- �� ��� a
� P �� :x: �
I 1 � _ }, ' ' ' . . _ � � � . � 2' ' " _ '� F ' � � I� V
� � 'd `g ;� �8 R � R 8 A 8 j � � �� . #C � � , � R � � � F _ s T � �y F� 'F .Y : � � •� �
a � �d m s r � � � b � � � _ ° . 7 nr � n �d r a � � r e ,.s c � T? ,z e _ � i
„ °' z ` k, ? _ R °� F - '� 1 � i � ,n 4 a , c - _ °' �, s � o _ i � r
. �, p', � ' � j g � 1 p � � �
G . X � _ ` _ 'u i S Q _ • _ `� - � Q '
�i a _ _ . �` _ _ n - _ �• � _ R
�. w � : i. t y � n r t ^ 'i __ � C W n s : .. �. �. . e . _ � . � �
a E � � . � �' G
, � _ � �
, � . ,
{ � � � �
�a � .Ss � �S ,�, � � � '� � � � 1� � s R Q b � ' a� �a � � � � � P � � a 3 R � 'b
� � � � � 3 � � � � � � � � ° rt � x � � � a � � � � a � � � a e �sg ;�
.. . e m � � d .. _ � x x � ,� � = � '� K �s sa � � r3 �: :a , � s � �, � � � '�•
d t .� � � � �
m G ,� � �
. �
� ' ! �$ `� � S
g; � } � � �
� � s N � ,„ O N p�i !
� � $ � � � � � z �.
< < � „
e � o � : � � .
i
i �
� � �� .
� �i �
�c Ci
t, � i.
i
� > c � �--
< >
�
�
� �
�
a
yp� . �
S j� ` , j • :��
fi � � � s
I W � �s /~`� g � g
� � N — S�
i . a s
_�� Y .. � s �
�� =;t=�� �
g� i.... � � E
�i � .�♦ �E . � I
�I a 6 t
u i s � ,.
� a � r
4I � � � 7 � .�f ii ,� kt "
i � � „ � w m � ">
i (� � '
Z s S
� � N �
� � ti � �
� U �
� O � ^
�a } g� L
r
� � ` a � a
; W � � � � E � "� • ��.
� � � � � � � � S 3 � � � � �
�
,� '�
a �
R �
� �
Y
•� �
�
� C�i1NCIL MEt i IVv
FE� 2 3 2015
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY OF ORONO
DATE: February 23, 2015
ITEM NO: �O
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Jessica Loftus City Administrator's Report
Title City Administrator
Item Description: Building Official Retirement/Recruitment
After thirty years of service, our Building Official Lyle Oman has informed the City that he
intends to retire in June of 2015. The City would like to proactively plan for Lyle's successor to
have some overlap in May/June so the new hire could benefit from training and a transfer of
working knowledge from Lyle. The Building Official position is important in providing
essential services to meet our citizen's needs and I recommend filling it. Please see the attached
cost-benefit analysis.
A draft of the Building Official job description is attached for your review and comment. The
Building Official is an exempt position and is currently in the salary schedule at level5. The
current starting salary for level5 is $57,769, with a top salary of$77,026.
A proposed timeline for recruitrnent:
Feb 23 Ci Council ma a rove the recruihnent.
Feb 24 Advertise the position with the attached job posting. We could advertise on our city website
and the League of Minnesota's website at no charge. We would also consider paying to
advertise with rofessional buildin associations.
Mar 30 Application deadline. This allows for more than 30 days to submit applications after
ostin .
Apr 1-2 Review of Applications by the Committee. The Committee is proposed to be Jessica Loftus,
L le Oman,Adam Edwards and Mike Gaffron.
Apr 9-20 Interviews. I'm proposing the committee do the first and second round interviews in mid
A ril.
A r 27 A ointment. The committee would recommend the to candidate.
Ma /June A start date will de end on the a ointee's obli ations to a current em lo er.
Please revise the timeline, the attached job description, and job posting to fit the City Council's
needs.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Consider a motion to approve the Building Official position for advertisement.
MEMORANDUM
To: Jessica Loftus, City Administrator
From: Ron Olson, Finance Directo�
Subject: Building Department Discussion
Date: February 23, 2015
The attached information is designed to provide you and the Council with financial data for use
in the discussion on replacing the Building Inspector. I have prepared a table based on the
revenue average for 2013 and 2014. Because the current Building Official is at the top step of
the wage scale while a new hire will be at a lower step, the table was prepared including costs
based on the starting and top wage steps. The 35% contract fee is consistent with the costs
charged by Metro West to provide the plan review function to other municipalities. The other
charges include inspections and functions provided by the Building Official that are not related
to plan review. These charges are calculated at $55 per hour for 20 hours of work per week(see
cost by function for time allocation).
As illustrated in the attached job description, the Building Official performs duties other than just
plan review. A time analysis indicates that only 30 % of the position's time is actually spent on
plan review. Based on current wages and benefits, the plan review function currently costs the
city $30,400. This is approximately half of the cost the City would incur by outsourcing the
position. It is also almost completely offset by the revenues received from providing contract
services to Minnetonka Beach.
If it is decided that the position is to be eliminated, the other 70% of the position's duties will
have to be contracted for or eliminated. Communications involves responding to inquires about
issues that are not related to a specific plans being reviewed. Similarly,the front counter support
involves questions with building codes, city requirements, and other general building inquiries.
The position currently performs some building inspection, all zoning and burning permit
inspections. The Planning and Zoning staff often need a building official's expertise when
dealing with homeowners and contractors on variance applications. These functions need to be
continued and are the service charges identified on the table.
Based on the costs associated with contracting for the services it makes financial sense to keep
the Building Official position in-house.
City of Orono
Outsourcing Comparison In-House Contracted
2013-2014 Avg Revenues Step 1 Step S
Revenue
Plan Review-Orono 170,590 170,590 170,590
Plan Review- Mtka Beach 27,829 27,829 -
198,419 198,419 170,590
Expenditures
Building Official 80,280 101,330 -
Training/Miscellanious 2,000 2,000 -
Plan Review Charge (35�0) - - 59,707
Service Charges 57,200
82,280 103,330 116,907
Net Revenue 116,139 95,089 53,684
Net Savings (Loss) (62,456) (41,406)
Building Official
Cost by Function
Step 1 Step 8
Wage/Ben Wage/Ben
$ 80,280 $ 101,330
Plan Review 30�0 $ 24,0$4 $ 30,399
Communications 30% $ 24,084 $ 30,399
Front Counter 10% $ 8,028 $ 10,133
Administration 10% $ 8,028 $ 10,133
Directing Inspectors and Staff 5�0 $ 4,014 $ 5,067
Assist Zoning Staff 5% $ 4,014 $ 5,067
Septic Administration 2% $ 1,606 $ 2,027
Building and Zoning Inspections 5% $ 4,014 $ 5,067
Burning Permit Inspections 2% $ 1,606 $ 2,027
Sewer and Water Administration 1% $ 803 $ 1,013
100% $ 80,280 $ 101,330
�o�o
y�, �`
�
`qkES H�4�
CITY OF ORONO
Job Description
Position Title: Building Official
Date: February 2015
Department: Building& Planning
Accountable to: Community Development Director
FLSA Status: Exempt
Position Summary
This Building Official position is responsible for managing all activities related to ensuring compliance
with building standards.
Supervision Received and Exercised
Work is performed independently with guidance and direction from the Community Development
D i recto r.
This position supervises the building inspection staff/contractor to achieve effective delivery of service
for residential and commercial development.
Essential Function of the Position
Essential functions listed below are intended as illustrations of the various types of work that may be
performed. The omission of specific statements of duties does not exclude them if the work is similar,
related or a logical assignment to the position.
• Plan, program,direct and participate in all building service activities associated with setting and
ensuring compliance with building standards
• Perform, plan, organize, direct, and review the operations and activities of building inspections
• Review building plans for conformance with the code provisions and approve plans/
specifications as necessary, perform plan checks for energy, plumbing, mechanical,accessibility,
and other codes
• Enforce City zoning ordinances
• Advise homeowners, builders, architects, contractors, residents and others concerning building
code provisions and construction methods including minimum standards of construction and
materials
• Manage the City's individual on-site Septic System Program
• Review plans and specifications for on-site septic systems, inspect installations and keep records
• Prepare complex reports and letters
• Assist staff in resolving technical questions relating to various code requirements
• Make presentations to the City Council, commissions and other groups
• Explain city polices to the public, developers and builders
• Develop and implement goals, objectives, policies and priorities
• Establish and maintain relationships with appropriate government bodies, private firms,
organizations or individuals to assist in achieving City objectives and ensuring compliance with
appropriate laws and development standards
• Assist in resolving disputes between the City and contractors
• Advise the City Administrator, Community Development Director, Director of Public Works and
other department heads on building services activities
• Perform other duties and responsibilities as apparent or assigned.
REQUIRED KNOWLEDGE AND ABILITIES:
To perform this position successfully, an individual must be able to perform each essential function
satisfactorily. The requirements listed below are representative of the knowledge, skills,and/or abilities
required.
• Thorough knowledge of codes, principles, practices and methods associated with building
standards, plan check and building inspection
• Familiarity with engineering and building construction principles and concepts.
• Read, understand and interpret construction blueprints, plans and speci�cations
• Inspect and analyze building construction and to identify code violations
• Solve complex building inspection and code related problems
• Supervise,train and evaluate assigned staff
• Prepare analytical reports of a budgetary,technical and evaluative nature
• Establish and maintain systems needed for control of work quality and quantity
• Stand, bend, sit, kneel, lift, reach and move about quickly and safely in construction projects and
business office work locations
• Pick up, manipulate, move, raise and lower heavy materials, equipment, and supplies; to climb
ladders and scaffolding to heights of 30';to climb onto,walk on and get off of roof structures;to
get in and out of tight spaces within approved safety limitations
• Get on and off,or in and out of City equipment;operate the full range of equipment that is
typically required of the class without special aides
• Ability to develop and maintain positive and effective working relationships with Council,
Planning Commission,City staff, staff of other agencies, business organizations and the public.
• Ability to organize and coordinate support from professional and technical staff, legal counsel
and others as required ensuring successful completion of building activities.
• Computer skills including word processing,data base,GIS, spreadsheets, etc.
• Ability to organize and work on a variety of projects/tasks at the same time.
• Knowledge and experience in directing and supervising the work of others.
• Ability to effectively communicate, both orally and in writing.
• Ability to perform duties with tact and discretion.
Minimum Quali�cation
• Possession of MN Building Official Certificate
• Seven years of experience in building code administration, building inspection standards,
development and plan checking
• Three years of supervisory experience
• Individual Septic Treatment System Inspector Certificate
• Valid Minnesota driver's license
Desirable Qualifications
• Bachelor or Associates degree in a related field.
• Five years experience administering and inspecting on-site individual septic treatment systems.
�
Building Official
The City of Orono is seeking candidates for the position of Building Official.
This position is responsible for managing all activities related to ensuring
compliance with building standards. Qualified candidates will have a MN
Building Official Certificate; seven years of experience in building code
administration and three years of supervisory experience. Preferred candidates
will have five years experience with on-site individual septic treatment systems.
Additional requirements are listed in the job description. The salary range is
$57,769 to $77,026 plus an excellent benefit package. To ensure consideration a
cover letter, current resume and completed City application is required by March
30, 2015 to: City Administrator, City of Orono, 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono,
MN 55356. Download the employment application and job description from the
City's website at www.ci.orono.mn.us.
, COU�CIL M�ET1N�
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION FEB 2 3 2015
C1TY OF C�R0�10
DATE: February 23, 2015
ITEM NO: � /
Department Approval:� Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Ron Olson (� City Administrator's
Title Finance Direc�r Report
Item Description: 20]4 General Fund Budget Amendments
At the February 9`h council meeting, staff presented the preliminary General Fund budget results.
The comparison to budget was favorable with total expenditures coming in under budget and
revenues exceeding budget. A copy of the staff inemo from the meeting is included for your
reference.
The City's budgetary control is set at the department level. As a result, any department that is over
budget for the year is required to have its budget adjusted. Four departments did exceed their
budgets for the year and require budget amendments. With the exception of the Parks department,
these overages are offset by overages in related revenue accounts. The budget increases will be
offset by a budget reduction in the Police Department. The overall General Fund expenditure
budget is not being increased with expenditures at 97.97%of the budget.
Approved Final Amended
Department Budget Amendment Bud�et
Building and Zoning $ 140,000 7,400 $ 147,400
Parks 68,227 2,350 70,577
Golf 159,585 830 160,415
Special Services 64,160 103,170 167,330
Police 3,886,580 (113,750) 3,772,830
Total General Fund $6,669,430 0.00 $6,669,430
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Approval of the 2014 General Fund Budget Amendments as presented.
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and Council
From: Ron Olson, Finance Director
Subject: Budget Update
Date: February 9, 2015
Attachments:
1) Revenue Summ
2) Expenditure mary
3) Revenu etail
4) E diture Detail
5 nvestment Listing
The 4th quarter General Fund summaries are included with this memo. The summaries represent
revenues and expenditures incurred through December 31 S`. 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 are 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 total 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 taxes,
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 dollazs, 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.
Expenditures
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.
N
e�U�1�if.MEETIN�
F�B 2 3 20i5
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ,��Ty pF pRONO
Date: February 23, 2015
Item No. ��
Department Approval: � Administrator Approval: Agenda Section:
Name:Ron Olson CiTy Administrator's
Title: Finance Directo 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 102229 to
102291, totaling$211,786.77.
Noteworthy payments include:
Payment for Construction Management
Kraus Anderson Construction $69,039.21 Services for the Police Garage Project. Total
paid to date is $284,182.07. The remaining
amount on the contract is $90,369.93.
This payment includes charges for December
Metro West Inspections $14,217.25 2014 and January 2015. The amount of
$7,751.25 for December is slightly higher
than estimated in the 4�'quarter financial
re ort.
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 2/10/2015-2/23/2015 Feb 19,2015 01 47PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Advanced Imaging Solutio�s 02/23/2015 102229 66884 101-42110-401 pnnter maint contract 2/10 to 3/09 Police Department 123.74
- Advanced Imaging Solutions 02/23/2015 102229 66884 101�1900�01 printer maint contrad 2/10 to 3/09 Central Services 98.99
Advanced Imaging Solurons 02/23/2015 102229 66884 602-49450-401 printer mai�t contract 2/10 to 3/09 Sewer 24 75
Total 102229 247 48
ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 02/23/2015 102230 272094582 101-42110-413 pd copier lease transition bdling Police Department 187 57
Total 102230 187 57
AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS CO 02/23/2015 102231 28239 601�9400-403 radio repair Water 424 40
Total 102231 424 40
AWWA 02/23/2015 102232 700971621 601-49400-433 2015-2016 membership S Oberaigner Water 187.00
Total 102232 187 00
BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF 02I23/2015 102233 20615 101-15998 Cobra 7,117 68
BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF 02/23/2015 102233 20615 101-21706 Health insurance 22,385 24
Total 102233 29,502 92
BRAUN INTERTEC 02/23/2015 102234 017385 437�8970-304 soil bonng PD garage 1,210 00
Total 102234 1,210 00
BROOK,ROBERT 02/23/2015 102235 21015 101-22205 Escrowrefund 14-3693 2,500.00
Total 102235: 2,500 00
CAMP ENTERPRISES 02/11/2015 102152 2717-329G2 101-43280-307 14-3694/14-3703 4565 Bayside Special Services 534 26-
Total 102152 534 26-
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 02/11/2015 102224 2717-329G2 101-43280-307 14-3694/14-3703 4565 Bayside Rd Speaal Services 534 26
Totai 102224. 534.26
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 02/23/2015 102236 2717-OOOG1 101-41600-307 Gen Legal/staff/review Law/Legal Services 1,244 50
City of Orono Check Register-COUNCIL REPORT Page 2
Check Issue Dates 2/10/2015-2/23/2015 Feb 19,2015 01 47PM
Check Check Invoice invoice GL Account Descnption Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 02/23/2015 102236 2717-OOOG1 101-41600-307 ordinances Law/Legal Services 620.00
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 02/23/2015 102236 2717-OOOG1 101-42400-307 staff meetings 1/15 Buildmg&Zoning 837 00
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 02/23/2015 102236 2717-OOOG1 101-42400-307 68Z assistance 1/15 Building&Zoning 310 00
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 02l23/2015 102236 2717-OOOG1 101-41600307 Counal meetings 1/15 Law/Legal Services 1,007 50
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 02/23/2015 102236 2717-OOOG1 101-42110-307 Police matters Police Departme�t 124.00
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 02/23/2015 102236 2717-OOOG1 101�1600-307 Easement law/Legal Services 263.50
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 02/23/2015 102236 2717-OODG1 101-41600-307 employment matter Law/legal Services 325 50
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 02/23/2015 102236 2717-004G9 101-42110-307 Police matters Police Department 713 00
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 02/23/2015 102236 2717-115G5 101-41600-308 Code enforcemenVordmance violations LawlLegal Services 145 50
CAMPBEII KNUTSON 02/23/2015 102236 2717-201G3 101-41600-307 misc recordings Law/Legal Services 359 12
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 02/23/2015 102236 2717-277G1 101�3280-307 3208-1 Orono Mim storage Special Services 196.75
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 02/23/2015 102236 2717-279G1 101-43280-307 3208-3 Pine ComedJem Special Services 12 75
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 02l23/2015 102236 2717-334G3 101-41600-307 Pyle land registration Law/Legal Services 31.00
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 02/23/2015 102236 2717-339G2 101-41600-307 White Dayton land registration Law/Legal Services 46 50
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 02/23/2015 102236 2717-340G1 101-43280-307 15-3716 3850 Watertown Rd SpeGal Services 90.00
Total 102236 6,326 62
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/23/2015 102237 JL20415 101-41300�39 meeting LoftusMlayor Country Cake AdminisVation 9 12
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/23/2015 102237 R021715 101-41500-433 MNGFOA membership P.Zimmerman Finance Department 60.00
CARDMEMBER SERViCE 02/23/2015 102237 R021815 101-42110-201 fingerprint reader-Amazon Police Department 103 99
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/23/2015 102237 S021715 601-49400�04 utility permit Hnpn County Water 265.00
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/23/2015 102237 TA21315 101-43000-221 cold saw repair parts Tnck Tools Public Works Department 121 96
Total 102237 560.07
CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 02/23/2015 102238 12508 101-42110�02 #227 ignition tune up Police Department 629 33
CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 02/23/2015 102238 12516 101-42110�02 #225 od change,alternator replacement Police Department 671 46
Total 102238 1,300.79
C(TY OF LONG LAKE 02l23/2015 102239 201345 602-49450-387 3rd Qtr Glendale Cove/Creek Ridge Sewer Sewer 3,279.80
CITY OF LONG LAKE 02/23/2015 102239 201345 601-49400-387 3rd Qtr Glendale Cove/Creek Ridge water Water 2,161 38
CITY OF LONG LAKE 02/23/2015 102239 201348 602�9450-387 4th Qtr Glendale Cove/Creek Ridge Sewer Sewer 1,979 20
CITY OF LONG LAKE 02/23/2015 102239 201348 601-49400-387 4th QV Glendale Cove/Creek Ridge water Water 1,034.57
Total 102239. 8,454 95
DOMINOS PIZZA 02/23/2015 102240 4345 101-42400�39 Planni�g commission work session Building&Zoning 28 81
City of Oro�o Check Register-COUNCIL REPORT Page: 3
Check Issue Dates 2f10/2015-2/23/2015 Feb 19,2015 01�47PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 102240: 28 81
EMERY,DARYL 02/23/2015 102241 21015 101-22205 escrow refund 2013-01171 2,500 00
Total 102241� 2,500.00
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 02/23/2015 102242 260031 101�3000-222 filter Public Works Department 17 94
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 02/23/2015 102242 260061 101-43000-222 filter Public Works DepaRment 34.50
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 02/23/2015 102242 261261 101-43000.222 repair parts Public Works Departrnent 3 96
Total 102242 56.40
GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 02/23/2015 102243 132224 601-49400�89 locates Water 68 40
GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 02/23/2015 102243 132224 602�9450-489 locates Sewer 68 40
Total 102243 136 80
HD SUPPLY WHITE CAP 02/23/2015 102244 5000227558 101�3000-221 sprayer and safety Public Works Department 130 77
Total 102244 130 77
HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TE 02/23/2015 102245 1000054370 101-43000-240 radio admin fee Public Works Department 47.73
Total 102245 47 73
HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TE 02/23/2015 102246 1000054338 101-42110�14 radio lease and MDC bdling Police Department 1,744.50
Total 102246 1,744.50
HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF 02/23/2015 102247 1000054186 101�1600-309 �ail charges Law/Legal Services 845.68
HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF 02/23/2015 102247 1000054188 101�1600-309 �ail charges Law/Legal Services 1,109 11
Total 102247 1,954 79
HOUCK,DANIEL 02/23/2015 102248 11715 101-22205 Escrow refund 2014-00304 2,500.00
Total 102248 2,500.00
HUESMANN,JASON 02/23/2015 102249 21315 101-22205 Escrow refund 2012-00586 600 00
City of Orono Check Register-COUNCIL REPORT Page 4
Check Issue Dates.2110/2015-2/23/2015 Feb 19,2015 01 47PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Descnption Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 102249' 600 00
HUNTLEY REPAIR SERVICES 02/23/2015 102250 21715 101�3000-402 DOT inspecUons Public Works Department 1,078 00
Total 102250 1,078 00
INT L ASSOC OF PLUM MECH O 02/23J2015 102251 201503-9744 101-42400-433 L Oman membership Building&Zornng 150.00
Total 102251 150 00
JAMES GREGORY 02/23/2015 102252 21215 101-43000-226 reimb shoes Public Works Department 175 00
Total 102252 175.00
JUST SAW SUPPLY&EQUIPME 02/23/2015 102253 37666 101-43000-221 cold saw sharpen Public Works Department 29 98
Total 102253 29 98
KRAUS ANDERSON CONSTRU 02/23/2015 102254 12209 437�8970-520 Construction mgmt services through 1/31/15 PD ga 69,039.21
Total 102254. 69,039 21
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES 02/23/2015 102255 212450 101-42400-437 land use training M Curtis Building&Zoning 30 00
Total 102255 30.00
LITTLE FALLS MACHINE tNC 02/23/2015 102256 55652 101-43000-222 spmner replacement truck 428 Pubiic Works Department 259_43
Total 102256 259 43
LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 02/23/2015 102257 6241062 101-42110-223 ice chopper Police Department 41.99
LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 02/23/2015 102257 6242860 101-42110-221 padlocks Police Department 22 92
LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 02/23/2015 102257 B243485 101-45200.223 park gate supplies Parks 9 90
LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 02/23/2015 102257 B243488 101-41900-401 lamp Central Services 7 99
LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 02/23/2015 102257 B243530 101-03000-221 supplies Public Works Department 12 57
LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 02/23/2015 102257 B243561 101�3000-222 plow repav Public Works Department 1 40
LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 02/23/2015 102257 B243801 101�3000-221 suppl�es Pubiic Works Department 9.24
City of Orono Check Register-COUNCIL REPORT Page 5
Check Issue Dates 2110/2015-2/23/2015 Feb 19,2015 01 47PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Descnption Department invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 102257 106 01
MADISON NATIONAI LIFE 02/23/2015 102258 1160571 101-21713 Feb LTD 1,483 27
Total 102258 1,483 27
MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 02/23/2015 102259 242153 101-43000-212 Diesel Public Works Department 685 58
MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 02/23/2015 102259 242154 101-42110-212 Fuel PD Police Department 2,659 95
Total 102259 3,345 53
MCCUTCHEON,MARK 02J23/2015 102260 20915 101-22205 Escrow refund 2014-00697 2,500.00
Total 102260 2,500 00
MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTA 02/23/2015 102261 13115 101-20809 Sac 9,940 00
MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTA 02/23/2015 102261 13115 101-39610 SAC credit 99.40-
Total 102261 9,840 60
METRO WEST INSPECTIONS S 02/23/2015 102262 12015 101-42400-319 Dec�nspection services Buildmg&Zomng 7,751.25
METRO WEST INSPECTIONS S 02/23/2015 102262 21015 101-42400-319 Jan inspection services Building&Zoning 6,466.00
Total 102262 14,217 25
MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMP 02/23/2015 102263 171118986 101-42110-221 oxygen Police Department 24.18
MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMP 02/23/2015 102263 171118987 101�2110-221 oxygen Police Department 21 08
MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMP 02/23/2015 102263 17118985 101-43000-415 oxygen Public Works Department 25 42
MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMP 02/23/2015 102263 183161350 101-42110-221 oxygen Police Department 190 00
Total 102263 260 68
NAVARRE HARDWARE 02/23/2015 102264 278889 101-45210-221 credit for retum Golf Course 6 00-
NAVARRE HARDWARE 02/23/2015 102264 279111 101-43000-221 credit for retum Public Works Department 1 79-
NAVARRE HARDWARE 02/23/2015 102264 279399 101-45210-221 supplies Golf Course 20 99
NAVARRE HARDWARE 02/23/2015 102264 280420 101-43000-221 supplies Public Works Department 32 48
NAVARRE HARDWARE 02/23/2015 102264 281591 101-43000.221 supplies Public Works Department 11 99
NAVARRE HARDWARE 02/23/2015 102264 282072 101�3000-221 blades Public Works Department 22 99
NAVARRE HARDWARE 02l23/2015 102264 282228 601-49400-227 supplies Water 7 58
City of Orono Check Register-COUNCIL REPORT Page 6
Check Issue Dates 2/10/2015-2/23/2015 Feb 19,2015 01�47PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Descnption DepaRment Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
NAVARRE HARDWARE 02/23J2015 102264 282243 101-43000-221 supplies Public Works Department 1.99
NAVARRE HARDWARE 02/23/2015 102264 282299 101-42110-223 supplies Police Departme�t 11.07
NAVARRE HARDWARE 02/23/2015 102264 282350 101-43000-221 supplies Public Works Department 5.99
Total 102264 107 29
NELSON ELECTRIC MOTOR RE 02/23/2015 102265 7066 602�9450-406 GS 1 repair Sewer 850 00
Total 102265 850 00
NEWEGG INC 02/23/2015 102266 1201180893 405-48500-575 lasertiche PC 304.98
Total 102266 3�9a
NOVA COMMUNICATiONS 02/23/2015 102267 87179 101-41900�01 Phone maintenance CenVal Services 60 00
NOVA COMMUNICATIONS 02/23/2015 102267 87302 101�1900-401 Phone maintenance CenVal Services 120.00
NOVA COMMUNICATIONS 02/23/2015 102267 87409 101�1900-401 Phone mamtenance Central Services 120 00
NOVA COMMUNICATIONS 02/23/2015 102267 87564 101-41900-401 Phone maintenance Central Services 30 00
Total 102267 330 00
O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 02/23/2015 102268 13115 101-42110�02 carwash Police Department 33.00
Total 102268 33.00
O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 547 02/23/2015 102269 73115 101-42110-402 carwashes Police Department 321.54
Total 102269 32�_54
PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR 02/23/2015 102270 44145 101-43000-222 plow lights Public Works DepaRment 348.00
PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR 02/23/2015 102270 44451 101�3000-222 plow repair Public Works Department 65 00
Totai 102270 413 00
QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC 02/23/2015 102271 30095 602-49450-406 LS 16 repair Sewer 910.00
QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC 02/23/2015 102271 30121 602-49450�06 LS 3 repair Sewer 136.13
Total 102271 1,046.13
SCHARBER&SONS 02/23/2015 102272 27504 101�3000-221 polesaw repair Public Works Department 35 S6
City of Orono Check Register-COUNCIL REPORT Page 7
Check Issue Dates.2/10/2015-2/23/2015 Feb 19,2015 01 47PM
Check Check invoice Invoice GL Account Descnption Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 102272 35 86
SCHWAAB INC 02/23/2015 102273 20615 101-41900-201 stamps CenVal Services 73 21
Total 102273 73 21
SELECTACCOUNT 02/23/2015 102274 20815 101-41900-319 partiapantfee CentralServices 1,69800
SELECT ACCOUNT 02/23/2015 102274 21915 101-21719 2/19/15 FLEX 1,812 94
Totai 102274. 3,510 94
SELECT ACCOUNT 02/23l2015 102275 21215 101-21719 2/12/15 FLEX 462 47
Total 102275 462 47
SOJOURNER 02/23/2015 102276 13115 101�2110-319 2015 Advocacy serv�ces Police Department 6,000 00
Total 102276. 6,000 00
STONEWOOD LlC 02/23/2015 102277 21015 10134420 application fee refund 14-3696 700 00
STONEWOOD LLC 02/23/2015 102277 21015 101-41900-352 legal ad fee Central Services 25 00-
Total 102277 675 00
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 02/23/2015 102278 1131715 101�2110-226 unrforms Kvschner Police Department 24 99
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 02/23/2015 102278 1131718 101-42110-226 undorms Kirschner Police Department 32 00
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 02/23/2015 102278 1132358 101-42110-226 uniforms Vargas Police Department 314 98
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 02/23/2015 102278 1132460 101�2110-226 uniforms Sonnek Police Department 162 96
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 02/23/2015 102278 1132890 101�d2110-226 unifortns Fischer Police Department 59.98
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 02/23/2015 102278 1133174 101-42110-226 uniforms Kirschner Police Department 29 95
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP OZ/23/2015 102278 1133463 101-42110-226 uniforms Vargas Police Department 13 99
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 02/23/2015 102278 1134122 101-42110-226 uniforms Stensrud Police Department 13 98
STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 02/23/2015 102278 1134303 101-42110-226 uniforms Foumier Police Department 95 00
Total 102278: 747.83
TASC 02/23l2015 102279 101161 101-41900-319 COBRA admin fee Central Services 35 00
City of Orono Check Register-COUNCIL REPORT Page 8
Check Issue Dates�2I10l2015-2/23/2015 Feb 19,2015 01.47PM
Check Check Invoice I�voice GL Acxount Descnption � Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 102279. 35.00
THE HOME DEPOT 02/23/2015 102280 2808018134 101�3000-221 storage cabinets and racking Public Works Department 453 66
THE HOME DEPOT 02/23/2015 102280 2808018134 101�5200-223 storage cabinets and racking Parks 453 66
THE HOME DEPOT 02/23/2015 102280 2808018134 651-49910-227 storage cabmets and racking Storm Water 453 68
Total 102280 1,361 00
TOLL GAS&WELDING SUPPLY 02/23/2015 102281 10064380 101-43000-221 welding supplies Public Works Department 126.25
Total 102281' 126.25
TONY WHITE 02/23/2015 102282 20815 101-42110-489 reimb cash for compliance check Police Department 222.21
Total 102282 22221
TOUCHPOINT LOGIC LLC 02/23/2015 102283 4003 101-41900-401 Councii Chambers v�deo equipment repair Central Services 287.50
Total 102283 287 50
TOXALERT 02/23/2015 102284 17386 101-41900-404 carbon monoxide sensor Central Services 652.00
Total 102284 652.00
TRI CITY LAB 02/23l2015 102285 13115 601-49400-489 watertesting Water 31.50
Total 102285' 31 50
TRUWIT,CHIP 02/23/2015 102286 20915 101-22205 Escrow refund 2012-00986/2013-00308 5,000 00
Total 102286 5,000 00
TUBERVILLE,BRIAN 02/23/2015 102287 21315 101-22205 Escrow refund 2014-00490 2,000 00
Total 102287 ' 2,000.00
TVNIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO 02/23l2015 102288 433090 101-41900-404 PW garage door repair Central Services 1,211.60
City of Orono Check Register-COUNCIL REPORT Page: 9
Check Issue Dates 2110/2015-2/23/2015 Feb 19,2015 01•47PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Descnption Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Num�r Number Amount
Total 102288 1,211 60
WASTE MANAGEMENT RECYC 02/23/2015 102289 8387-2808-7 603-49500-316 Recycling Feb 8,723.20
Total 102289 8,723.20
WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC 02/23/2015 102290 20915 101�3000-381 1f01 to 2/01 service Public Works Department 108.26
WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC 02/23/2015 102290 20915 602-49450-381 1/01 to 2/01 service Sewer 40 67
Total 102290 148 93
XCEL ENERGY 02/23/2015 102291 444076509 101-41900-381 12/22 to 1/25 Central Services 2,413 38
XCEL ENERGY 02/23/2015 102291 444076509 101-42110-381 12/22 to 1/25 Police Department 1,376 80
XCEL ENERGY 02/23/2015 102291 444076509 101-42110-381 12/22 to 1/25 Police Department 33.93
XCEL ENERGY 02/23/2015 102291 444076509 101�3000-381 12122 to 1l25 Public Works Department 195 45
XCEL ENERGY 02/23/2015 102291 444076509 101-43000386 12/22 to 1/25 Public Works Department 2,156 90
XCEL ENERGY 02/23/2015 102291 444076509 101-45200-381 12/22 to 1/25 Parks 37 53
XCEL ENERGY 02/23/2015 102291 444076509 601-49400-381 12/22 to 1/25 Water 4,948 34
XCEL ENERGY 02/23/2015 102291 444076509 602-49450-381 12/22 to 1/25 Sewer 2,537 92
XCEL ENERGY 02/23l2015 102291 444076509 101-45210-381 12/22 to 1/25 Golf Course 259.52
Total 102291 13,959.77
Grand Totals� 211,786.77