Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-14-2016 Council PacketAgenda for Orono City Council Canvassing Board and Regular Meeting Set for Monday, November 14, 2016, 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. Canvassing Board 2. Certify Results of the November 8, 2016, Municipal Election Approval of Minutes 3. Council Work Session of October 24, 2016* 4. Council Meeting of October 24, 2016* Presentation 5. Carman Bay Lake Improvement District (LID) Public Hearing 6. Consideration of Location Restrictions, Level III Sex Offenders Public Comments — (Limit 5 Minutes per Person) This is an opportunity for the public to address matters not on the agenda. The council will not engage in discussion or take action on items presented at this time. However, the council may refer issues to staff for follow up or consideration at a future meeting. Speakers should state their name and home address at the podium before speaking. Public Safety Report 7. Authorization to Purchase 2017 Squad Cars Public Works/City Engineer Report 8. Baldur Park Road Pay Request #3 — Final 9. Brown Road Trail Rehabilitation — Final Pay Request 10. CSAH 1112 Trail & Parcel Extension a. CSAH 112 Trail Extension Option b. Tax Forfeit Parcel 11. North Arm Trail Study 12. Sewer Televising Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us — follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notification Agenda for Orono City Council Canvassing Board and Regular Meeting Set for Monday, November 14, 2016, 7:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us Planning Department Report — Planning Commission Representative — Kevin Landgraver 13. 16-3862 — Robert Lund, 2732 Caroline Ave, Variance & CUP 14. 16-3868 Charles Cudd, Inc., Shadywood Villas 2525, 2535, and 2545 Shadywood Road — Final Plat 15. 16-3869 — Scott D. Hochstedler — 290 Crestview Ave — Variances 16. 16-3870 — Scott D. Hochstedler — 290 Crestview Ave—Right of Way Vacation 17. 16-3871 — Pivec Construction o/b/o Mike Setnicker, 1175 Willowbrook Dr. — Variance 18. 16-3872 — Revision LLC, o/b/o Timothy & Amy Sullivan, 440 Brown Road S — Variance 19. 16-3873 — Ryan & Natalie Blackwell, 80 Smith Avenue, — Variances 20. 16-3874 - Stonewood LLC o/b/o Lyle & Gretchen Shaw, 1750 Shadywood Road— Variances 21. 16-3875 Pillar Homes, o/b/o Whitney Windmiller & Greg Blasko, 3295 Crystal Bay Road — Variances 22. 16-3876 — Stonewood LLC o/b/o Luke Beltnick — 1380 Orono Lane, Variances 23. Tim and Lorie Line Piano Recital (4415 Forest Lake Landing) Update 24. 3907 Cherry Demolition Bid Mayor/Council Report City Administrator's Report 25. Official Calendars a. Proposed 2017 Official Calendar b. Proposed 2017 Planning Commission Liaison Calendar c. Council Liaison to Park Commission Meetings in 2017 26. Claims/Bills * City Attorney's Report Adjournment 2016 11-21-16 — Planning Commission Meeting, Monday 6:30 p.m. (Council Liaison — Lizz Levang) 11-28-16 — City Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 12-12-16 — Truth in Taxation 6:30 p.m. 12-12-16 — City Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 12-23-16 — Christmas Eve Holiday 12-26-16 — Christmas Day Holiday 01-02-17 — New Year's Day Holiday 01-03-17 — Park Commission Meeting 01-09-17 — City Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us — follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notification REQUEST FOR CANVASSING BOARD ACTION DATE: November 14, 2016 ITEM NO.: 2 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name: Diane Tiegs Y1144 Canvassing Board Title: City Clerk Item Description: Certify Results of the November 8, 2016, Municipal Election The Minnesota State Election Laws require that the governing board of the City canvass the returns and declare the results of the election within three to ten days after a General Election. The Canvassing Board will review the election results and, if satisfied the results are correct, the Canvassing Board certifies the election results. The newly elected officials will be sworn in at the January 9, 2017, City Council meeting. The following candidates received the most votes: Mayor (2 Yr. Term) Votes Council Member (4 Yr. Term) Elect Two Votes Lili McMillan 2326 Lizz Levang 1570 Dennis Walsh 2551 Jim Cornick 602 Write-ins 19 Richard Crosby 1897 Brad Maenner 632 Margaret Radke 1453 Victoria Seals 1715 Write-ins 43 Canvassing Board Action Requested: Consider a motion to certify the 2016 General Election Results by approving the attached resolution. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. RESOLUTION TO CERTIFY RESULTS OF THE TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2016 GENERAL ELECTION FOR CITY OF ORONO OFFICES WHEREAS, the City of Orono held an election for the office of Mayor and two Council Members on Tuesday, November 8, 2016, during the General Election with 4,101 persons voting, which includes 1,841 accepted absentee votes. WHEREAS, on this 14th day of November, 2016 the Orono City Council Canvassing Board has met to canvass said election results; and WHEREAS, the votes tabulated at said election were: Mayor Votes Council Member Votes Lili McMillan 2326 Jim Cornick Jr. 602 Dennis Walsh 2551 Richard Crosby 1897 Write-ins 19 Lizz Levang 1570 Brad Maenner 632 Margaret Radke 1453 Victoria Seals 1715 Write-ins 43 THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Orono City Council Canvassing Board declares Dennis Walsh as Mayor for a 2 -year term beginning on January 9, 2017; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Orono City Council Canvassing Board declares Richard Crosby and Victoria Seals as Council Members for 4 -year terms beginning on January 9, 2017. Page 1 of 2 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL IM Adopted by the Orono City Council Canvassing Board of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at the Canvassing Board meeting held on November 14, 2016. ATTEST: Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor Page 2 of 2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION October 24, 2016 5:00 o'clock p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Lili Tod McMillan, Council Members Jim Cornick Jr., Lizz Levang, Denny Walsh, Aaron Printup arrived at 6:05 p.m. Representing Staff were City Administrator Jessica Loftus, Finance Director Ron Olson, Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, Public Works/City Engineer Adam Edwards, and City Clerk Diane Tiegs. 1. 2017 Budget Continued Enterprise Budget Funds: Finance Director Ron Olson reviewed the 2017 Enterprise Fund Budgets with Council. Olson reviewed the 2017 capital expenditures which are in the draft CIP to included software upgrades, north water system extension, a mixer for the north water tower, well No. 1 maintenance, and a generator replacement. Capital Improvement Program (CIP): Finance Director Olson reviewed the CIP costs that were updated and reviewed a summary of changes to the parks, equipment, building, and Long Lake Fire replacement for engine 12. Also reviewed were the water plant monitoring/SCADA updated costs, storm sewer cost updates for Fox Street and Forest Arms Lane, and LOGIS Police Records. 2017 Fee Schedule: Finance Director Olson and Public Works Director/City Engineer Adam Edwards are reviewing the charges for sewer connection. Some sewer main replacements could have costs built in when addressing road repair projects. Edwards also provided tentative changes to the fees at the Orono Golf Course. The new permits process for the Lurton Dog Park begins in December of 2016 which eliminates the costs to administer and purchase the regular dog licenses and will be removed from the Fee Schedule. A Public Hearing on the 2017 Fee Schedule will be held on November 28 at the regular Council meeting. 2. Community Management Plan (CMP) History & Process Community Development Director Barnhart provided Council an update on the Community Management Plan (CMP) which is due to the MET Council in December 2018. Barnhart reviewed the process and explained the importance of the CMP which effects future zoning and land use. The first open house will be held in February of 2017 with smaller focus groups meeting throughout the year to discuss opportunities and issues that exist in specific areas. The Council will appoint a Project Advisory Committee (PAC) to serve for approximately one year to provide advice to the planning team. 3. Customer Service Report Community Development Director Barnhart conducted a survey on customer service and review the results with Council. There were 41 responses received. In addition, during a 5 month period Staff followed 12 permits which were based on residents that had contact with staff. The information may provide how our service is from the customer's point of view. Council could decide to use a professional organization to conduct a survey in order to obtain conclusive feedback. ATTEST: Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL Monday, October 24, 2016 7:00 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The 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, Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, Public Works Director/City Engineer Adam Edwards, City Attorney Soren Mattick, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor McMillan called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item Nos. 5, 6, 8 and 9 were added to the Consent Agenda. Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 2016 Levang moved, Printup seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of October 10, 2016, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PRESENTATION 3. BOND SALE — SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS SERIES 2016A — RESOLUTION NO. 6684 Finance Director Olson noted on September 12, 2016, the City Council adopted a resolution calling for the sale of $2,800,000 of General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2016A. Nick Anhut, Ehlers, Inc., stated the action before the City Council is a resolution authorizing the final issuance and awarding of sale of the City's bonds. The bonds will be utilized to refinance existing debt of the City, which consisted of the 2008 bonds that were used for street reconstruction projects throughout the City. Anhut noted he assisted the City in putting together an official statement and offering documents to solicit bids. The City also underwent a review of their rating through Moody's Investor Service, who affirmed the City's AAA rating, which is the highest credit rating and translates into a low risk profile. Anhut noted there is a report in front of the Council this evening that provides a summary of the results of the sale and included within that report is the rating report from Moody's. Anhut stated Moody's noted that the City on a per capita exceeds a number of their benchmarks, which points to a strong and stable history. Anhut stated they received seven different bids from various underwriting firms throughout the country. The winning bid came from Doughty & Company at 1.1935 percent, which equates to a savings of $18,209 from the high bid. Page 1 of 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL Monday, October 24, 2016 7:00 o'clock p.m. 3. BOND SALE — SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS SERIES 2016A — RESOLUTION NO. 6684 (continued) Anhut stated while it might sound like a small difference, it will add up over a six year period. The bid from Dougherty also included a reoffering premium, which basically means that Dougherty is willing to pay the City higher than face value for the bonds. As a result of that premium, the final amount of principal outstanding is $2,086,000, which is a substantial decrease from the $2,795,000 that was originally anticipated. There were also some reductions in the cost of issuance and fees. Anhut stated the bottom line is that it means greater savings to the City than what was anticipated. Council Member Levang asked if receiving seven bids is typical for that amount of money. Anhut stated they would generally expect five for a City that has a AAA rating and that seven exceeded their expectations. Anhut stated more bids means more competition. McMillan commented she was delighted to see that Moody's has reaffirmed the City's AAA rating and that they were able to obtain a very good interest rate. Levang moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6684, a Resolution Awarding Sale of $2,705,000 General Obligation Street Reconstruction Refunding Bonds, Series 2016A, Fixing the Form and Specifications Thereof, Providing for Their Execution and Delivery and Providing for their Payment. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Vail -it [a111WR 710411 4. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE CERTIFICATION OF DELINQUENT UTILITIES — RESOLUTION NO. 6685 Olson stated each year the City certifies to Hennepin County all unpaid annual service charges for the septic program, the recycling program, and all delinquent sewer and water accounts of $50 or more, to be collected with the following year's taxes. In addition to the outstanding delinquent amounts, 8 percent interest is added to all accounts and an administrative fee of $25 is added to all accounts. The total amount to be assessed is $129,210.71, which is a slight increase from 2015. The amount will be decreased by any payments received up to the final payment date of November 23, 2016. State statutes require the City hold a public hearing regarding the assessment of these fees prior to certifying the assessment roll to the county. Notices of the public hearing have been sent to all delinquent properties. Mayor McMillan opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. There were no public comments received. Mayor McMillan closed the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Page 2 of 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL Monday, October 24, 2016 7:00 o'clock p.m. 4. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE CERTIFICATION OF DELINQUENT UTILITIES — RESOLUTION NO. 6685 (continued) Levang moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6685, a Resolution for the Collection of Delinquent 2016 Water and Sewer Utility Service Charges, Recycling Program Fees, On-site Sewage Treatment (Septic) Program, Storm Water Charges. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PUBLIC COMMENTS Penny Rogers, 1380 Rest Point Road, stated they attended the last Council meeting and that they listened to City Attorney Mattick talk about the legal fees associated with the lawsuit with the Nygards. Rogers noted the attorney indicated the fees were awarded to the City in that situation and that the Court also ruled in favor of the City as well with regard to the fence. Rogers stated the Court has pretty much affirmed the neighbors' and the City's lawsuits against the Nygards, which in her view means that they are doing the right thing. Rogers stated it was the right thing to sue the Nygards for installing a wind turbine along the property line, and that turbine is now gone. Rogers stated during that five and a half year period, Mr. Nygard put six more poles up on his property and they all violate the same City ordinances. Rogers stated they now have three more turbines on the property and the poles are on the neighbors' property lines. None of the poles are outside of the 10 -foot setback and are located within the 0-75 foot setback. Rogers stated the right thing to do is what the City has already been doing, which is to make the Nygards take them down. Rogers stated the poles and turbines are a nuisance to the neighbors. Rogers stated if the City is not going to enforce their ordinances, then the City should remove them from the books. Rogers stated they were told when the big turbine came down in January that the City was going to take action on the other turbines. In January, Council Member Walsh made a motion to vote on this issue and three of the council members abstained. Rogers stated they were floored by that action and that they did not understand it. Rogers noted Council Member Levang abstained from the vote and Council Member Printup indicated he was voting no because citizens move to Orono to be left alone. Rogers stated they want to be left alone but they do not want neighbors violating their property rights. Rogers stated Mayor McMillan has always been a firm supporter of the 0-75 foot setback, which is supposed to be sacred. Rogers noted Mr. Nygard has six poles in the 0-75 foot setback and that two of them have turbines on them. Another pole has a clothesline on it. Rogers stated his neighbors have to look at clothes when they want to look at the lake. Rogers stated all of the poles are in violation of the 0- 75 foot setback. Rogers stated something happened where the City went from pursuing the violations to ignoring them and that she does not understand what is going on. Rogers stated she is not sure if there is a third party influence that is going on but that it is not right. Rogers stated if the City is not going to enforce ordinances, they should get rid of them. Rogers stated the City is setting a really bad precedent regarding all these violations and that Mr. Nygard is being really defiant. Rogers stated she is not sure what their action plan will be going forward, but at some point the neighbors may be looking at legal recourse as well. Page 3 of 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL Monday, October 24, 2016 7:00 o'clock p.m. PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER REPORT *5. KELLY AVENUE DRAINAGE (CARMEN OUTLET) PAY REQUEST NO. 2 -FINAL Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve Pay Request No. 2 -Final to Kusske Construction in the amount of $18,929.23 for the reconstruction of the Kelly Avenue storm sewer outfall project at Carmen Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *6. BULK FUEL CONTRACT Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to authorize Staff to enter a contract with the State of Minnesota Fuel Consortium. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 7. OLD BEACH ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ENCROACHMENT Director of Public Works/City Engineer Edwards stated this item deals with an encroachment on the ROW along Old Beach Road and that the property owners are here to ask for an encroachment agreement. The encroachment consists of a retaining wall inside of the street right-of-way. Edwards noted the actual pavement sits off center from the right-of-way (ROW) so there is a great deal of unimproved ROW in between the edge of the pavement and where the applicants' property line begins. The applicants have partially constructed the retaining wall prior to the City issuing a stop work order. City Code does allow for retaining walls in front yards as long as they are at least ten feet from the traveled roadway. Encroachments into the public ROW are normally allowed in order to overcome a practical difficulty such as a driveway approach. Edwards stated the City typically likes to keep the ROWs clear of immovable objects for safety and maintenance. Whenever objects are necessary or allowed within the ROW, typically they are 10 feet or more from the travel way. James Craig, 2560 Old Beach Road, stated he has resided at his property for over 27 years and that he has maintained that area the entire time he has lived there. Craig stated that area has become more difficult to mow and maintain given the slope. Craig stated the retaining wall has now leveled the elevation so they can maintain it safely. Craig stated the plan for the area in front of the boulder wall was to have some river rock, sod or low mow grass. Craig stated in any case, in order to conform to the City's normal recommendation of ten feet, they do not need a retaining wall in that 10 -foot area. Craig indicated they have also been removing some buckthorn for a number of years now. Craig stated he is asking the City Council to grant the permit so he does not have to remove the retaining wall. Craig stated in regards to safety, he would also like to put in some low voltage lighting along the upper part of the wall since there is no streetlight. Craig noted he is not proposing any mercury or bright lights and that he prefers the quiet nature of the area. Craig stated his neighbors are in favor of the retaining wall. Craig noted another consideration raised by the City was snow removal and storage. Craig indicated he spoke with two private snow removal crews who maintain the driveway on the other side as well as the road that is in front of his property. Page 4 of 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL Monday, October 24, 2016 7:00 o'clock p.m. 7. OLD BEACH ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ENCROACHMENT (continued) The snow removal crews indicated they have no problem with the wall. Craig stated he also spoke with Bob in Orono's Public Works Department and he said he had no issue with snow removal. Craig stated if need be, he will install reflective markers to alert anyone about the wall. Craig stated as far as the boulders in the area are concerned, someone cannot see them when they are up on the cul-de-sac or on the property to the right. Craig stated the boulder retaining wall blends in well with the boulders that the neighbors have and that he does not see any compelling reason not to grant the permit. Levang stated her only concern was the dirt that was there along the retaining wall and that the idea of low mow or no mow grass sounds pretty reasonable. Craig indicated that is part of the project and that putting sod there would be aesthetically pleasing and would be able to be mowed. Levang asked if Staff is comfortable with the plan. Edwards stated his only concern is the location of the wall to the edge of the pavement. Edwards stated as far as snow storage capacity, the snow will have to be thrown above the wall. Edwards indicated he brought this to the Council given the closeness of the wall to the traveled roadway. Craig stated he has noticed when the snow is being cleared from the neighbor's driveway that the contractor has a tendency to push it over to the left where the boulder wall now is. Craig stated as a result, when someone comes out of the driveway, they could not see over the snow and that this will deter that. Craig indicated they will have to push the snow further over by the mailboxes. McMillan asked if the soil was built up that way previously before the wall was there and that was the reason for the erosion. Craig indicated the slope is approximately 2:1 and that the dirt has been brought up to the top of the retaining wall, which allows it to be maintained. McMillan commented it is a very attractive wall and that she can see why erosion might have been a problem. McMillan noted approximately 18 months ago the City put an article in the City newsletter about what is allowed in ROW. McMillan commented this is a tough situation for the Council because the intentions are good. Craig stated he totally appreciates the ROW concept. Craig stated since he has to maintain it, he kind of forget about the ROW, which he apologizes for. Council Member Walsh stated it appears to be a reasonable accommodation for what is intended to be accomplished. Walsh asked what the height of the wall is. Craig stated it is approximately three feet at the highest point and that it gradually drops down to two feet and then one foot. Page 5 of 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL Monday, October 24, 2016 7:00 o'clock p.m. 7. OLD BEACH ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ENCROACHMENT (continued) Walsh commented it will make the neighborhood look very nice and help Mr. Craig maintain that area. Craig stated some cascading junipers along the wall might also help to soften the wall. Walsh stated he is not sure whether grass will grow in the area near the wall given the salt that is used during the winter. McMillan asked if there are any utilities in that area and whether there is any possibility the wall may need to be tampered with. Edwards stated every encroachment agreement contains language that allows the City to go into that area to perform work with the understanding that any structure in the ROW might need to be removed at the property owner's risk. Craig indicated he is comfortable with that language. Council Member Cornick asked if the retaining wall has footings. Craig stated the lower course is buried somewhat into the ground and is very solid. Cornick asked if the wall meets the City's requirements. Edwards stated the City does not require engineering of walls that are less than four feet. Edwards stated the wall seems to be very typical of a rock retaining wall. Edwards stated a permit would be issued if approved and an as -built plan would be attached to the encroachment agreement. Walsh moved, Printup seconded, to approve the retaining wall in its current location. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Cornick Opposed. PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER REPORT, CONTINUED Edwards reported on the following activities by the Public Works Department: • Tree trimming has been performed on Kelly Avenue, Prospect, and Loma Linda • Shoulder repairs were done on Stubbs Bay, Old Long Lake Road, Old Crystal Bay Road • Speed bump removal on Woodhill and Crystal Bay • Storm structure improvements were performed on Casco Point Road • Blockage removal completed on Ferndale Green • The manhole on North Shore Drive was raised • Well construction on Well No. 4 is currently underway • Generator repairs performed at LS 26 • Fencing installation is underway at Lurton Park • Removed old sidewalk at Crystal Bay and reinforced shoulder on Arbor Page 6 of 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL Monday, October 24, 2016 7:00 o'clock p.m. PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER REPORT (continued) Edwards noted the Watertown Road project has one layer of asphalt down and that the contractor will be laying the final layer of asphalt in the spring after the soil stabilizes. The road is currently paved and striped. 4. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE CERTIFICATION OF DELINQUENT UTILITIES, CONTINUED Robin E.G. Johnson, 4730 North Arm Drive, stated she has received a notice that she is delinquent on her utilities. Johnson noted for the last six years, she has received her bills from the City of Orono with her previous last name and that she has requested that the City update her name to her accurate name for the past six years. Johnson indicated every year she supplies proper documentation of the name change but every year her property taxes and utility bills come in her prior name. Johnson stated she will pay her bill when her name is accurately reflected on her bill. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Walsh reported the Fire Advisory Committee has unanimously voted to request changing the ordinance to allow the Long Lake Fire Department overnight boat storage and proceed with an application to the Planning Commission. Levang noted the City newsletter went out about a week and a half ago and that if anyone did not receive the newsletter, they should contact the City. Levang stated the Orono/Long Lake donation garden is closed down for the year. Levang stated they did not have the best season this year due to some rabbits and that they will be getting some help from Otten Brothers to amend the soil. Levang stated they are very grateful for that help. Council Member Printup noted last week was the first week of the work on the Highway 12 bypass. Printup stated due to the coordinated efforts of Police Chief Farniok of the Orono Police Department and City Staff, traffic has moved pretty smoothly. Printup noted work on the bypass will continue for a couple more weeks. McMillan reported the Long Lake Citizens Lake Association is having a meeting next Wednesday from 6:00 to 7:30 at the Country Cupboard located on Willow Road. McMillan stated the association would like to host a water summit at some point but that they are still in the planning stages for the association. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT City Administrator Loftus noted there is an open house this Thursday from 4:30 to 6:30 at the Long Lake Fire Station to discuss the improvements on Highway 112 and that everyone is welcome to attend. 011 0130L,Av �LIV MX93 a 1111 148 41►/ 1 a RM 419 &*0 R" I Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6686, a Resolution Making a Selection Not to Waive the Statutory Tort Limits for Liability Insurance Purposes. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Page 7 of 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL Monday, October 24, 2016 7:00 o'clock p.m. *9. THIRD QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT The City Council took no formal action on this item. *10. CLAIMSBILLS Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT City Attorney Mattick stated he had nothing to report. CLOSED SESSION 11. CLOSED MEETING — LABOR NEGOTIATIONS Levang moved, Printup seconded, to close the regular City Council meeting and go into closed session to discuss labor negotiation strategies. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (The City Council went into closed session from 7:42 p.m. to 8:16p.m.) ATTEST: Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor Page 8 of 8 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: November 14, 2016 ITEM NO: 5 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Jessica Loftus Y"-4 Presentation Title City Administrator Item Description: Carman Bay Lake Improvement District (LID) Mary Tucker and others from Carman Bay will be attending the meeting to present a Lake Improvement District (LID). They would like to start a petition for Carman Bay residents in the spring. Tucker has provided the attached presentation for your information and they will be available to answer questions. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Provide input or direction for a Carman Bay Lake Improvement District. AGENDA City Council Meeting -Nov 14th at 7:OOpm Handouts given prior to council members Introductions: Bay Captains:Mary Tucker- Mark Kieper -Mary Drazan Rob Roy- Greenwood City Council Member and Advisory Board member on LID Board Patrick Selter- PLM Lake and Land Management Corp. Goals of the Lake Improvement District for Carmans Bay We are here to present information on a CBLID (Carmans Bay LID) for Carmans Bay. We will answer any questions you might have regarding the LID. Our goal is to move forward in the spring with our petition to the Carmans Bay Residents. Slide Presentation 1. History of Carmans Bay 2. Milfoil Graph 3. Pretreatment Map -2016 4. Post treatment Map -2016 5. What is a LID 6. Map of Carmans Bay Residents for LID 7. Petition draft Additional Handouts given to Council Members • Q & A of LID • Flowchart of L1D • Evaluation of Triclopyr • Statutes for LID Open uptoQ&A St. Albans Bay LID- Rob Roy PLM- Management- Patrick Selter History of Lake Minnetonka Milfoil Project The Lake Minnetonka Association and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) cooperatively initiated the "Three Bay Demonstration Project" in 2006 to address concerns among lakeshore owners and lake users that EWM (Eurasion Watermilfoil) and CLP (Curly Pondweed) continued to be problematic in Lake Minnetonka. As well, the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) were interested in new technologies and approaches for large-scale, selective herbicide treatments to control EWM and CLP. Following this study, there was continued interest in bay -wide treatments. The Lake Minnetonka Association, the LMCD and the DNR then developed and adopted a Lake Vegetation Plan (LVMP) to guide and frame a five-year bay -wide EWM and CLP control program in Carmans, Grays and Phelps. Funding. This project has been primarily funded by lakeshore owners. Public funding has been uneven. Fundraising responsibilities depend to a very large extent on the Bay Captains. Preliminary results from the first couple years of this project encouraged other bays to join. Following negotiations with the DNR, LVMPs were prepared and additional bays were added to the Project: Currently 7 Bays now participate in the Bay Project. A LID has been established for St. Albans Bay in 2014. Carman's Bay Timeline Year Treated_ Funded b 2008 Yes Residents & Grants 2009 No Short on Funds 2010 Yes Residents & Grant City of Orono 2011 Yes Residents & Grants 2012 Yes Residents & Grants 2013 Yes Residents & Grants 2014 No Funding Fatigue 2015 No Funding Fatigue 2016 Yes Residents 2017 Residents 2018 LID r cc C9 N RA E m u w 0 t CL �.i C7 C3 O Ca CD C3 m C] to at �l m O C3 C'1 �cn so C3 CD iV hJ m PJ O CV C J a) Ci CL AD VC E Q @i E 3 Q mw gw w� Go CW) m m CD C5 m co cm'? aD n _ N N w Z CO 0X 2 a a u. • 3 4L 5T :7 Y I �I r�r. 4 4L lb �fi • What is a LID? What is a Lake Improvement District (LID)? Lake Improvement Districts were instituted by the state legislature in the early 70s for three specific reasons, which were to help provide clean water, to manage lake levels and to control Aquatic Invasive Species. Lake Improvement Districts are a means of funding these activities. There are over 40 LIDS in the state of Minnesota. How do LIDS work? A LID is formed by a petition from lakeshore residents and those who have lake shore access (through associations or by deed). A majority of the residents must approve. There also must be approvals by the cities affected and the DNR. The DNR then receives and approves the formation of the LID. Once those steps were accomplished a taxing district will be established for those residents affected. Who controls the LID? Residents that are affected form a board and decide how the funds collected will be spent. Residents are appointed by the city councils for the first year. After that, they will be elected by those affected by the LID annually. The money collected will be spent on the control of Aquatic Invasive Species only. Can others on Lake Minnetonka form a LID? The answer is Yes!. Each bay must meet the DNR requirements and receive approval by the cities. The main requirement by the DNR is to have public access, such as a beach, fishing pier or boat launch. Carmans Bay would like to institute a LID to insure sustainable funding in controlling Aquatic Invasive Species. It also puts the bay "at the ready" to react to new invasive species. This is one of the few taxes you actually know how, and for what, your money will be spent. This will be accomplished by a grass roots effort by the citizens. Lake Improvement Districts Questions and Answers 1. What is a Lake Improvement District (LID)? A LID is a local governmental unit, a political subdivision, established by resolution of a county board, city council or by the commissioner of the department of natural resources. A LID allows for greater local involvement in lake management activities. 2. What authorities does a LID have? In its resolution establishing a LID, the county board delegates specific authorities to the LID. Each LID will likely be granted different levels of authority depending upon existing problems and proposed activities. Some of these may include the right to: 1. Apply for and comply with DNR and other agency and local permits and policies required for specific lake management projects; 2. Undertake lake research projects; 3. Conduct programs of water improvement and conservation; 4. Serve as local sponsor/recipient for state and federal projects or grants; 5. Maintain public beaches, docks and other public facilities; 6. Regulate water surface use; 7. Provide and finance certain local governmental services within the LID; S. Implement a water monitoring program. Projects and activities undertaken by a LID must comply with all local, state and federal regulations. Additionally, a lake improvement district may not undertake improvement projects on any body of water unless public access is available to that lake. 3. Who assumes responsibilities for the actions of a LID? The LID assumes all legal responsibilities for activities undertaken by the LID. In the event a district is terminated or a district fails to meet its obligations, its responsibilities and liabilities pass to the county that established the district. The LID is also responsible for preparing an annual report to the county board with a copy to the DNR. 4. Who runs the LID? A LID is managed by a board of directors consisting of from 5 to 9 members. All directors must be property owners in the district, and a majority of the directors must be residents of the district. The initial board of directors is appointed by the county board. The number, qualifications and terms of office are also specified by the county board. Vacancies are filled by a majority vote of the property owners attending the annual meeting. Directors may be compensated, but only as decided by the property owners at the annual meeting. L.IA Questions and Answers 2006 Edition 5. Besides electing directors, what else happens at the annual meeting? Each LID must have an annual meeting of property owners. This meeting must be held during July or August unless changed by majority vote at the previous annual meeting. Written notice of the meeting must be mailed to all property owners within the district, the county board and DNR at least 10 days prior to the meeting. In addition to electing new directors, those present at the annual meeting must: 1. Approve the district budget for the upcoming fiscal year; 2. Approve or disapprove any project costing the district more than $5,000; and 3. Discuss other district activities. 6. How are LID activities funded? A LID does not have any taxing authority of its own. Rather, the county board specifies the funding arrangement when it establishes the LID. Typically, a LID must pass its budget recommendations through the county board for approval and actual collection. To finance LID projects, services and general administration, a county may: 1. Assess costs to benefited properties; 2. Impose service charges; 3. Issue general obligation bonds; 4. Levy an ad valorem tax solely on property within the district; or 5. Any combination of the above. A LID can also be the recipient of grants from state and federal agencies and private foundations. 7. How is a LID established? There are two ways in which a LID may be established: 1. By petition of property owners within the proposed district; or 2. By county board resolution. Of the two, the petition process is the more common procedure. A petition requesting the formation of a LID must be signed by a majority of the property owners in the proposed district. The petition is addressed to the county board and filed with the county auditor. The county auditor verifies the signatures on the petition and notifies the county board. A public hearing is held and the county board establishes its findings to grant or deny the LID and sets the effective date for the LID to begin. In lieu of a petition signed by a majority of the property owners, the county board may choose to initiate the establishment of a LID by itself. The board adopts a resolution declaring its intent to establish a LID. A public hearing is held, and the decision is made. 2 LID Questions and Answers 2006 Editiou 8. How are district boundaries selected? Selecting workable district boundaries can be one of the most difficult and confusing aspects of establishing a LID. The statute states that district boundaries "shall be encouraged to be as consistent as possible with natural hydrologic boundaries." District boundaries should include a sufficient area of the lake's watershed for the LID to develop and implement solutions to identified problems. Water quality and lake level concerns are often influenced by activities in the lake's watershed. If a LID is concerned about deteriorating water quality and frequent algal blooms, it should not only examine the immediate surrounding area, but the amount and quality of runoff reaching the lake. In other situations, the petitioners may wish to establish a LID to undertake activities that only affect the shoreline properties. The proposed activities may include regulating water surface use, providing public water and sewer service to shoreline properties and constructing and maintaining public docks, beaches or fishing piers. In summary, the proposed district boundaries should be consistent with the goals of the LID. CONTENTS OF PETITION OR COUNTY BOARD RESOLUTION* A petition or county board resolution must generally contain the same types of information. Both indicate the general structure the LID should take (e.g_, number of directors and district boundaries) as well as information relating to the need for and appropriateness of the LID. Specifically, the petition or resolution should include: I. Name of proposed district; 2. Number of directors; 3. Map showing district boundary and a statement demonstrating the appropriateness of the boundaries as they relate to the purposes of the district; 4. Method of financing district operations; 5_ Statement of lake problems; 6. Proposed water and related land management programs to address lake problems; 7. Identification of potential adverse impacts of proposed district programs; 8. Adequacy and ownership of public access including public lands and beaches; and 9. Estimate of the total assessed valuation of property within the proposed LID. A copy of the petition or resolution must be forwarded to the DNR and Pollution Control Agency for review and preparation of an advisory report prior to the public hearing. *Minimum guidelines and requirements for the formation of LIDS are spelled out by agency rules 6MCAR 6115.0920 — 6115.0980. These rules provide specific guidance on the content and issues to be addressed by the petition or county board resolution, and the details of the DNR advisory report. DNR ADVISORY REPORT The DNR advisory report provides the local government a map of the immediate watershed and comments on the proposed LID based on its expertise and coordination with PCA that addresses local need, appropriateness of proposed boundaries, technical feasibilities, adequacy of planning, monitoring and coordination with other districts. LID Questions and Answers 2006 Edition PETITION FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A LAKE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT To the City of Orono and Hennepin County: The undersigned property owners are requesting that the City of Orono establish the "Carmans Bay Lake Improvement District" (CBLID) as proposed below. The CBLID is needed to provide an equitable and stable ongoing funding for Carmans Bay residents to manage existing aquatic invasive species (AIS), such as Eurasian Watermilfoil on Carmans Bay and be positioned to deal with future AIS threats. Voluntarily funded Bay wide treatments in past years including 2016 have been very successful in controlling Eurasian Watermilfoil on Carmans Bay. Absent these treatments Eurasian Watermilfoil would dominate Carmans Bay to the detriment of property values, recreational water activities, water quality, general health and appearance. The benefits to the property owners as well as outside users of Carmans Bay from the proposed CBLID would be improved recreational uses of the Bay, a return to its natural appearance, and providing a healthy Bay for native aquatic species. The Carmans Bay Lake Improvement District is needed to provide an equitable and stable source of funding to help continually manage towards a healthier Bay. The proposed boundaries of the CBLID are properties with direct access to the Bay or its coves/channels. The properties defined as "Carmans Bay" include all addresses from the west side of the Bay beginning with 3229 Casco Circle, PID 2011723430003 around to the east side of the bay ending with 2800 Pheasant Rd, PID 2111723320004. All of these properties would benefit from the CBLID improvements. The CBLID would have 7 directors, who would be elected at an annual meeting of the property owners in August of each year. The initial directors would be appointed by the City of Orono. It is requested that the city of Orono provide administrative support and oversight for the CBLID. V V U L 0 V A im r 1 l� P 13% C No CL E E 0 _CL E j tj L' 'CL w jt u � J r`. I C z CO ca 0 T ■ 0 rS 0 T c4s 4-0 6i QJ 9 O i Q E liem J O C cu L m 4-0 rA W �i O O 6-1 L C � YSY co 0 c +ro m J 04m i Lj LfN r" 1 Ln co S'A'E 0 0.4 u 12 i c� ZL CL c4s 4-0 6i QJ 9 O i Q E liem J O C cu L m 4-0 rA W �i O O 6-1 L C � YSY co 0 c +ro m J 04m i Lj LfN r" 1 Ln co S'A'E 0 0.4 u 12 i r CL CL LA C rb un X L7 t •J 0 0 CL OL ? i . ja Y ' -4 TC Co c U �L r_ Qi QU 0 L CL E Q 4- 0 C E t L c6 Ln LU i Cl 44 4A G E .- urn Z wli co 13 cu O L CL CL a z N J L. i E Qj 1!'F NCx L C cc z Cj A i LAKE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS 1038.501 LAKE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS, Sections 103B.501 to 10313.581 may be cited as the "Lake Improvement District Law." History: 1990 c 391 art 2 s 30 10313.505 DEFINITIONS, Subdivision 1.Applicability.The definitions in this section apply to sections 1038.505 to 103B.581. Subd. 2.Board."Board" means county board. Subd. 3.Commission er."Commissioner" means the commissioner of natural resources. Subd. 4. District." District" means a lake improvement district. Subd. 5.Joint county authority."Joint county authority" means a joint county authority formed by county boards under section 103B.525. Subd. 6.Property owner." Property owner" means the owner of real property within the district or the buyer under contract for deed of property in the district. History: 1990 c 391 art 2 s 31 10313.511 ADMINISTRATION BY COMMISSIONER. Subdivision 1.Purpose.(a) To preserve and protect the lakes of the state and to increase and enhance the use and enjoyment of the lakes it is in the public interest that a statewide lake improvement program is established to: preserve the natural character of lakes and their shoreland environment where feasible and practical; improve the quality of water in lakes; provide for reasonable assurance of water quantity in lakes, where feasible and practicable; and to assure protection of the lakes from the detrimental effects of human activities and certain natural processes. The commissioner shall coordinate and supervise a local -state program for the establishment of lake improvement districts by counties for lakes located within their boundaries, based on state guidelines and rules and compatible with all state, regional, and local plans where the plans exist. (b) In administration of this program, the commissioner of natural resources shall consult with and obtain advice from other state agencies on the aspects of the program over which the agencies have specific legislative authority, including the Department of Health and the Pollution Control Agency. Subd. 2.Rules.The commissioner shall adopt permanent rules to provide guidelines, criteria, and standards for the establishment of lake improvement districts by counties. History: 1990 c 391 art 2 s 32; 1995 c 233 art 2 s 56 10313.515 INITIATION AND ESTABLISHMENT BY COUNTY BOARD. Subdivision 1.Resolution of intent.The county board may initiate the establishment of a lake improvement district in a portion of the county under this section. The board must adopt a resolution declaring the intent of the board to establish a lake improvement district. The resolution must: (1) specify the boundaries of the district, which shall be encouraged to be as consistent as practical with natural hydrologic boundaries; (2) prescribe the water and related land resource management programs to be undertaken in the district; (3) state how the programs will be financed; (4) designate the county officer or agency that will be responsible for supervising the programs; and (5) set a date for a hearing on the resolution. Subd. 2.Notice to town board.The county board shall, at least 30 days before making an order establishing a lake improvement district, send the town board of a town wholly or partially within the boundaries of the proposed district a copy of the resolution and encourage the town board to respond to the proposed creation of the district. Subd. 3.Hearing.The county board must hold a public hearing on whether a lake improvement district should be established. Before the date set for the hearing, any interested person may file objections to the formation of the district with the county auditor. At the hearing, any interested person may offer objections, criticisms, or suggestions about the necessity of the proposed district and how the person's property will be benefited or affected by the establishment of the district. Subd. 4.Establishment.(a) The county board may establish a lake improvement district, by order, after making findings, if the board determines that the: (1) proposed district is necessary or that the public welfare will be promoted by the establishment of the district; (2) property to be included in the district will be benefited by establishing the district; and (3) formation of the district will not cause or contribute to long-range environmental pollution. (b) The order establishing the district must state the board's findings and specify or prescribe the items contained in subdivision 1, clauses (1) to (4). History: 1990 c 391 art 2 s 33 1036.521 INITIATION BY PETITION AND ESTABLISHMENT BY COUNTY BOARD. Subdivision 1.Petition.(a) A lake improvement district may be initiated by a petition to the county board. The petition must state: (1) the name of the proposed lake improvement district; (2) the necessity of the proposed district to promote public health or public welfare; (3) the benefits to property from the establishment of the lake improvement district; (4) the boundaries of the proposed district which shall be encouraged to be as consistent as possible with natural hydrologic boundaries; (5) a map of the proposed district; (6) the number, from five to nine, of directors proposed for the district; and (7) a request for establishing the district as proposed. (b) A petition must be signed by a majority of the property owners within the proposed lake improvement district described in the petition. Governmental subdivisions, other than the state or federal governments, owning lands within the proposed district are eligible to sign the petition. (c) The petition must be filed with the county auditor and addressed to the board, requesting the board to establish a lake improvement district to develop and provide a program of water and related land resources management. (d) The county board shall, at least 30 days before it acts on a petition, send the town board of a town wholly or partially within the boundaries of a proposed district a copy of the petition submitted under this subdivision and encourage the town board to respond to the proposed creation of the district. Subd. 2.Hearing.After receiving the petition, the county auditor must verify the signatures and notify the county board. Within 30 days after being notified of the petition, the county board must hold a public hearing on whether the requested lake improvement district should be established. Subd. 3.Establishment.Within 30 days after holding the public hearing, the county board shall, by order, establish or deny the establishment of the petitioned lake improvement district. An order establishing a district must conform to section 1038.535 and may modify the petition relating to the district's boundaries, functions, financing, or organization. History: 1990 c 391 art 2 s 34; 2003 c 91 s 1 1036.525 ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICT IN MORE THAN ONE COUNTY. Where the natural hydrologic boundaries of a proposed district extend into more than one county, the county boards of the counties affected may form a joint county authority and establish and maintain a lake improvement district jointly or cooperatively as provided in section 471.59. The district may be initiated by the joint countyauthority in the same manner as by a county board under section 10313.515 by petition to the affected county boards. History: 1990 c 391 art 2 s 35 1036.531 CREATION BY COMMISSIONER OF NATURAL RESOURCES. Subdivision 1.Petition to commissioner.lf the county board of one or more of the counties affected has disapproved a petition for creation of a lake improvement district for an area, a petition for creation of a lake improvement district containing information required by section 103B.521, subdivision 1, may be submitted to the commissioner of natural resources. Subd. 2.Determination to hold hearing.Upon receipt of the petition by the commissioner and verification of the signatures on the petition by the county, the commissioner may, within 30 days following verification, hold a public hearing at the expense of the county board on the question of whether the requested lake improvement district shall be established. The commissioner, in determining whether to hold a public hearing, shall examine all facts relating to the petition, including the reasons why the petition was disapproved by the county. Subd. 3.Approval or denial of petition.(a) If a hearing is not to be held, within 30 days following the receipt of verification by the county, or within 30 days following the holding of a hearing, the commissioner shall, by order, approve or disapprove the establishment of the requested lake improvement district. (b) If the commissioner determines that the establishment of the lake improvement district as requested in the petition would be for the public welfare and public interest, and that the purposes of section 103B.511, subdivision 1, would be served by the establishment of a lake improvement district, the commissioner shall by order approve the establishment of the lake improvement district. If the commissioner does not approve the establishment of the district, the commissioner shall by order disapprove the establishment. (c) An order approving creation may contain modifications of the area's boundaries, functions, financing, or organization from what was stated in the petition. History: 1990 c 391 art 2 s 36 1036.535 ORDER ESTABLISHING DISTRICT. An order establishing a district must state the: (1) name of the district; (2) boundaries of the district, which are encouraged to be as consistent as practical with natural hydrologic boundaries; (3) water and related land resources management programs and services to be undertaken; (4) manner of financing programs and services; and (5) number, qualifications, terms of office, and method of election, removal, and filling of vacancies of the board of directors, including a method for property owners not present at the annual meeting to participate in the election of the district board. History: 1990 c 391 art 2 s 37; 2000 c 396 s 1 103B.541 PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE. Subdivision 1.Publication of establishment order.lf a lake improvement district is established, the county board, or joint county authority issuing the order establishing the district, shall publish the order once in the official newspapers of counties where the district is located and file the order with the secretary of state, the Pollution Control Agency, and the commissioner of natural resources. Subd. 2.Effective date. Establishment of the lake improvement district is effective 30 days after publication or at a later date, if specified in the establishment order. History: 1990 c 391 art 2 s 38 103B.545 REFERENDUM ON ESTABLISHMENT. Subdivision I.Petition.Twenty-six percent of the property owners within the lake improvement district proposed by the board or a joint county authority on its own initiative under section 1036.515, by petition under section 103B.521, or by the commissioner under section 103B.531, may petition for a referendum on establishing the district before the effective date of its establishment. After receiving the petition, the county board, joint county authority, or commissioner that proposed establishing the district must issue an order staying the establishment until a referendum vote is taken of all qualified voters and property owners within the proposed lake improvement district. Subd. 2.Election.The county board or joint county authority shall conduct a special election in July or August after receiving the referendum petition. The special election must be held within the proposed lake improvement district. The county auditor shall administer the special election. Subd. 3.Question submitted to voters.The question to be submitted and voted upon by the qualified voters and property owners within the proposed lake improvement district must be stated substantially as follows: "Should a lake improvement district be established to provide (description of intended water and related land resources improvements) and financed by (description of revenue sources)?" Subd. 4.Certification of vote and establishment.The county auditor must certify the vote on the question submitted. If a majority of those voting on the question favor establishing the proposed lake improvement district, the stay on establishing the district is lifted. If a majority of those voting on the question do not favor establishing the proposed lake improvement district, the establishment is denied. History: 1990 c 391 art 2 s 39; 2000 c 396 s 2 10313.551 BOARD OF DIRECTORS. Subdivision 1.Membership.After a lake improvement district is established, the county board, joint county authority, or commissioner that established the district shall appoint persons to serve as an initial board of directors for the district. Subsequent board members must be elected by persons owning property in the district at the annual meeting of the district. The number, qualifications, terms of office, and method of election, removal, and filling of vacancies of directors shall be as provided in the order creating the board of directors. The initial and all subsequent boards of directors must include persons owning property within the district, and a majority of the directors must be residents of the district. Subd. 2.Compensation.The directors shall serve with compensation as determined by the property owners at the annual meeting and may be reimbursed for their actual expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of their duties in the manner provided for county employees. Subd. 3.Powers.County boards, joint county authorities, statutory and home rule cities, and towns may, by order, delegate the powers in this section to the board of directors of a district to be exercised within the district. Programs and services undertaken must be consistent with the statewide water and related land resources plan prepared by the commissioner of natural resources and with regional water and related land resources plans. A body of water may not be improved by using authority granted under this section unless the public has access to some portion of the shoreline. County boards, joint county authorities, statutory and home rule cities, and towns may delegate their authority to a district board of directors to: (1) acquire by gift or purchase an existing dam or control works that affects the level of waters in the district; (2) construct and operate water control structures that are approved by the commissioner of natural resources under section 103G.245; (3) undertake projects to change the course current or cross section of public waters that are approved by the commissioner of natural resources under section 103G.245; (4) acquire property, equipment, or other facilities, by gift or purchase to improve navigation; (5) contract with a board of managers of a watershed district within the lake improvement district or the board of supervisors of a soil and water conservation district within the district for improvements under chapters 103C and 103D; (6) undertake research to determine the condition and development of the body of water and the water entering it and to transmit the results of the studies to the Pollution Control Agency and other interested authorities; (7) develop and implement a comprehensive plan to eliminate water pollution; (8) conduct a program of water improvement and conservation; (9) construct a water, sewer, or water and sewer system in the manner provided by section 444.075 or other applicable laws; (10) receive financial assistance from and participate in projects or enter into contracts with federal and state agencies for the study and treatment of pollution problems and related demonstration programs; (11) make cooperative agreements with the United States or state government or other counties or cities to effectuate water and related land resource programs; (12) maintain public beaches, public docks, and other public facilities for access to the body of water; (13) provide and finance a government service of the county or statutory or home rule city that is not provided throughout the county or, if the government service is provided, the service is at an increased level within the district; and (14) regulate water surface use as provided in sections 8613.205, 103G.605, and 103G.621. History: 1990 c 391 art 2 s 40; 1996 c 385 art 2 s 7; 2000 c 396 s 3 10313.555 FINANCING. Subdivision 1.Revenue.The county board or joint county authority may undertake projects of improvement consistent with purposes of the district. To finance projects and services of the district, the county board or joint county authority may, only after seeking other sources of funding: (1) assess the costs of the projects upon benefited property within the district in the manner provided under chapter 429; (2) impose service charges on the users of lake improvement district services within the district; (3) issue obligations as provided in section 429.091; (4) levy an ad valorem tax solely on property within the lake improvement district, to be appropriated and expended solely on projects of special benefit to the district; or (5) impose or issue any combination of service charges, special assessments, obligations, and taxes. Subd. 2.Tax additional to other Ievies.A tax under subdivision 1 may be in addition to amounts levied on all taxable property in the county for the same or similar purposes. Subd. 3.Budgeting for operations.The county board or county boards forming the joint county authority shall include appropriate provisions in their budget for the operation of a lake improvement district. Subd. 4.District obligations.The district, with approval of the county board or joint county authority, expressed in a resolution identifying each specific improvement to which the approval applies, may exercise the powers of a city under chapter 429 and section 444.075, including, but not limited to: (1) the levy of special assessments; (2) the imposition of rates and charges; and (3) the issuance of bonds to finance improvements that the district may undertake. History: 1990 c 391 art 2 s 41; 2000 c 396 s 4; 2001 c 214 s 1 1038.561 VOTING BY JOINT COUNTY BOARDS. If a lake improvement district has been established by order of the commissioner of natural resources under section 1038.531, voting by county boards on joint actions of the lake improvement district shall be based on proportional representation for each county according to the proportion of the population of the lake improvement district residing within each county and not on the basis of one vote per county or one vote per county board member unless each county or each board member represents substantially the same number of persons residing within the lake improvement district. History: 1990 c 391 art 2 s 42 10313.565 ENFORCEMENT OF ORDINANCES. If a lake improvement district has been established by joint county action under section 10313.525 or order of the commissioner of natural resources under section 10313.531, ordinances and regulations adopted by joint action of the affected county boards may be enforced in any part of the lake improvement district by personnel of any of the affected counties. History: 1990 c 391 art 2 s 43 10313.571 ANNUAL MEETING OF DISTRICT. Subdivision 1.Time.A district must have an annual meeting. The first annual meeting shall be scheduled during the month of July or August and be held annually in that period unless changed by vote of the previous annual meeting. Subd. 2.Notice.The annual meeting shall be preceded by two weeks' published notice and written notice mailed at least ten days in advance of the meeting to the county board or joint county authority, town boards and statutory and home rule charter cities wholly or partially within the district, the Pollution Control Agency, commissioner of natural resources, and if there is a proposed project by the district having a cost in excess of $5,000, all property owners within the assessment area. Subd. 3.Agenda.(a) At the annual meeting the district property owners present shall: (1) elect one or more directors to fill any midterm vacancies in the board of directors; (2) approve a budget for the fiscal year; (3) approve or disapprove proposed projects by the district having a cost to the district in excess of $5,000; and (4) take up and consider other business that comes before them. (b) At the annual meeting all district property owners, including absent members as provided in the order establishing the district, shall elect one or more directors for board positions with expiring terms. Subd. 4.Annual report.Each year the board of directors shall prepare and file a report of the financial conditions of the district, the status of all projects in the district, the business transacted by the district, other matters affecting the interests of the district, and a discussion of the directors' intentions for the succeeding years. Copies of the report shall be transmitted to the county board or joint county authority, town boards and city councils of statutory and home rule charter cities wholly or partially within the district, the commissioner of natural resources, and the Pollution Control Agency by four months after the annual meeting. History: 1990 c 391 art 2 s 44; 2000 c 396 s 5 1038.575 EXPANSION OF BOUNDARIES OF A LAKE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. The boundary of a district may be enlarged by complying with the procedures to establish a district under sections 1036.511 to 103B.541. History: 1990 c 391 art 2 s 45 10313.581 TERMINATION. Subdivision 1. Petition.Termi nation of a district may be initiated by petition requesting the termination of the district. The petition must be signed by a majority of the property owners in a district within 30 days after receiving a petition. The county board or joint county authority must set a time and place for a hearing on terminating the district. Subd. 2.Findings and order.lf the board or joint county authority determines that the existence of the district is no longer in the public welfare or public interest and it is not needed to accomplish the purpose of the Lake Improvement District Law, the board or joint county authority shall make the findings and terminate the district by order. On filing a certified copy of the findings and order with the secretary of state, Pollution Control Agency, and commissioner of natural resources the district is terminated and ceases to be a political subdivision of the state. Subd. 3.Termination of financing.lf a district is terminated under subdivision 2, additional water and related land resource management programs may not be undertaken with money raised by a special tax within the district, and additional special water and related land resource management taxes may not be levied within the district. If money raised by past special tax levies within the district has been exhausted, further operation and maintenance of existing programs may be financed by appropriations from the general revenue fund of an affected county. History: 1990c391art 2s46;1999c86art 1s18;2003c91s2 Taylor&wrancis Lake and Reservoir Management ISSN: 1040-2381 (Print) 2151 5530 (Online) Journal homepage: httDJ/www. ndfonline.cpmIloI/ulrrn2C) A three-year evaluation of triclopyr for selective whole -bay management of Eurasian watermilfoil on Lake Minnetonka, Minnesota Michael D. Netherland & K. Dean Jones To cite this article: Michael D. Netherland & K. Dean Jones (2015) A three-year evaluation of triclopyr for selective whole -bay management of Eurasian watermilfoil on Lake Minnetonka, Minnesota, Lake and Reservoir Management, 31:4,306-323, DO[: 10.1080/10402381.2015.1085114 To link to this article: http://dx,doi.org/10.1080/10402381.2015.1085114 Published online: 20 Oct 2015. G? Submit your article to this journal C? J11I Article views: 33 i • View related articles Gr 0 Vier Crossmark data & Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http*//www.tandfonline.com/action/loumallnformation?journa lCode=ulrm20 Download by: [74.94.225.10]Date:15 February 2015, At: 12:12 N Triclopyr for selective whole -bay miifoil management canopy formation is a focus of ecologists (Grace and Wetzel 1978, Nichols and Shaw 1986, Madsen 1998), it also drives citizen complaints. In response to ongoing EWM problems, the Lake Mm- netoWm Conservation District initiated a multiyear demon- stration project in 2007 to determine if targeting EWM at a whole -bay scale could reduce management inputs over time. Reliance on presencelabsence point -intercept method- ology (Madsen 1999, Mikulyuk et al. 2010) to assess effi- cacy of treatments led to stakeholder concembecause EWM frequency was often not congruent with perceptions of de- creased abundance following treatment Likewise, concern was expressed that point -intercept results were masking her- bicide impacts to native plant abundance and density. Use of point -intercept sampling as a primary assessment technique mustbe considered in terms of viable alternatives. Extensive labor requirements associated with biomass sam- pling and the need for costly equipment and dataprocessing capabilities associated with hydroacoustics has discouraged incorporating these efforts into routine plant assessments. Johnson and Newman (2011) describe a biomass sampling technique that reduces efforts associated with sample col- lection While hydroacoustic data can show temporal and spatial changes in plant coverage and abundance following management efforts (Valley and Drake 2005, 2007, Valley et al. 2006, Zhu et al. 2007, Sabol et al. 2009), issues with costs and data processing requirements have discouraged adoption by resource managers. Recent availability of low- cost recording sonar units has led to renewed consideration of incorporating hydroacoustic technology into submersed plant assessments (Netherland and Jones 2012). Our objective was to evaluate invasive and native plant frequency and abundance over multiple seasons following whole -bay management with triclopyr We assessed (1) bay - wide herbicide concentrations; (2) changes in percent area covered and biovolume of submersed vegetation via hydroa- coustic transects; and (3) multiseason changes in frequency and biomass of EWM and nativeplants following whole bay herbicide applications. Methods Study sites St. Albans Bay (64 ha; 63% littoral); Grays Bay (64 ha; 84% littoral), and Gideon Bay (133 ha; 54% haoral) are located in Lake Minnetonka, Mmnesota (Fig. 1). Both St. Albans and Grays bays have narrow inlets that limit hy- draulic exchange with the main body of water, whereas Gideons Bay is more open and thought to be subject to increased water exchange with the main lake. Grays Bay is the outlet for Lake Minnetonka, and despite the nar- row inlet, this bay can be subject to increased exchange in years when water flows are high. In 2011, the treatment of Grays Bay was postponed due to high flow rates and concerns of treated water being introduced to Minnehaha creek. In contrast, water flow at the outlet was mmrmal in May 2012 at the time of the whole -bay herbicide applica- tion. All 3 bays support dense beds of EWM that impact various stakeholder uses of the water. Although water qual- ity sampling was not a significant component of this study, data from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD 2013) are available forbays throughoutLake Minnetonkafor 2011 through 2013 (www.minnehahacreek.orgfdata). These data indicate that Secchi disk transparency for the bays ranged from 2.6 to 5.2 in, chlorophyll a ranged from 2.0 to 5.5 µglL, and total phosphorus (P) ranged from 15.3 to 19.7 µg/L during the 3 -year study period. The water clarity indicates that macrophytes were not light -limited during the course of this evaluation. All 3 bays were recognized by the MCWD for superior water quality during the course of these trials. Herbicide treatments and water sampling Herbicide treatments on the 3 bays were conducted to demonstrate a bay -wide approach to EWM control. These treatments required significant planning, stakeholder ap- proval and funding, and permitting by the Minnesota De- partment of Natural Resources (MDNR). Our objective was to monitor the treatment outcomes on Grays Bay that had been part of the large-scale demonstration since an original triclopyrlendodmU treatment m 2008, and on 2 bays that had notpreviously been managed at abay-wide scale (St. Albans and Gideons). Although the label allows triclopyr treatments at concentrations up to 2500 uglL, bay -wide strategies se- lectively targeting EWM resulted in the use of much lower treatment concentrations. The treatment rates described be- low were based on prior mesocosm research, the desire to achieve selective EWM control, and operational budgets. St. Albans Bay was treated on 26May 2011 to achieve a bay - wide concentration of 310 µglL triclopyr via the application of Renovate OTF granular herbicide (Renovate OTF, SePRO Corp., Carmel, IN). The treatment was calculated based on the entire volume of the bay. The treated area (ha), mass of product applied, target concentration in the treatment zone, bay -wide concentration, and water sample intervals are shown in Table 1. On 14 June 2013, St. Albans Bay received an application of Renovate OTF granular herbicide to achieve a bay -wide concentration of 300 AglL triclopyr above the thermocline (Table 1). Water samples were collected from 6 sites in the bay at mid - depth (above the thermochne) by personnel from Fresh- water Scientific Services LLC and the Three Rivers Park District (Fig. 2). To monitor vertical distribution of the 307 4 Triclopyr #or selective whole -bay milfoil management SL Albans Wily 0"" Slay Figure 2. Sampling sites located in the 3 bays included in the demonstration project on Lake Minnetonka, MN Numbers represent water sampling sites, shaded gray areas represent herbicide application sites, squares represent biomass collection saes, bold lines represent hydroacoustic transects, and small points are part of the point -intercept grid (c5 m) sampled to collect plant frequency data in the Moral zone 309 Trlclopyr for selective whole -bay milfoll management In addition to the plant data collected from 2011 to 2013 for this study, we reviewed plant frequency data collected in 2009 on St. Albans and Gideons bays by Blue Water Science (St. Paul, MN) using a similar point -intercept methodology, and 2010 frequency data on Grays Bay collected by the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center us- ing the same point -intercept sampling grid. These data were not included in the analysis described above; however, they provided additional information on the pretreatment condi- tions experienced in late spring (Jun) and summer (Aug or Sep) on these bays during a year when no treatment was conducted_ Plant biomass samples were collected from 30 randomly se- lected survey points in each bay at depths <5 m using a rake sampling methodology (Johnson and Newman 2011). Sam- ples were sent to the University of Florida Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants and sorted to species for weighing. Once sorted, plants were dried at 70 C for 72 h or more. In review- iug the variation associated with biomass data for individual species, we ultimately combined data from all species to determine if treatments impacted overall biomass. Biomass data over the 3 -year period are presented as mean values for the 30 sample sites f95% confidence intervals (Q}. We also separated total native and EWM biomass to determine the impact of management on EWM contribution to overall bay biomass. Hydroacoustic transects At the time this project was initiated, there were ongoing evaluations on the use of low-cost sonar units to deter- mine pretreatment and posttreatment conditions of percent area covered (PAC) and percent biovolume (BV) along tran- sects to assess efficacy of large-scale hydrilla management (Netherland and Jones 2012). This approach seemed well- suited to address stakeholder concerns regarding impacts of whole -bay treatments on overall abundance of submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) snLakeMinnetonka. Prior to treat- ment in 2011, we established 9 transects in each bay (due to technical issues, we were only able to analyze 8 tran- sects on Gideons Bay) and collected data using a Lowrance HDS 5 recording fathometer (Lowrance HDS. Navico Inc., Tulsa, OK). Transects were established to intersect sites along the point -intercept grid map. Transects were not um - form in length and were chosen to reflect a variety of water depths and initial plant densities (Fig. 2). Hydroacoustic transect distances ranged from 207 to 995 m, averaging 376, 673, and 490 m for St. Albans, Grays, and Gideons bays, respectively The boat running speed was 4-6 mph, and data were collected at ^-15 pings/s Detailed guidelines for collection of SAV data along transects can be found at www.cibiobase.com (cibiobase, Navico, Inc., Minneapolis, MN). We uploaded the recorded sonar files to the cibiobase site to determine presence of SAV and height of vegetation in the water column. These values were used to determine the PAC and BV along each transect. These parameters can also be calculated using a manual process that allows the operator to download the hydroacoustic data into an Excel spreadsheet and choose random points along transects to determine presence or absence of vegetation and height of vegetation in the water column (Hoyer et al. 2008). This manual process proved labor intensive, and following com- parison of more than 75 transects analyzed manually ver- sus the cibiobase website (including multiple transects from Lake Minnetonka in 2011), the differences were neghgn- ble given the efficiencies of automated analysis. All subse- quent transects in 2012 and 2013 were analyzed using the cibiobase method. The distance between the bottom acoustic signature and top of the plant canopy was recorded as the plant height for each ping. Plant heights were averaged across all pings within a OPS coordinate point. Plant heights from pings within a coordinate point that averaged <5% of depth were consid- ered not vegetated to minimize false detechons by bottom detritus Any points that exceeded this 5% threshold were considered vegetated in percent area vegetation calculations. The minimum depth for vegetation detection was 0.73 m. For presentation of PAC and BV data, we determined the average PAC and BY i95% CI for the 9 transects collected within each bay in June and August 2011 to 2013 to de- termine if treatments resulted in an overall change in either submersed plant coverage or BV. Results Herbicide concentrations and plant frequency [chill St. Albans Bay Following both the 2011 and 2013 whole -bay treatments in St. Albans Bay, triclopyr half-lives of .11.5 and 12.6 d were measured (Fig. 3A and 3B). Despite use of a granular herbicide, there was rapid dissipation of tdclopyr through- out the epilimnion. Initial triclopyr concentrations following the 2011 application were 510 µg/L, —30%n higher than tar- ' get treatment concentrations. This high concentration was attributed to the presence of a thermocline that prevented ` triclopyr from moving into waters <5 m in depth (data not shown). Accounting for the presence of a thermochne prior to treatment in 2013 resulted in an 11% reduction in overall herbicide use; however, measured triclopyr concentrations of 230 µglL remained below the target concentration of 310 µg/L (Fig. 3B). 311 313 N � � N CL N ca r"3 •• 313 Trlclopyr for selective whole -bay milfoil management Table 4. Following large-scale triclopyr treatments of St. Albans, Gideons, and Grays Bay, the % Eurasian watermil loll (EWM) frequency, % mvasnre EWM biomass, % native plants biomass, % native plant frequency, mean number of native We per point, % area covered with plants, and % submersed plant biovolume along 9 transects (via hydroacousttcs) were recorded during June and August from 2011 to 2013 Year Month Trmt Date % EWM Fre- quency % EWM Biomass % Native Biomass % Native Plant Fre- quency Mean Native . Tbxa Per Point % Area Covered % Plant with Blovol- Plants ume (f95% Cl) (f95% Ci) SL Albans Bay 46 54 90 3.2 81(8) 60 (6) 2012 Jun 25 May ` ' 88 64 2011 Jun 26 May 54 30 68 80 1.9 81(9) 25 (5) 3.2 Aug 41(6) 0 0 100 93 3 85 (7) 40 (6) 2012 Jun 31 12 4 96 91 2.6 91(6) 77 (6) Aug 38 3 97 90 2.4 84 (8) 61(5) 2013 Jun 14 Jun 55 10 90 91 35 87 (5) 51(7) Aug 1 0 100 93 3.3 86(g) 53 (5) Gideons Bay 2011 Jun 9 Jun 49 24 73 90 2.3 80 (7) 30 (4) Aug 5 1 99 89 2.8 85 (9) 42 (4) 2012 Jun * 31 8 91 89 2.5 91(9) 72 (8) Aug 44 a 92 94 33 88 (11) 67 (7) 2013 Jun 11 8 92 91 2.5 85 (6) 38 (5) Aug 29 5 95 92 3.4 94 (4) 67 (7) Grays Bay 2011 Jun 56 27 73 86 2 70 (7) 37 (4) Aug 90 46 54 90 3.2 81(8) 60 (6) 2012 Jun 25 May ` ' 88 64 36 90 2.4 87 (5) 73 (7) Aug 16 2 98 89 3.2 76 (8) 41(6) 2013 Jun 3 15 85 87 3.1 81(6) 50(7) Aug 31 1 99 90 3.1 87 (7) 64 (4) `A reduced scale heat awe dM ha al 750 µglL bidepyr (a 7996 ndochon M Uarbecrde um compered to 2011) was epptud on 22 June 2012 on d 3mm EWM Ueda that began W recover m late 2011 waterWdy. The treatment in 2011 was applied at higher rates to a series of both large and small blocks as well as small narrow shoreline strips (Fig. 2). Triclopyr concentra- tions in the treatment blocks were -5-15 tunes below the target concentration of 1500 AgIL throughout the sampling period (Fig. 4). Although this may be partially attributed to the extended release of product (-X12-36 h) from a granular herbicide, rapid dispersion of triclopyr across the large bay was observed within 1 day of application. Triclopyr con- centrations in untreated sample sites in the middle of the large bay were similar to many of the targeted treatment sites by 1 day after treatment (DAT) suggesting a bay -wide exposure to low concentration of triclopyr. As noted for St. Albans Bay, the presence of a thermocline at —6 in prevented deep -water mixing of the triclopyr in these open water sites. Given the confounding issues with initial tn- clopyr behavior in this large open bay, triclopyr half=hves were determined based on data collected from day 2 to day 10. We calculated an average half-life of 3.7 d in the areas where the large -blocks were treated (Fig. 4) and an average half -fife of 9.4 din untreated open water areas (Fig. 4). AI - though the total days of exposure to triclopyr in this large open bay were unexpectedly similar to that calculated for the closed bays, a key difference was that the other bays reached equilibrium around 300 µg(L triclopyr whereas Gideons reached equilibrium closer to 100 lig/L. The presence of a thermocline was important in maintaming an extended ex- posure to low concentrations of triclopyr in Gideon Bay. Although there was no stated objective for providing ex- tended exposures to lower concentrations of triclopyr in Gideon Bay, the data demonstrated this was essentially the outcome of the application. A significant decline in EWM frequency occurred from June to August 2011 (49 to 5%) following the whole -bay treat- ment (Table 6). A subsequent sampling event in September 2011 showed that EWM frequency had increased to 18%, suggesting a late season recovery. This recovery was promi, neat in areas where the dense beds of EWM had been previ- ously detected in June 2011. EWM frequency increased to 31 and 44% in June and August 2012, respectively, despite an additional June 2012 triclopyr treatment, For both 2012 315 MO boo 100 u R too Triclopyr far selective whole -bay milfoil management —•— mea O o sr4 A\ f b t � ;1 r � Oay Po9WePtment to ° OW P°SIte-poant l�9 Figure 4. Tnelopyr concentrations measured following treatment of 50 he at 1500 µglL on Gideons Bay in June 2012. The left panel represents sample sites where triclopyr was applied to larger treatment blocks The right panel represents sample sites In the middle of bay outside of the treatment blocks (sites 9. 10, 11, and 12) and sites within a narrow treatment strip along an exposed shoreline (sites 1 and 2). sampling dates, the majority of the EWM detected was still rated as 1 or 2 (Table 3). CLP showed an increase in fre- quency (8 to 39%) from June 2011 to 2012, however, only 3 bites were rated as 3. Note that the 2012 treatment was scaled back approximately 80% from the 2011 application. This reduced treatment had little impact on EWM frequency, qualitative ratings, or biomass from June to August 2012. Native species in Gideom Bay that showed a negative re- sponse to the bay -wide exposure in 2011 were Myrlophyl- lum sibirzcum, E. candensis, and Z dubia (Table 6). High frequency natives such as C. demersum, P. amplifolius, P. zosteriformis, P richardsonii, and V. americana were not impacted by the application. The lack of initial treatment impact on P. zosteriformis in Gideons Bay contrasted with observations from Grays and St. Albans bays, suggesting that reduced bay -wide concentrations resulted in less overall injury to this plant. The number of sample points with native submersed plants in Gideons Bay remained stable through the evaluation period. In addition, native plant frequency in the littoral zone and species richness in Gideons Bay either increased or were stable from 2011 to 2013 Gables 4 and 6). Several sites in the bay near the 10 -foot contour supported dense EWM or an EWM–C. demersum complex. Much of the EWM recovery in this bay occurred in these deep water off -shore areas (Fig. 5). Plant biomass Changes in overall plant biomass within each bay generally trended toward a slight increase in total biomass between the June and August of each year, regardless of whether man- agement was implemented (Fig. 6). In contrast, the percent of the biomass represented by EWM was highly reduced for at least 2 seasons in all 3 bays following triclopyr treat - meats gable 4). Although areduction in Grays Bay total bay biomass was observed in 2012 between the June and August evaluations, note that EWM biomass initially accounted for 64% of the biomass in the bay in June 2012 (Table 4), and loss of EWM accounted for the majority of the reduction in overall biomass. While frequency data suggested recov- ery of EWM in the season following treatment, the biomass data lagged behind frequency and remained low the sea- son following a whole -bay triclopyr application (Table 4). This finding was also reflected in the rake -toss ratings that suggested values of 1 (small fragments) were often domi- nant in lune of the season following a triclopyr application (Table 3) From a stakeholder perspective, the low biomass of EWM and high frequency of ratings given a 1 in the season fol- lowing treatment suggested that 2 years of EWM control was achieved. Plant biomass was lower in June 2013 (native plant frequency data were similar to prior years), suggesting a delayed onset for sprouting and growth following a cool spring in 2013. The biomass data refuted anecdotal claims of decreased native plant abundance in relation to management of EWM with low use rates of taclopyr. Hydroacoustic transects Data collected along hydroacoustic transects surveyed in each bay during the June and August suggested a general trend for increased submersed plant coverage and biovol- ume (height in the water column) between June and August of each year (Table 4). Notable exceptions included Grays Bay in 2012 following the triclopyr treatment and the de- creased biovolume in St. Albans between June and August 2012 in a year where no treatment was implemented. As 317 Tnclopyr for selective whole -bay milfoil management 160 ,�..� 140 120 N ` d � 100 h r i . [ . ! � -flat • . s_w 79 1 OD 60 40 egrJun,Z812 �rw , �i+0" ZO wn spFumfulu FFmqueny ONJMW p—ts �- t 0 Nome 862% t93) 16o ! 143%(42) �. 140 O Dena, 4. 1 120 •r.r rrrr4� * ti 100 • •r,0 �r � �r 40 • �r` r kw •-w•••• •�, r! 160 idems Bay � AU t 2 ,.• •irr •-,r...rr iophygm spieatrnn " s r .: 140 F'Y A�lw� po■Ha .�� rbM9 r ` sy 42-t% #283) - "' 120 spares tas Me) 106 ! VQbWa* 206%ies1 � . I'MOi 84 Figure 5. Point -intercept grids on Gideons Bay in Lake Minnetonka, MN, showing frequency of occurrence, spatial distribution, and rake density ratings for Myriophyllum apkatum in June (top panel) and 44 August 2012 (bottom panel). Contour lines represent 3 m intervals. 20 0 St Albans n=30 noted earlier, the reduction in dense EWM coverage follow- Jun f 1 Aug i i Jun'12 Aug 12 Jun 1S Aug 13 the triclopyr treatment in Grays Bay likely explained the Monthing Sampled 43% reduction in biovolume• In contrast, the 21% reduction Figure S. Submersed plant biomass for 3 bays on Lake in biovolume observed between June and August 2012 in Minnetonka, MN over a 3 -year period Bars represent the mean St. Albans Bay was not readily explained. Overall, these by- biomass (g dry wt) for 30 samples X95% Cl 5t. Albans Bay droacoustic data were in general agreement with the trends received whole -bay management in May 2011 and June 2013, Greys in 2012, and Gideon in June 2011 observed in total biomass data. Interestingly, both meth- ods suggested total biomass changes between early June and late August were generally modest in nature. Despite used in combination with point -intercept data, the resource highly favorable conditions for continued growth between meager can obtain an improved assessment for overall im- June and August, the data suggested the plants in the Mui- pacts on biovolume as well as individual species impacts. netonka Bays largely occupied their maximum space and biomass early in the growing season. The hydroacoustic data provided further evidence to refute claims of a large-scale D[ ■ 5ClISSIE011 depression in native plant abundance following large-scale management with triclopyr at low use rates. Although the .. The bay -wide treatments were monitored as part of a demon - acoustic data do not allow for discriminating species, when stration program that targeted EWM in selected bays. We 319 Trtclopyr for selective whole -bay mitfoll management there has also been concern that these low rate treatments may be selecting for hybrid watermilfoil (M. spicatum x M sibiricwn), and there is value in determining the ratio between EWM and hybrid watermilfoil in managed and un- managed bays. , The incorporation of biomass and hydroacoustic data into this project provided a more thorough assessment of the status of EWM and native plant responses to the treatment. Incorporating several monitoring techniques to assess treat- ment results can provide improved context on treatment out- comes to interested stakeholders and regulators. During this evaluation effort, there has been rapid change in the use of hydroacoustic technology to provide SAV maps of entire bays and lakes This technology will continue to move for- ward, and although we did not include mapping in our orig- inal project objectives, by the end of this project we were collecting data via navigation of the point -intercept grids that allowed rapid and relatively passive whole -bay map- ping of SAV in each bay. Although this technology is still being vetted and the strengths and weaknesses discussed (Valley et al. 2015, Radomskt and Holbrook 2015), there is significant promise for resource managers to incorpo- rate this technology to generate large-scale, low-cost maps of SAV distribution and abundance through time. Both of these assessment techniques suggest that low rate triclopyr applications can provide good initial control of EWM while minimizing any sustained impacts to the native plant com- munity. One key observation from the hydroacoustic units related to the abundance of coontail in the deep water sites in these bays. Although we were able to detect strong signatures of vegetation growing 1-2.5 m in height in water depths of 5-7 m, these extensive plant beds were almost exclusively dense monocultures of coontail, as confirmed by multiple rake tosses. This finding was not included in the frequency data; however, any future large-scale management plans need to include these large coontail beds. As a non -seated macrophyte, coontail is capable of sequestering nutrients from the water column and thus converting them into plant biomass, providing habitat and sediment stabilization in the deeper waters of these bays Moreover, these results sug- gest that plant surveys should account for maximum depth of plant colonization versus use of an arbitrary depth for sampling. . Although there has been discussion of the potential merits of early -season herbicide applications in the upper Midwest for improved selectivity (Poovey et al. 2002, Skogerboe et a1. 2012), results from this trial suggest some caution should be exercised when using large-scale triclopyr. Re- cent mesocosm work demonstrated that under some scenar- ios, early -season treatments were much less effective than later -season applications (Netherland and Glomski 2014). In contrast, the native plants included in this mesocosm trial were not impacted by treatment timing with tnclopyr. Early -season strategies may also be compromised by lack of a thermochne and potential rapid loss of herbicide to deeper water The integration of frequency, biomass, hydroacoustic data, and herbicide concentration data represented a significant investment of time in assessing a treatment outcome. Al- though such an extensive approach is not a good fit for ev- ery monitoring project, it does yield several complimentary pieces of information that can provide resource managers with a more complete picture of treatment outcomes. This approach is likely a good fit for large-scale, high-profile projects where stakeholders have disparate objectives. The ability to display distinct areas occupied by invasive plants and quantify their density can provide data in place of anec- dotal observations. Acknowledgments The authors than Mr. John Skogerboe for sampling assis- tance and Mr. Gabriel Jabbour, the proprietor of Tonka Bay Marina, for providing excellent logistical support through- out hroughout this project. Numerous discussions between the authors and Chip Welling of the Minnesota Dept of Natural Re- sources (MN DNR) were beneficial in adapting sampling strategies to capture useful information. Funding This study was funded by the MN DNR via a Coopera- tive ooperstive Research and Development Agreement with the US Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Permis- sion was granted by the Chief of Engineers to publish this work. References Crowell WJ, Pmulx NA, Welling CH. 2006. Effects of repeated fluddone treattnents over nine years to control Eurasian wa- terni foil in a mesotrophic lake. J Aquat Plant Manage. 44.133-136. Fox AM, Haller WT, Getsinger KD, Petty, DG. 2002. Dissi- pation of triclopyr herbictde applied in Lake Minnetonka, MN concurrently with rhodatnme WT dye Pest Manage Sci. 58:677-686. Getsinger KD, Madsen JD, Koschmck TJ, Netherland MD, 2002. Whole -lake fluridone treatments for selective control of Eurasian watermilfoil: I Application strategy and herbicide residues. Lake Resery Manage. 18181-190 GetsingerKD, Petty DG, Madsen JD, Skogeiboe JG, Houtman BA, Haller WT, Fox AM. 2000. Aquatic dissipation of the herbi- cide t6clopyr in Lake Minnetonka, Mummta. Pest Manage. Sci. 56 388400 321 Triclopyr for selective whole -bay miffoll management Valley RD, Heiskary S. 2012 Short-term declines in curlyleaf pondweed in Mmnesota- potential mfluences of snowfall. Lake Resery Manage. 26.338-345 Valley RD, Johnson M, Dustin DL, Jones KD, Lawn - stem MR, Nawrocla L 2015. Combining hydroa- coustic and point -intercept survey methods to as- sess aquatic plant species abundance patterns and community dominance. I Aquat Plant Manage, 53- 121-129. Wersal RM, Madsen JD, Woolf TE, Eckberg N 2010 Assessment of herbicide efficacy on Eur&vm watermilfoil and impacts to the native submersed plant community in Hayden Lake, Idaho, USA- J Aquat Plant Manage 48.5-11. Zhu B, Fitzgerald DG, Hoskins SB, Rudstam LG, slayer CM, Mills EL. 2007. Quantification of hhstoncal changes of sub- merged aquatic vegetation cover to two bays of Lake On- tarho with three complementary methods- J Great Lakes Res. 31122-135. 323 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: November 14, 2016 ITEM NO: 6 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Jeremy Barnhart Y"-4 Title Community Development Director Planning Item Description: Consideration of location restrictions, Level III Sex Offenders Application Summary Information presented to facilitate the public hearing, and for Council direction. Issue Level III Sex Offenders are individuals that have committed sex related crimes, been adjudicated, imprisoned, and have been designated as 'likely to reoffend' upon their release. When a Level III individual is released, the State holds a neighborhood informational meeting. Currently, there is no city ordinance that provides guidance as to where Level III offenders may reside. Minnesota communities are starting to respond to these concerns by drafting ordinances that prohibit residence of Level III offenders within certain distances of parks, schools, day care centers. Previous direction of the Council was to explore possible ordinances, after receiving comment from the public. It should be noted that no ordinance is proposed that regulates where Level I and Level II offenders may reside, as the designation of a Level I or II individual is not public information, and therefore, not known to the city or the public, and this knowledge is necessary to administer an ordinance. The Police Chief has provided a memo that provides additional background and resources, originally offered September 26, 2016. The Council should receive input from citizens as to what concerns should be addressed in a potential ordinance. Action Requested: Provide Staff direction. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Police Chief Memo dated September 21, 2016 Exhibit B Assorted news articles 188652v1 Council Exhibit A Memo To: Jeremy Barnhart From: Police Chief Correy Farniok Date September 21, 2016 Re: Sex Offender Registry Currently there are 8 individuals that in the City of Orono that are required to register with the Orono Police Department as part of the Minnesota Predatory Offender Registration (POR) program through the MN Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA). These 8 POR's all have a risk level of 1 or not assigned. Risk levels are assigned by the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) not the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA). Risk Levels are assigned to registrants who are released from prison on or after January 1, 1997. Risk level one indicates the least likelihood to re -offend. Risk level two indicates a moderate likelihood to re -offend. Risk level three indicates high likelihood to re -offend. Information about Level 3 offenders is available on the DOC web site. www.doc.state.mn.us According to a recent search on the DOC website, the closest Level 3 Offenders are in Crystal (2), New Hope (1) and Hopkins (2). There are no provisions in M.S. § 243.166, Minnesota's registration law, which prohibit registered offenders from living in the vicinity of a school or daycare. Restricting a registrant's residency can be a condition of the registrant's probation or parole; however, if the person is no longer on probation or parole, those restrictions are no longer effective. While there is not a State law regarding residency restrictions for registered offenders, cities can pass local ordinances with restrictions. The challenge that we face as a police department and as a community is that the most of the information regarding a POR is classified as private and we cannot release information to the public on POR's. I have also attached pertinent sections of MN Statue 244.052. Which provides information and explains the process for review for Level 3 POR's, the notification required, and information that can be given out a community notification. "Subdivision 4. Law enforcement agency; disclosure of information to the public. The law enforcement agency shall employ the following guidelines in determining the scope of disclosure made under this subdivision: (1) if the offender is assigned to risk level I, the agency may maintain information regarding the offender within the agency and may disclose it to other law enforcement agencies. Additionally, the agency may disclose the information to any victims of or witnesses to the offense committed by the offender. The agency shall disclose the information to victims of the offense committed by the offender who have requested disclosure and to adult members of the offender's immediate household; (2) if the offender is assigned to risk level II, the agency also may disclose the information to agencies and groups that the offender is likely to encounter for the purpose of securing those institutions and protecting individuals in their care while they are on or near the premises of the institution. These agencies and groups include the staff members of public and private educational institutions, day care establishments, and establishments and organizations that primarily serve individuals likely to be victimized by the offender. The agency also may disclose the information to individuals the agency believes are likely to be victimized by the offender. The agency's belief shall be based on the offender's pattern of offending or victim preference as documented in the information provided by the department of corrections or human services; (3) if the offender is assigned to risk level III, the agency shall disclose the information to the persons and entities described in clauses (1) and (2) and to other members of the community whom the offender is likely to encounter, unless the law enforcement agency determines that public safety would be compromised by the disclosure or that a more limited disclosure is necessary to protect the identity of the victim." Subdivision 4a. Indicates that during the review process for a Level 3 offender the agency responsible for the offender's supervision shall take into consideration the proximity of the offender's residence to that of other Level 3 offenders and proximity to schools. 0 Page 2 11/3/2016 STATE + LOCAL Backlash stops 3 convicted rapists from being moved to group home in Dayton - StarTribune.com Group home in Dayton, Minn., drops plan to house convicted sex offenders State is dealt another setback in releasing offenders from MSOP. By Chris Serres (http://www.startribune.com/chris-serres/10645926/) Star Tribune NOVEMBER 2, 2016 — 8:1OPM VIEW YOUR BALLOT House # only FZip-de GO The operator of a group home in Dayton, Minn., has backed out of plans to house three convicted rapists set for release from Minnesota's sex offender treatment program, dealing another setback to state efforts to move more offenders into the community. City Council members in Dayton, a rural community of about 5,000 residents northwest of the Twin Cities, received notice Tuesday from REM Minnesota Inc. that it will not provide housing for the three men, who already have been cleared for conditional release from the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP). The decision comes after Dayton residents raised alarms about their safety last week and the city adopted a far-reaching ordinance (http://bit.1y/2ff0vEfl that bars sex offenders from living near a host of places where children congregate and effectively renders more than half the city off-limits to sex offenders. A spokeswoman for REM Minnesota issued a statement saying it would comply with the ordinance and already had informed state officials that it would not accept the three offenders, who had been approved for transition to the group home. Communities across Minnesota have been rushing to pass such ordinances since a federal judge last year ruled that the MSOP is unconstitutional and ordered the state to develop more housing options and release offenders who no longer require confinement. The Dayton City Council passed the sweeping ordinance, which even prevents offenders from living near seasonal pumpkin patches and apple orchards, despite concerns that it may draw a legal challenge. "There is pride in how the community pulled together and how fast we were able to respond to the situation," said Dayton Mayor Tim McNeil. "Now, the big question is: Did we go too far in the eyes of those who have the ability to sue us?" The state of Minnesota is under mounting court pressure to demonstrate that it operates a functional treatment program that provides offenders with a clear path toward release. At the same time, communities are pushing back against a possible influx of offenders: Roughly 50 jurisdictions statewide have enacted ordinances that restrict where sex offenders can live. The ordinances place the Minnesota Department of Human Services, which oversees the MSOP, in a difficult spot. If the agency seeks community input before attempting to move offenders, local governments can rush to pass restrictions before such a move can occur. Yet without local outreach, the state faces criticism for being secretive. In late September, for instance, DHS informed officials in Le Sueur County that it was considering plans to move six MSOP offenders to a residence in Kasota Township, near St. Peter. Neighbors barraged the owner of the fourplex with telephone calls and e-mails, prompting him to pull out of the deal. Now the county is considering a sweeping ordinance that would bar offenders from living near a long list of public spaces. Inmates in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program 6 Offenders cleared for release but still in confinement 84 Nearing approval for conditional release 723 Total number of offenders now confined. http://www.startri bune.com/comm unity-backl ash -prevents -3 -convicted -rapists -from- bei ng -m oved-to- a -group- hom e- i n-dayton/399683371 / 1/2 11/3/2016 Backlash stops 3 convicted rapists from being moved to group home in Dayton - StarTribune.com "I'm all about second chances," said Steven Rohlfing, a Le Sueur County commissioner. `But these sexual predators took away the dignity from a lot of individuals, and it's not clear that they will ever recover." The local ordinances were quite narrow at first but have grown much broader. The proposed ordinance in Le Sueur County, for example, would bar offenders from living near bus stops, public trails, gyms, libraries, public beaches, hockey rinks and churches, among other areas. Le Sueur's ordinance would even prohibit offenders from living near a privately owned property that is equipped for children's play. Critics argue that the laws force offenders into homelessness, which makes it more difficult for law enforcement to track them. Courts in other states have struck down residency restrictions when they too closely resemble "blanket bans" against offenders. Even so, the laws remain largely unchallenged in Minnesota; which means a growing number of detainees at MSOP's secure treatment center in St. Peter who have been cleared for release remain stuck at the facility. Asked if it is considering a challenge to the local ordinances, DHS said in a statement: "We face the challenge of running a constitutional program that provides safety, security and treatment. In this effort, we cannot rule out any option prematurely." Twitter: @chrisserres chris.serres@startribune.com 612-673-4308 chrisserres http://www.startribune.com/comm unity -backlash -prevents -3 -convicted -rapists -from -bei ng -m oved-to-a-group-home-i n-dayton/399683371/ 2/2 10/31/2016 Community backlash puts freed sex offenders in a Catch-22 - StarTribune.com STATE + LOCAL Freed sex offenders in a Catch-22 amid community backlash As they're released from MSOP, communities take action to keep them out. By Chris Serres Star Tribure OCTOBER 29.2016—9:30PU VIEW YOUR BALLOT I Zipoode GO Growing numbers of sex offenders are still being confined in Minnesota's controversial treatment program even after courts approved their release, amid an intensifying local backlash against state efforts to return them to the community. Across the state, anxious communities are rushing to pass extraordinary rules aimed at banning sex offenders from moving in, with fargeaching ordinances that would effectively bar them from any residential neighborhood. More than 40 localities have adopted such bans, and emotions have reached such a pitch that Human Services Commissioner Emily Johnson Piper, whose agency oversees the sex offender program, recently received a threat of violence against her children. Last week the city of Dayton, about 25 miles northwest of the Twin Cities, became the latest flash point. On Friday, the city passed one of the most restrictive measures yet, barring offenders from living near churches, pumpkin patches and apple orchards. In an emotional three-hour hearing, residents lashed out at the state for attempting to move three convicted rapists to a private group home in Dayton, as Qty Council members called for a statewide movement against such placements. Looming over these hearings is the haunting memory of 11 -year-old Jacob Wetterling, whose remains were found last month, 27 years after his abduction along a country road in Stearns County. `Jacob was abducted in a sprawling, wide-open place just like this," said Malina Hruby, a mother of two children in Dayton, gesturing toward nearby farm fields. "He is on all of our minds." The backlash is confounding state officials, who are running out of places to house sex offenders even as they, face mounting court pressure to release more of them. Including Dayton, roughly four dozen jurisdictions across Minnesota have now passed measures barring convicted sex offenders from living near schools, day care centers and other places with children. Some measures are so sweeping that the towns have become effectively off-limits to offenders, state officials said. The city of Dayton's ordinance even bars offenders from handing out candy on Halloween, or leaving an exterior porch light on to invite trick -or -treaters. The rush to craft such ordinances intensified late last year, after U.S. District judge Donovan Frank issued a ruling, now under appeal, that the state can no longer confine offenders indefinitely without a clear path toward release, and ordered the state to develop options for housing offenders in the community. While similar local laws have been struck down by courts in several states, including California, Massachusetts and New York, they have gone largely unchallenged here. "It's spreading like wildfire," said Richard Weinberger, a clinical director for a Twin Cities residential program for adult male sex offenders. "At some point, the state will have to step in and strike these down These people have to live somewhere, and we can't keep saying, 'No.' " The backlash is complicating efforts to move individuals currently in the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) who are legally entitled to live in the community under close supervision. There are now six offenders at MSOP who have been provisionally (hftp://stmedia.startdbune.com/images/ows_1477T733266731 BRIAN PETERSON Malina Hruby of Dayton., Minn., with her two children. Memories of Jacob Wetterling are top of mind, she said. http://www.startriburie.com/freed-sex-offenders-in-a-catch-22-amid-cam m unity-backlasht399169141/ 113 10/31/2016 Community backlash puts freed sex offenders in a Catch-22 - StarTribune.com discharged by state judicial panels but remain under confinement. Another 84, a record number, are moving toward release, in a less -restrictive program in St Peter that prepares them for reintegration into society. In an interview, state Commissioner Piper said the situation is unprecedented. She warned of a possible legal challenge to the local ordinances. The ordinances, she said, are unfair to poorer municipalities that may lack the resources to fight placements. "It's never going to be the'north Minneapolises' of the world that get the first ordinance developed with a cadre of lawyers advising them," said Piper, who grew up on Minneapolis' North Side. "What that does is increase the over -concentration of sex offenders in less -affluent areas of the state." Yet state lawmakers have been loath to address the issue. A Senate bill introduced this year would have required counties to provide appropriate sex offender housing based on the number of offenders committed to the MSOP from their jurisdictions. In addition, Gov. Marts Dayton's bonding bill would have funded two, 20 -bed community facilities at a cost of $12.4 million. Both proposals failed to pass the 2016 Legislature. 'Monsters' The state's dilemma was on display last week at Dayton City Hall, where about 80 residents gathered on Wednesday night to discuss plans by the state to move three convicted rapists to a private group home. One by one, residents approached the front of the room, their voices often shaking with emotion. A mother pointed out that her two young children ride a school bus that travels within two blocks of the proposed house. "A busload of kids is a sitting target," said Erin Prest, the mother. The Wetterling case cast a long shadow over the hearing. "When my children were tittle, the Jacob Wetterling story came out, and you couldn't let your kids walk to the park alone for fear that someone in a van would leap out and grab them," said Anne Ziebell, a city council member who has lived in Dayton since 1988. `Now here we are, 27 years later, and these monsters are moving into our town." As the night wore on, the discussion shifted toward more and more restrictions. A draft ordinance barring offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school, day-care center or park —similar to ordinances passed in other cities —was deemed insufficient. As residents weighed in, multiple "prohibited areas" were added to the measure, including any amusement park, recreation center, youth athletic field, public library, golf course, swimming pool and bowling alleys. The ordinance even prohibits offenders from living within 2,000 feet of "any seasonal pumpkin patch or apple orchard." "If a Chuck E. Cheese opens up in the middle of Dayton, that should be covered," added Tim McNleil, mayor of Dayton. Council members seemed undeterred when Dayton's city attorney, looking uncomfortable at times, suggested that such a far-reaching ordinance could draw a legal challenge. The mood in Dayton is tense in part because residents feel they are in a race against time. A state judicial panel had already approved a plan for moving the offenders to the group home in Dayton. Their criminal histories are familiar to many in this city of about 5,000 residents. One of the men had raped his 6 year-oId niece and admitted to "digitally penetrating" a 3 -year-old girl. Another forced himself into a woman's home and forced her to have oral sex, within weeks after being released from a treatment program All three of the offenders are over 50 and have cognitive disabilities or diagnosed mental illnesses. "Why not put them in the middle of 10,000 acres in northern Minnesota?" asked Dayton City Council member Scott Salonek. "I don't want 'em, period, under any circumstances." How dangerous? State officials note that Minnesota already has 15,775 registered sex offenders living in local communities, and that the 723 inmates at the MSOP are just a tiny fraction of that total. Many of these are Level 3 offenders who have assaulted minors, yet live under far http:IMrww.startribune.com/freed-sex-offenders-in-a-catch-22-am id -corn munity-backlash1399169141/ 213 10131/2016 Community backlash puts freed sex offenders in a Catch-22 - StarTribune.com less surveillance than the handful of offenders released from the MSOP. The three offenders being transferred to Dayton, for example, would be subject to 24-hour surveillance, random searches and would be unable to leave the home without staff, among other restrictions. Studies on sex offender re -offense rates vary widely depending on the time covered and the offenses measured. A 2013 study by the Minnesota Department of Corrections tracked 220 sex offenders who were released from Minnesota prisons in the early 1990s. Within four years, 123 percent were reconvicted of a new sex offense; by 2010, 18.6 percent had been reconvicted. Yet because of MSOP's reputation for holding the "worst of the worst" offenders, the public reaction to releases from the program can be highly charged and even threatening. Piper, the Human Services commissioner, said someone posted a comment on Facebook suggesting the rape of her children after her agency decided in September not to appeal the release of a young man held in the MSOP. A state Supreme Court appeals panel ruled that the man, Eric Terhaar, 26, was no longer a threat to the public and that his confinement was unconstitutional. "°The [Facebook] comment said, essentially, 'Why don'tthey go rape Emily Piper's children,"' she said. "It becomes very aggressive and very ugly and very scary for people who, like me, are trying to defend the constitutionality of the program." Gene Lewis of Le Center, Minn., also found himself on the receiving end of threats. Four years ago, he wanted to rent a room in a fourplex near St. Peter to a Level 3 sex offender from MSOP. When local residents learned of the plan, Lewis said, he received more than 100 telephone calls and threats of violence. In one case, an anonymous caller threatened to go after his grandchildren. Another threatened to destroy his business. Lewis, who owns a title company and rental properties in central Minnesota, said he canceled the plan after several hundred people showed up at a public hearing and residents pointed out how close the property was to homes with young children. 'They'll come at you with pitchforks and daggers," Lewis said. `Where's really no way to explain it, except there was fire in their eyes when they talked about what they were going to do." Twitter: @chrisserres http:/Iwww.startribune.com/freed-sex-offenders-in-a-catch-22-amid-cam m unity-backlas h13991691411 313 11/212016 Mound man charged with criminal sexual conduct I Public Safety I awnewsmedia.com Sign up http://www.swnewsmedia.com/lakeshore_weekly/news/public_safety/mound-man-charged with-criminal✓sexual-conductiarticle_2ebeaGa6-7095-5ab7-b20b- 491 c6ed09018. html TOP STORY Mound man charged with criminal sexual conduct A Schwarz Oct 31, 2016 A Mound man is facing criminal sexual conduct charges, and if convicted, he could face life in prison, Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman announced Oct 28. Matthew Joel Reinitz, 37, was indicted Thursday, Oct. 27 on two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and two counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct for attacking a woman Dec. 4. As of the morning of Oct. 31, he was still in custody in Hennepin County Jail being held on $2 million bail, accordingto the adult corrections facility roster. "Mr. Relnitz has been convicted of a previous sexual assault," Freeman said. "Once we had sufficient evidence to link him to last year's torture of a woman in his home, we decided he is a threatto public safety and needs to be taken off the streets for the rest of his life if we can prove his guilt." According to the criminal complaint filed against Reinitz last month, police were sent to a church in Minneapolis on the afternoon of Dec. 4 where they found a woman who was crying and bleeding from the neck. She was taken to the hospital and later told investigators that a cab had been sent to pick her up and bring her to an apartment in Northeast Minneapolis. The victim told police she was a prostitute and Reinitz had seen her ad in Backpage. Not long after she entered the home, she said Reinitz tied up her hands and legs and, for awhile, put duct tape over her mouth, He cut off her clothes with a knife and repeatedly raped her, the complaint states. He eventually took her into the bathroom and stabbed her twice, at least once in the neck. She pleaded with him to let her go and promised not to go to the police. He gave her a towel and her clothes and she fled out the door. http:l/www.swnewsmedia.comflakeshore weeklylnewslpubiic safetylmound-man-charger-with-criminal-sexual-conductlarticle 2ebeaOa6-7095-5db7-b20b-49... 112 11/2/2016 Mound man charged with criminal sexual conduct I Public Safety I swnewsmedia.com When police went to the home, Reinitz was gone, according to the complaint. Reinitz ultimately was identified through a DNA match and was charged. A Schwarz http:lhvww.swnewsmedia.comllakeshore weeklylnewslpublic_safetylmound-man-charged-with-criminal-sexual-conductlarticle 2ebea0a6-7095-5db7-b20b-4&.. 212 Man who raped teen girls is latest cleared for release as MSOP changes course Convicted in 1980s, Dwight Walton would be the eighth offender to earn conditional release. By Chris Serres Star Tribune July 11, 2016 — 1:51pm A man convicted of raping two teenage girls in the 1980s, and who admitted to more than a dozen other female victims, has been approved for conditional release from the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP), the latest in a string of violent offenders deemed capable by state judges of living in the community. Dwight Walton, 52, will be released to a halfway house in Minneapolis. Walton was convicted in 1986 of raping a 13 -year-old girl, whom he grabbed from behind and threatened to shoot if she made any noise. The next day, Walton sexually assaulted a 19 -year-old girl using a knife, threatening to stab her if she did not cooperate. After serving prison time for those offenses, he broke into a woman's apartment, then fled the scene after she awoke and screamed, according to court documents. Walton later admitted to sexually assaulting 15 adolescent and adult females, all of whom were unknown to him except one. Because of his multiple violent offenses and stranger victims, Walton scored high on actuarial models that estimate the odds that a sex offender will reoffend, court records show. One recent test put him at a moderate -to -high risk for committing another sexual offense. Even so, a panel of state judges last month approved Walton's petition for provisional discharge, ruling that he had shown significant progress in treatment and was capable of adjusting to society. The panel noted that Walton volunteers in the community, mentors other MSOP offenders, attends support groups and has visited family members in Minneapolis without incident. All four clinicians who reviewed Walton's case and offense history supported his petition for discharge. Though Walton will be subject to a high degree of supervision, his discharge reflects a continued softening of attitudes among state officials toward detainees at MSOP, which faces federal court orders to demonstrate it runs a functional treatment program with a clear path toward release. The program confines about 725 rapists, child molesters and other offenders at secure treatment centers in Moose Lake and St. Paul. A year ago, U.S. District Court Judge Donovan Frank in St. Paul declared the MSOP unconstitutional because it detains offenders indefinitely while depriving them of access to the courts and regular risk evaluations, among other legal safeguards. Though Frank's ruling is now under appeal, the state has been releasing offenders at an unprecedented clip. Since the start of 2014, courts have approved eight offenders for provisional discharge, compared with only two in the program's prior 20 -year history. "Three years ago, [Walton] would never have gotten anywhere," said Warren Maas, president of the Minnesota Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. "The federal [court case] certainly has brought pressure on the entire MSOP bureaucracy to be less obstructive." Walton is expected to be released to a 58 -bed halfway house, at 2825 E. Lake Street in Minneapolis, operated by the Volunteers of America, a nonprofit. The facility, which has round-the-clock staff, specializes in helping prisoners restore community ties and obtain employment in the community. Under conditions of his discharge, Walton will be required to attend outpatient sex offender treatment and to look for work in the community. 7/20/2016 Minnesota cities rush to restrict where sex offenders live - StarTribune.com LOCAL Cities are rushing to restrict sex offenders Efforts to limit housing spill over to State Capitol. By Maya Rao (http://www.startribune.com/maya-rao/137958973/) Star Tribune APRIL 4, 2016 — 10:49PM After a convicted child molester moved to town, Minnesota Lake passed a law effectively banning sex offenders from most of the small community. Mahtomedi approved restrictions on where convicted rapists could live after hundreds of residents signed a petition demanding action. And in Birchwood, the City Council held an emergency meeting in order to place stricter limits on sex offenders after learning that a pedophile was moving there. Minnesota has seen a dramatic rise in municipal laws restricting where sex offenders can live after they have served their terms, setting up a fight at the State Capitol. Some legislators want to give local communities more control to enact new restrictions, but state corrections officials say that such ordinances can be ineffective and that they invite legal challenges. A group of legislators has proposed a measure allowing cities and counties to enact tougher laws to keep Level 3 sex offenders — considered the most likely to reoffend — away from schools, parks and other places frequented by children. The chief sponsor, Rep. Jim Newberger, R -Becker, says he hopes the bill will give the towns stronger legal standing to defend their sex -offender ordinances in court. Communities are bracing for the release of more sex offenders from forced civil commitment in response to a federal ruling that declared the state's program unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank has ruled that the program is essentially permanent confinement with no clear path to release. The issue is politically perilous for leaders of both parties, who must weigh the constitutional questions vs. the political blowback from releasing potentially dangerous offenders into the community. Gov. Mark Dayton has ordered the state to fight Frank's ruling, saying it posed a risk to public safety. The growing concerns have prompted more cities to adopt ordinances spelling out where convicted offenders are restricted from living. '"What they're worried about is that eventually someone will challenge it," said Newberger. "There's no statute to back it up right now." 'A testy situation' Corrections Commissioner Tom Roy told legislators his agency is "very concerned" that the number of laws restricting sex offenders has doubled to 39 over the last year. He said studies showed that bans on where sex offenders live do not reduce the likelihood of them committing more crimes. They only create barriers to officers supervising them, he said, noting that Minnesota has seen the number of homeless offenders rise dramatically in the last decade. "It is really a testy situation that we all face, and, intuitively, we would like to believe that drawing circles around cities will decrease recidivism ... but in actuality, it does not," Roy said. http://www.startribune.com/where-do-offenders-live-cities-scramble/374566221/ 1/2 7/20/2016 Minnesota cities rush to restrict where sex offenders live - StarTribune.com Rep. Tony Cornish, R -Vernon Center, said during a hearing that people worried about their property values and children walking to the playground do not pay attention to statistics of recidivism. "You folks aren't doing a bang-up job right now of placing these people," he told Roy. And he criticized the move of a black rapist last year to Minnesota Lake, "a totally white, Anglo town.... All of a sudden you've got all eyes on this poor person down there." The city about 100 miles south of the Twin Cities swiftly passed an ordinance stating that it was unlawful for sex offenders to live within 2,000 feet of a school, child care center, public park, church, library or bus stop — a move that walled off much of the city's 2 square miles. Sharon Grunzke, the city clerk, said residents were petrified about the first registered sex offender moving in. But the man has caused no problems after all, she said: "We hardly ever see him." In December, Columbia Heights passed a one-year moratorium on any more sex offenders moving in while it studies whether to enact a permanent ordinance. Mayor Gary Peterson said the city had no concerns about the measure's legalities. "You can't have sex offenders all over the place, and there are other communities that have none.... We just wanted to stop it before it got to the point where it was really uncontrollable," he said. Suburb fights back North Minneapolis has accumulated a high concentration of sex offenders, prompting pleas from its representatives to spread the burden around the metro area. Hennepin County stopped allowing offenders there a few years ago, a policy that Brooklyn Center has blamed for more convicted sexual predators spilling into its borders to the north. Brooklyn Center officials testified in favor of the legislation the day after the city passed a law banning sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school, playground or child care center. "If the legislation passes, now we've got something we can point to and say, 'the state specifically says we can do that,"' said Brooklyn Center Mayor Tim Willson. Rep. Joe Mullery, a DFLer who represents north Minneapolis, derided the legislation as "a very bad proposal.... State law cannot override the U.S. Constitution." He said the protests by Brooklyn Center over having just six sex offenders is "ridiculous," and he called for more suburbs to take their fair share. Last year, New York's appeals court determined that state laws overrode local prohibitions on where sex offenders could live. Roy, the corrections commissioner, noted that courts in other states had been overturning residency restrictions on rapists and that Minnesota would have to address the matter soon. "We can expect the courts to weigh in on this one, for sure," Roy told legislators. maya.rao@startribune.com 651-925-5043 http://www.startribune.com/where-do-offenders-live-cities-scramble/374566221/ 2/2 Northern suburbs allege that sex offenders being shunted from city to their neighborhoods The north metro suburbs say they're taking the brunt of housing Level 3 offenders. By Shannon Prather Star Tribune February 27, 2016 — 9:05pm Two years after Hennepin County probation officials quietly stopped allowing Level 3 predatory sex offenders to move into a handful of already oversaturated Minneapolis neighborhoods, inner -ring suburbs say the problem is being pushed out to their residential areas. Last week, an ordinance was introduced before the Brooklyn Center City Council that would prohibit new Level 3 offenders — those considered most likely to reoffend — from moving there. Six now live in Brooklyn Center, more than in any other Hennepin County suburb, and most of them arrived within the last year. In neighboring Brooklyn Park, home to three offenders, leaders are discussing their options with city attorneys, said Deputy Chief Mark Bruley. Nearby Columbia Heights and Hilltop in December passed emergency one-year moratoriums on new Level 3 offenders after learning they're home to five of Anoka County's 11 Level 3 offenders. The debate over where the state's 368 Level 3 offenders should live upon release from prison is happening as the Minnesota Sex Offender Program prepares to fulfill a federal court order by releasing some of the 720 rapists and pedophiles held in state hospitals. Brooklyn Center Police Chief Tim Gannon said his city took notice after the number of Level 3 offenders who planned to live there spiked last fall. It's illegal to ban predatory offenders, but city leaders say that's not what Brooklyn Center is doing. The proposed ordinance would create 2,000 -foot buffer zones around schools, public playgrounds and licensed child care facilities. Those zones would effectively make nearly every corner of the city off-limits to predators. The council plans to take a final vote in March. "Why do the northern suburbs seem to be the epicenter of predatory offenders?" said Gannon, pointing out that Bloomington, Hennepin County's largest suburb, has just one. But Hennepin County officials counter that Minneapolis already shoulders most of the burden, and that suburbs can't slam the door on all offenders. The County Board will discuss the decision to stop placing them in the five Minneapolis ZIP codes at a briefing April 21. Constitutional concerns According to the Minnesota Department of Corrections, 124 of the 146 Level 3 offenders in Hennepin County live in Minneapolis. Of those in Minneapolis, 75 live in five ZIP codes west of downtown and on the North Side: 55403, 55405, 55411, 55412 and 55430. The idea of using ZIP codes to locate offenders was intended to better disperse them. "What we are dealing with now will be a sliver of what we will wind up dealing with," said Mark Thompson, Hennepin County assistant county administrator for public safety. "It's tough. No one wants them to relocate to their community. The U.S. Constitution requires it. They have paid their debt and are no longer an immediate threat. Courts have ruled they can be back in the community." Hennepin County does more than its share, Thompson said, because outstate offenders relocate there to be near treatment options. He said Brooklyn Center's actions were disheartening. There's no plot to load up any city or neighborhood with offenders, Thompson said. But offenders, who have some say in where they live, tend to select cities with affordable housing and access to transportation, he said. State corrections officials denounced Brooklyn Center's ordinance. "While well -intended, city ordinances interfere with the effective supervision of sex offenders and do not improve public safety," said spokeswoman Sarah Latuseck. "Public safety is increased when offenders have stable housing and a support system in place when they re-enter the community." Gannon said the city won't evict the offenders already living there, but he said efforts should be made to spread the population to other suburbs. Brooklyn Center Mayor Tim Willson said his city is tired of the "greater good speech" because the burden — whether it is sex offenders or affordable housing — always seems to fall on Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park, Minnesota's two most racially diverse cities. "I am not a conspiracy theorist," Willson said, "but more and more it looks like the metro has determined the northwest corner is where all the stuff is going to go that nobody else wants. I haven't noticed any Level 3s in Edina." Not about NIMBY Columbia Heights Police Chief Scott Nadeau said this is not about NIMBY — the Not -in -My -Backyard syndrome — but about ensuring a more equitable distribution. There's one predatory offender for every 0.7 square miles of Columbia Heights and Hilltop, compared to one offender for every 74 square miles in the rest of Anoka County, Nadeau said. "We have an obligation, like other communities, to be a part of the solution. We want to make sure we are not the only solution," Nadeau said. Gannon and Nadeau said that more candid discussions about offender placement are needed. "I do think it's time we get the partners at the table from the Minnesota Department of Corrections, community corrections and local elected officials to start to have a discussion," Nadeau said. Thompson agreed. "This has to be a statewide solution," he said. Rehab House Owner Tries to Quell Concerns Posted On 05 Feb 2016 By Marilynn Young/ LB Indy Scores of anxious residents voiced their fears about a detox and rehab facility near Top of the World Elementary School at a town hall meeting this past Tuesday, Feb. 2. Scores of residents turn out this week at a town hall meeting to voice concerns over rehab facilities in their neighborhoods. Photo by Marilynn Young Both the owner and director of Pillars Recovery, which opened at 28772 Top of the World Dr. last year in close proximity to the campus, addressed the crowd of about 150 people and defended the facility's practices. Principal Michael Conlon organized the meeting with city and police officials to inform concerned parents and others about laws that restrict the city from regulating state licensed recovery houses. Police provided a list to participants of the handful of calls for police service received from two recovery facilities that are the focus of concern. Pillars Recovery owner Lisa Willis said she understands curiosity about the facility, but that fears are overblown in part because people seem uninformed about the levels of care provided at the facility. She said the six residents are monitored around the clock and participate in groups from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. at night. They have no cars, visitors and their place of residence is confidential. "The people in that house are at the height of awareness; they've done everything right," Willis said. "We want it run well. It makes everyone's life easier. We don't want to call 911," Willis said. Since the facility opened, police have received three calls for service, two patrol checks and a medical aid, which involved neither a drug overdose nor violence, according to police Detective Cornelius Ashton. Page 1 Pillars Director Lisa Friedman, who diagnoses and evaluates potential patients, was asked if she would accept a sex offender. Friedman said she would not and would refer them to a facility better skilled to meet their needs. Despite the apparent neighborhood backlash to Pillars Recovery, Willis said she is not considering moving. Thirteen licensed non-medical alcoholism and drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities operate in Laguna Beach, according to a January status report by the state Department of Health Care Service. Two more are in process, according to Ann Larson, the city's assistant director of community development. At the meeting, Larson described the variations among recovery facilities, which operate under different regulations and are licensed by different authorities. In general, residential care facilities are subject to state regulations and licensing, which preempts local regulations by cities. Deputy City Attorney Ajit Thind laid out state and federal statutes, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, and their protections for group homes that provide treatment for the disabled. They also apply to group homes for recovering drug and alcohol addicts. "As to the unlicensed facilities, they are still afforded protection by ADA as well as fair housing laws. But if they are engaging in nuisance -like activities, the city can enforce and they can do so by administrative citation. At this point we haven't gotten to this point with any facility," Thind said. Federal laws were enacted to promote the integration of individuals with disabilities into the community and to prohibit discrimination against them. Ashton urged participants to play a role in documenting crime in their neighborhood. "You are our eyes and ears. Contact the police not just about the facilities, but anything that makes you uncomfortable," Ashton said, who noted that "Top of the World is actually one of the safest areas in our city." The principal said TOW school has not experienced any incidents related to Pillars Recovery. "Of course I wouldn't want it to be as close to the school as it is," said Conlon, indicating that school district officials intend to push for a legislative remedy to restrict recovery houses near schools. The two facilities that were the focus of concerns have been inspected by city code enforcement officers and are in compliance with their state licensing requirements, Larson said. The number of sober living group homes in Laguna is not known because there is no licensing requirement by either the city or the state. Larson intends to ask elected officials to endorse a letter urging a change in state laws to allow cities more discretion in regulating rehab houses through zoning. Page 2 City officials are monitoring regulations adopted by other cities to see what locally enacted land -use regulations survive court challenge, she said. Residents can report suspected criminal activity to police at (949) 497-0701, municipal violations to the code enforcement division at (949) 497-0301, or license violations to the Department of Health Care Services at (877) 685-8333. Page 3 7/20/2016 Watertown first in county to tighten restrictions on level 3 sex offenders Community & People • Government • Public Safety Watertown first in county to tighten restrictions on level 3 sex offenders Published July 15, 2016 at 10:45 am By mpriebe 8 24 A map from Watertown City Council documents shows the new boundaries that will be enforced for level 3 sex offenders seeking to move to Watertown. Schools are denoted in orange, parks in green and licensed daycare providers in purple. By Melissa Priebe watertown.editor@ecm-inc.com After months of debate, the City of Watertown became the first city in Carver County to adopt strict residency restrictions for predatory sex offenders, extending the boundaries around areas where children are present. http://sunpatriot.com/2016/07/15/Watertown-first-in-county-to-tighten-restrictions-on-level-3-sex-offenders/ 1/4 7/20/2016 Watertown first in county to tighten restrictions on level 3 sex offenders Watertown is setting the precedence for Carver County;' said Deborah Everson, city council member. We will be only city in Carver County that will have this." The Watertown City Council voted to adopt Ordinance 397, amending Chapter 26 of the Watertown City Code to increase the distance for restricted areas from a boundary of 500 feet from schools and parks, as was stated in the existing law. The amendment prohibits level 3 sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school or park and within 500 feet from a licensed daycare provider, creating very small pockets where level 3 sex offenders may live. 'We're taking an initiative to protect our citizens and, specifically, the children from convicted predators;' said Michael Walters, city council member. 'We're talking about very dangerous felons that the Department of Corrections has identified as likely to reoffend" Walters said the measure serves as a 'community values statement;' and over the course of the discussions, his opinion on the matter has only grown stronger. According to city records, official discussions of the proposed amendment began in April, when the Watertown City Council first considered the amendment in a work session. A proposed amendment was brought forward at the June 14 meeting, but members of the city council expressed that the prohibited areas were not large enough, The council considered several different options, including boundaries or 500 feet, 750 feet, 1,000 feet, and combinations giving schools and parks a different boundary than daycare providers. They tabled the vote, and turned to other city and county staff for insight on what kind of boundaries could be enforced. Lieutenant Patrick Barry, representing the Carver County Sheriffs Office, said the county would enforce whatever laws they put on the books. City Administrator Shane Fineran advised against implementing boundaries that would take all of Watertown off the map for released offenders. Then, City Attorney Jared Shepherd shared examples of what has been enacted in other Minnesota cities. 'There are a few communities, for example Wyoming, Minnesota, has a 2,000 -feet buffer for schools, daycare, parks, 1,000 feet for bus stops and places of worship;' he said. 'Taylors Falls: 2,000 -feet for schools, daycares, parks and playgrounds, 1,000 feet for bus stops and places of worship,. Of course, it's important to realize that each community is laid out differently, and those restrictions are a function of where the different buildings are." No level 3 sex offenders are registered in the city of Watertown, or the whole of Carver County, as reported to the Minnesota sex offender registry. Even in neighboring counties, the numbers tend to be low. No level 3 sex offenders are registered in McLeod County or Sibley County. Only two are registered in Wright County, and three are registered in Scott County. In Wright County, the sex offenders are located in Maple Lake Township and Monticello, and in Scott County, they are located in Prior Lake, Belle Plain http://sunpatriot.com/2016/07/15/Watertown-first-in-county-to-tighten-restrictions-on-level-3-sex-offenders/ 2/4 7/20/2016 Watertown first in county to tighten restrictions on level 3 sex offenders and rural Jordan. Numbers spike the Twin Cities metro area, with 139 level 3 sex offenders registered in Hennepin County alone, but the Carver County Sheriff's Office is notified any time a predatory sex offender is released into the area where they have jurisdiction. Authorities then provide notification to the community. 'We don't currently have any level 3 offenders living in Carver County," said Barry. As far as violations go for offender registries, in the last five and half years, so as of today, we've had a total of 24 violations, 16 of those were charged" Barry said the statistics, which go back to 2011, include some minor violations, such as an offender registering a day late or failing to notify the sheriffs office about a change in vehicle. 'We do go out and make contact with them up to twice a year," said Barry. The Watertown City Council voted unanimously to amend the ordinance on Tuesday, July 28. 'Only 39 of the 805 cities in Minnesota have instituted this type of an ordinance," said Walters. 'The cost of a predatory offender victimization to our society at large, it's not calculable because we don't know, but it's definitely steep. If you have somebody like this next to your parks or one of these guys next to your school, you're rolling the dice" The new city ordinance is effective as of July 15, 2016. Follow The Carver County News on Facebook to stay connected. Filed Under: Carver County News, CCN, Mayer, NYA, NYA Times, Sun Patriot, Waconia, Waconia Patriot, Watertown r ^ SUN PATRIOT Advertising Information I Contact Us I Subscribe I Jobs & Classifieds Copyright ©2016 ECM Publishers, Inc. • All Rights Reserved http://sunpatriot.com/2016/07/15/Watertown-first-in-county-to-tighten-restrictions-on-level-3-sex-offenders/ 3/4 7/20/2016 Watertown first in county to tighten restrictions on level 3 sex offenders http://sunpatriot.com/2016/07/15/Watertown-first-in-county-to-tighten-restrictions-on-level-3-sex-offenders/ 4/4 Albertville Among 8 MN Cities 'Banning' Level III Sex Offenders: Star Tribune Local ordinances limiting where offenders can live are at cross-purposes with state law, according to the newspaper. St. Michael, MN By Chris Steller (Patch Staff) = May 7, 2013 5:15 pm ET Eight cities in Minnesota, including Albertville, have "essentially banned" Level III sex offenders from taking up residence, according to a Star Tribune report. Those local ordinances work against a Minnesota law intended to spread out the state's population of Level III sex offenders. Instead, the offenders are concentrated in a few areas, such as north Minneapolis. One corrections -department official told the newspaper "it's just pushing these offenders to other towns nearby"—because the eight cities have stymied agency's residential -placement efforts: The Department of Corrections (DOC) has all but stopped trying to find homes for Level Three sex offenders in the Minnesota cities that have imposed far-reaching restrictions on where they can live. Most of those cities adopted similarly written ordinances that ban these people from living within 1,000 to 2,000 feet of schools, parks, bus stops or "places children are known to congregate." ... The Department of Corrections, citing a study it conducted in 2007, says laws like those in [the Minnesota city of] Wyoming do nothing to prevent offenders from reoffending and may be making the problem worse by lulling residents into a false sense of security. Read the full article at startribune.com. Albertville's Ordinance According to a Star Tribune map accompanying the article, Albertville is the only one of the eight cities that has a 1,000 -foot limit on offenders living near places with children. The other seven cities, including Otsego, have ordinances that establish at least some 2,000 -foot limits. This is how the map summarizes Albertville's ordinance on Level III sex offenders: "Prohibited from living within 1,000 feet of any school, daycare, park, playground, church or'other places children are known to congregate."' Duluth and Moose Lake have ordinances that do not have the effect of preventing offenders from taking up residence altogether, the newspaper noted. Ten offenders currently live in Duluth. Where Offenders Are One man living in Monticello is the only Level III sex offender currently residing in Wright County, according to the map. There were 289 in Minnesota as of last week, the newspaper reported. The Minnesota Department of Corrections maintains a public online database on Level III Sex Offenders that allows searches by location. Laguna Beach Local News Rehab House Owner Tries to Quell Concerns - Laguna Beach ... Page 1 of 14 Aho,o Advevt smg Contact Logm Firebrand Meda Laguna B -n— r:1»i-a = C R—. . rl.-,del Edirbor I. 949 715 0 PAGE ONE OPINION SPORTS ARTS EAT • DRINK TOWN CRIER LIVING HERE BLOGS DEALS OF THE WEEK EVENTS CALENDAR WEDDINGS LETTERS TO THE EDITOR s tn Sohei I IlWg HOlI11_1 in Res,d wt,al Avers Ingenuity Might Address Hous,nn for the Homeles Rehab House Owner Tries to Quell Concerns Pon ted On OS Feb 2016 13y : LB 1nd,y Stall' Comment: 1 0 Like 2 0 0 Share 0 1 By Marilynn Young/ LB Indy Scores of anxious residents voiced their fears about a detox and rehab facility near Top of the World Elementary School at a town hall meeting this past Tuesday, Feb 2. Both the owner and director of Pillars Recovery, which opened at 28772 Top of the World Dr. Iasi year in close proximity to the campus, addressed the crowd of about 150 people and defended the facility's practices. Principal Michael Conlon organized W.., o.e.r.l,L,.,,, I'll t, t, bL� Yom.:-.: http://www.lagunabeachindy.com/rehab-house-owner-tries-to-quell-concerns/ 2/10/2016 Laguna Beach Local News Rehab House Owner Tries to Quell Concerns - Laguna Beach ... Page 2 of 14 the meeting with city and police officials to inform con cenied parents and others about laws that rest nct the city from regulating state licensed recovery houses Police provided a list to participants of the handful of calls for police service received from two recovery facilities that are the focus of concern Pillars Recovery owner Lisa Willis said she understands curiosity about the facility, but that fears are overblown in pan because people seem uninformed about the levels of care provided at the facility She said the six residents are monitored around the clock antl participate in groups from 7 a m to 10 p on at night They have no cars, visitors and their place of residence is confidential 'The people in that house are at the height of awareness, they've done everything right." Willis said. "We want it run well It makes everyone's life easier We don't want to call 911.' Willis said Since the facility opened, police have received three calls for service, two patrol checks and a medical aid, which involved neither a drug overdose nor violence. according to police Detective Cornelius Ashton Pillars Director Lisa Friedman, who diagnoses and evaluates potential patients, was asked if she would accept a sex offender. Friedman said she would not and would refer them to a facility better skilled to meet their needs Despite the apparent neighborhood backlash to Pillars Recovery. Willis said she is not considering moving Thirteen licensed non-medical alcoholism and drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities operate in Laguna Beachaccording to a January status report by the stale Department of Health Care Service 1 wo more are m process.. according to Ann Larson. the city's assistant director of community development AI the meeting, Larson described the variations among recovery racilibes, which operate under different regulations and are licensed by different authorities In general, residential care facilities are subject to state regulations and licensing, which preempts local regulations by cities Deputy City Attorney Alit Thind laid out slate and federal statutes, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, and their protections for group homes that provide treatment for the disabled They also apply to group homes for recovering drug and alcohol addicts 'As to the unlicensed facilities. they are still afforded protection by ADA as well as fair housing laws But if they are engaging in nuisance like activities, the city can enforce and they can do so by administrative citation At this point we haven't gotten to this point with any facility," Thind said Federal laws were enacted to promote the integration of individuals with disabilities into the conrnwnity and to prohibit discrimination against them Ashlon urged participants to play a role in documenting crime m thea neighborhood "You are our eyes and ears Contact the police not just about the facilities, but anything that makes you uncomfortable." Ashta , said who noted that "Top of the World is adaaliy one Of the safest areas in our city." The principal said TOW school has not experienced any incidents related to Pillars Recovery. "Of course I wouldn't want it to be as close to the school as it is," said Conlon, indicating that school district officials intend to push for a legislative remedy to restrict recovery houses near schools The two facilities that were the focus of concerns have been inspected by city code enforcement officers and are in compliance with their state licensing requirements, Larson said The number of soher living group homes in Laguna is not known because there is no licensing requirement by either the city or the state http://www.lagunabeachindy.com/rehab-house-owner-tries-to-quell-concerns/ 2/10/2016 Laguna Beach Local News Rehab House Owner Tries to Quell Concerns - Laguna Beach ... Page 3 of 14 UNILI Jtl.iwYtt 3 Previous Story Next Story 9 5 9 6 5 3 8 8 9 7 3 9 4 S 73 1 8 2 3 9 8 5 2 4 9 71 3 s 2 - 8.2 "Principal Michael Conlon organized the meeting with city and police officials to inform 1 I arson intends to ask elected officials to endorse a letter urging a change in slate laws to allow titres nwie discretion m regulating rehab houses through toning. City officials are monitoring regulations adopted by other cities to see what locally enacted landuse regulations survive court challenge, she said Residents can report suspected criminal achvity to police at (949) 497-0701, municipal violations to the code enforcement division at (949) 497.0301. or license violations to the Department of Health Care Services at (877) 6858333 0 I ",. - 0 0 Share 0 1 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Council Seems to Ignore About the Author Detox House Proliferation I-osrcd un "L,rro _Iul.,, i Others Play a Role in Welcoming Rehab Houses Posteu r http://www.lagunabeachindy.com/rehab-house-owner-tries-to-quell-concerns/ 2/10/2016 Previous Story Next Story Writer Objects to Sober « Senate Candidate Harris Speaks Council Reconsiders Allowing Pot » Living Houses in in Laguna Deliveries Residential Areas Posted On 05 Feb 2016 One Comment Ingenuity Might Address Housingfor the Homeless Posted On OS Feb 2016 lf_; Madmen on. rmn x, zma w nv pm Rehab profiteers will say and do anything to keep the gravy train going, including not —_'t reporting the true criminal activities they find going on in their'recovery homes" City Manager Describes Phis part of the story should be an eye opener for everyone who attended City Hall Schedule "Principal Michael Conlon organized the meeting with city and police officials to inform Changes concerned parents and others about laws that restrict the city from regulating state Posted On 05 Fob 2016 licensed recovery houses My, My, My so quick to tell you all what you CAN'T do but no help in telling residents what they CAN do and that includes DOCUMENT DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT You are Re -energizing City well within your rights to lake pictures of the conslanl traffic., the loud and abusive Committees language, the cigarette butts dumped into the gutter, the upfirk in property crime DOCUMENT People with disabilities need to be protected from those who lake Posted On 05 Feb 2016 advantage of them.. consider the residents as doing the clients a favor, In Patient hospital recovery works,,, this residential stuff does not, just ASK the clients http://www.lagunabeachindy.com/rehab-house-owner-tries-to-quell-concerns/ 2/10/2016 LA Times - Recovery center worries residents near school Eos Angeles Climes ")IIN3lM69MMUld Recovery center worries residents near school Email Facebook 4 Twitter G+1 0 BY BRYCE ALDERTON February 4, 2o16, 4:21 P.M. Page 1 of 5 76° Feb.10,2016 Residents of the Top of the World neighborhood told Laguna Beach officials Tuesday night that they are concerned about a substance -abuse recovery center in the area and the possibility of others moving into the city. Pillars Recovery operates in the area, which is also home to Top of the World Elementary School. The principal, Mike Conlon, called the community meeting in the school's multipurpose room to discuss an issue that is of concern in many Orange County communities. Attending the meeting were Laguna police, planners, the deputy city attorney and a representative from the office of State Sen. John Moorlach's (R—Costa Mesa). Moorlach's district includes Laguna Beach. Residents urged the city to take an active role in promoting legislation that would give it some authority over recovery centers and sober -living facilities. State -licensed recovery and care facilities differ from sober -living homes in that the former provide supervision, care and treatment and, per state law, must have no more than six residents. City staff must treat these kinds of facilities as single-family homes. Sober -living homes dolt require care and supervision, and there are no limits on residency. Laguna has 13 state -licensed recovery centers, with two trying to obtain approval, Laguna's Assistant Community Development Director Ann Larson said. Larson said she did not know the specific number of sober -living homes, since the operators don't have to file paperwork with the city or state. http://touch.latimes.com/ 2/10/2016 LA Times - Recovery center worries residents near school Page 2 of 5 "71-9 only time we find out [about,aOS.�i -1 vi Claus L] s when someone calls," Larson to..::hose at the meeting. J211 In a circulated letter, parents claimed that recovery center patients have harassed and stalked young girls, littered streets with cigarette butts and created parking problems. One man said he found a package containing methadone on his doorstep. The comments echoed concerns raised last year about short-term renters, those renting a house or portion of a home for less than 3o days at a time. Complaints were that certain renters were wreaking havoc. Christine Fugate, a mother of two, said Laguna has become "the riviera rehab" and worried about recovery center operators moving into properties once they go on the market, like the house for rent next to her home. "I don't want this to happen and happen," Fugate said, adding that "no one here is against treatment for alcohol or drug addiction." Pillars Recovery operates the Top of the World property, a recovery center, and has another location in Corona del Mar. Staff conducts thorough psychiatric screenings of prospective patients, and once admitted, residents attend group therapy sessions, operators say. "No clients go outside without supervision," Pillars clinician Linda Friedman told the gathering. "I'm a parent like you guys. I'm trying to help people. I don't want pedophiles in here." Parents, and Conlon, said rehabilitation centers should not be located too close to schools. "It's definitely a concern," said the principal, who said no crimes have been linked to the Pillars facility. "If I had my way, I would not want it as close as it is" to the school. Monarch Shores operates a property on Skyline Drive. No representative of the company attended the meeting. One resident asked Friedman if she would accept a registered sex offender into a treatment program if she knew of the person's background. "No, that is not someone I would accept," Friedman said. "If I feel someone can't get the best care, I recommend treatment in another facility," No state law requires operators of licensed treatment facilities to deny services to registered sex offenders, Carol Sloan, California Department of Health Care Services spokeswoman, wrote in an email. http://touch.latimes.com/ 2/10/2016 LA Times - Recovery center worries residents near school Page 3 of 5 Laf-ma police logged calls beginnin, g, i Oct er ,,t�hen Pillars opened the Top of the . . 'I facility, and compared thei�lt��llti period from October 2014 1:11rougn january 2015. Police receivea 20 more Mus from Oct.roug an. 29, 2016, than the earlier period. Abandoned cars, at 12, accounted for the largest year -over - year increase among categories that included trespassing, theft and burglary. "I understand the frustration you have," Laguna Beach police Det. Cornelius Ashton said. "With that, these facilities are operating all over the county. The city is working hard to regulate places and find ways to make you feel safer." Costa Mesa approved a pair of ordinances that requires group and sober -living homes to be at least 650 feet from one another and obtain special city permits. One of those laws has been legally challenged, putting enforcement on hold. David Mansdoerfer, Moorlach's district director, urged residents to write or call explaining their concerns as senators craft bills for future legislative sessions. Ajit Thind, Laguna's deputy city attorney, said the city is "investigating all possible actions" and indicated a willingness to push for greater local control of group homes. Related Content Third Street hill in Laguna Beach to close to traffic starting Jan. 27 Protection group questions coyote trapping policy Satellite tags trace sea lions re-entering the wild as rescuers brace for more strandings Laguna's charm? That's a trademark Laguna Playhouse leader ready to step down 4 Worst fish to eat : hiot,ust.cuii, Never eat these 4 toxic fish that slow fat loss and erode your health http://touch.latimes.com/ 2/10/2016 Rapist heading to St. Paul is latest sex offender to leave MSOP - StarTribune.com Rapist heading to St. Paul, joins ranks of sex offenders being released He's among six offenders freed in the past year, unprecedented for a program that has confined offenders indefinitely. By Chris Serres(http://www.stadribune.com/chris-mmes/10645926/) Star Tribune FEBRUARY a. 2016—10:54VM A twice -convicted rapist with a history of assaults against women is about to be released from the state's secure sex offender treatment program to a halfway house in St. Paul. Oliver Lenell Dority, 50, who sexually assaulted a woman in 1994 after hiding in the back seat of her car at a gas station, is the latest in a growing number of violent offenders who have been approved by state judges for conditional release since the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) cane under intense federal court pressure for failing to adequately move people toward release. In just over a year, six offenders have been conditionally discharged from MSOP —an unprecedented pace for a program with a history of confining rapists and other violent offenders indefinitely, sometimes for decades, with little opportunity for release. The releases reflect a loosening of Minnesota s notoriously rigid and labyrinthine process for determining which MSOP clients are appropriate for release, with state officials and judges showing more willingness to discharge people with violent histories and some risk factors for reoMending. The releases are also arousing far less political controversy than in years past — retlecting a possible easing of attitudes toward offenders, say experts. All of the offenders approved for discharge over the past year are repeat rapists. They includc Rouen Jenu, who sexually assaulted twu women while Ire was a teenager; Benjamin Gissenda rner, who twice raped a St. Paul college student after breaking into her apartment, and Christopher R. Coker, who raped three teenage girls in separate incidents in the early 1990s. The commissioner of Human Services plans to appeal Coker's discharge, saying experts do not believe he is ready for release into the community. Little public outcry But the others have been discharged with little or no public acrimony "Where is the drama? Where is the political hue and cry?" asked a sarcastic Warren Maas, president of the Minnesota chapter of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. "The vicious rhetoric that we've seen in the past against sex offenders has really subsided." To some legal experts, the recent releases are merely evidence that professionals at MSOP are taking seriously their duty to provide treatment and move people through the Program. Last June, U.S. District judge Donovan Frank declared the program unconstitutional after concluding that MSOP was detaining untold numbers of offenders who no longer met the state's criteria for confinement. Though Frank's ruling is under appeal, the state has been under increased legal pressure to demonstrate that it provides offenders actual treatment and a clear path toward release. Currently, the MSOP holds about 720 rapists, child molesters and other offenders, who have already completed their prison teens, at secure treatment centers in Moose Lake and St. Peter. 'Notable improvement Like many at MSOP, Dority has a long list of criminal offenses. in 1995, he was convicted of raping two women within three weeks of each other. Page 1 of 2 (http://s"edia staariWne wm/imageslows_1455075227! Dority http://www.startribune.comlrapist-heading-to-st-paul-joins-ranks-of-sex-offenders-being-r... 2/10/2016 Rapist heading to St. Paul is latest sex offender to leave MSOP - StarTribune.com Page 2 of 2 He served consecutive prison terms of 8l months and 84 months for these offenses. He also has convictions for a number of nonsexual offenses, including assault, violation of an order for protection, robbery, fleeing the police and domestic assault, according to court papers. Yet Dority has shown "notable treatment gains" since he was committed to MSOP in August 2009, according to a judicial panel reviewing his case. He requested more time in group therapy and was an active participant. He was moved to the final phase of treatment, where he participated in support groups and volunteered in the community with a staff member present, court papers said. In a recent assessment, Dority was determined to have a "moderate -low risk" for reoffending sexually. The risk factors identified in the evaluation included "hostility toward women" and "general social rejection," among others. "Capacity for relationship stability will remain a risk factor until [Dority] lives in the community with a healthy partner for at least two years," the assessment said. Public meeting in St. Paul Even so, a three-judge panel concluded that Dority's treatment needs "could be met through community-based sex offender treatment, support groups and supplemental individual therapy," according to a January ruling approving his provisional discharge Dority is expected to be released within days to a 38 -bed halfway house in the 500 block of Ashland Avenue in SL Paul, where he will live under heavy surveillance. This includes GPS monitoring, face-to-face visits and surveillance by 24-hour staff. Any violations could result in his return to MSOP. The St. Paul Police Department is holding a public meeting at 6 p.m. Wednesday at the Lutheran Church of the Redeemer, 285 N. Dale St., to notify neighbors. Twitter..@chrisserres chds.sems@sfartdbumcom 6126734308 dids"nes http://www.startribune.comlrapist-heading-to-st-pain joins -ranks -of -sex -offenders -being -r... 2/10/2016 Department Approval: Name: Title: Item Description: DISCUSSION: ORONO POLICE DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: November 14, 2016 Item No: 7 Administrator Reviewed Correy Farniok Police Chief Authorization to Purchase 2017 Squad Cars Agenda Section: Public Safety Report The Police Department has budgeted for the replacement of four vehicles in 2017 and is requesting to replace these vehicles in the next several months. The Police Department is requesting to order four 2017 Ford Police Interceptor Utility vehicles. The order for these vehicles would need to be placed prior to the March 2017 cutoff, because placing an order prior to the deadline allows the department to build the police vehicle with options specifically needed by the police department and guarantees contract pricing. Vehicles purchased after March 2017 are limited to stock on hand by individual dealerships; specific options and colors may be difficult to get and pricing is subject to change by the dealership. We would like to place the order in early January and expect delivery in April/May. The lowest bid for the Ford Police Interceptor Utility AWD is $27,798.00 plus tax, registration and other miscellaneous fees each. Once the vehicle order is placed, delivery is 8-12 weeks. Set-up of these vehicles (lights, emergency equipment, etc.) can be from 3-4 weeks depending on availability of equipment and the vendor. These purchases would replace three 2014 Ford Police Interceptor Utility vehicles (#233, #236 and #237) and a 2012 Ford Escape. Ford Interceptor #233 currently has 81,151 miles and 6,598 idle hours, #236 currently has 74,705 miles and 7,636 idle hours, #237 currently has 77,234 miles and 6,800 idle hours, and the 2012 Ford Escape #231 currently has 102,153 miles. These vehicles are projected to have 95,000 to 100,000+ miles in May/June for three of the vehicles and August/September for the last vehicle, plus several thousand idle hours, when delivery and set up is expected to be completed. All of these vehicles are currently being used and will continue to be used until they are to be replaced. Nelson Auto Center in Fergus Falls has been awarded the MN State Contract #83065 for Ford police vehicles and has been used in the past for ordering and purchasing of Ford police vehicles. Morrie's Ford in Buffalo, Waconia Ford and Morrie's Minnetonka Ford were also contacted for a quote for a 2017 Ford Police Interceptor Utility Vehicle All Wheel Drive. Waconia Ford returned a bid that was $28 less than Nelson Auto Center. Waconia Ford bid also includes pickup and delivery of vehicles needing service. Minnetrista Police Department and West Hennepin Department of Public Safety have used Waconia Ford for the purchase of their Ford police vehicles. Morrie's Ford in Buffalo and Morrie's Minnetonka Ford did not return a bid. The three Ford Police Interceptor Utility vehicles and Ford Escape will be sent to the auto auction once taken out of service and emergency equipment has been removed. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to approve the purchase of four 2017 Ford Police Interceptor Utility vehicles for $27,798.00 plus tax, registration and other miscellaneous fees from Waconia Ford in Waconia. Customer. Nelson Auto Center Attn.:(Name,Title) Fleet Department Dept: PO Box 338 Address: Fergus Falls, MN 56538-0338 Sue Kugler Phone: 218-998-8864 Phone: skugler@nelsonfleet.com Fax: 218-998-8813 Fax: - email MN Contract 83065 Line 2 Marked Utility Vehicle 1 Ford Police Interceptor Utility Vehicle All Wheel Drive 2017 1 K8A License Plate brakdet - front (Std. for MN) Auxiliary rear Air conditioning Cloth rear seat, instead of standard vinyl rear seat Power passenger seat NEW in 2016 Rear view camera display in mirror, vs. in std. 4" diagonal screen on dash cannot be modified once vehicle is built; must specify at time of order SYNC Voice Activated Communication System Engine block heater Delete carpet floor covering; std.fuil rubber floor instead LH spotlamp halogen bulb LH spotlamp WLED bulb LH spotlamp w/Whelen LED bulb recommended Dual spotlamps w/halogen bulbs Dual spotlamps w/LED bulbs Dual spotlamps w/Whelen LED bulbs Radio Noise Suppression bonding straps keyed alike (like Crown Vic) 1284X keyed alike (like Crown Vic) 1294X keyed alike (like Crown Vic) 0135X keyed alike (like Crown Vic) 1435X keyed alike (like Crown Vic) 0576X keyed alike (like Crown Vic) 0151X keyed alike (new code 2013 on) 1111X Remote keyless entry keyfob (w/o keypad; N/A w/keyed alike) Global Unlock; unllock liftgate w/door panel switch vs. overhead strongly recommended Lock plunger for doors, hidden strongly recommended Lock plunger for doors, hidden, and rear door handles inoperable strongly recommended Pre wiring for grille lamp, siren & speaker (required w/1 8X siren or 21 L front aux lights) 100 Watt siren/speaker includes bracket & pigtail Dome light, rear, in cargo area Red/White recommended Daytime running lamps Automatic Headlamps Disable switch, to cancel automatic headlamps or daytime running lamps Auxiliary Red/Blue LEDs in front bumper fascia (requires #60A) recommended Forward pocket warning Red/Blue LEDs - Warn/Park/Tum (requires #60A) Windshield interior Red/Blue LED "Visor" Lights NEW for 2017 Wheel covers 18" full face Aluminum Wheels, 18" painted Police Interior Upgrade (cloth rear seat, carpet front/rear w/4 mats, console) Delete Police Interceptor Badge (for unmarked car or non -police dept.) Roof Rack side rails, black Delete std. front console plate (no charge/no credit) Lockable gas cap for Easy Fuel capless fuel filler BLIS Blind spot monitoring, cross traffic alert; Heated Mirrors (req. 53M $258) Heated outisde mirrors w/o Blind Spot Monitoiring LED Marker lightrs in left &right sideview mirrors (requires #60A) Side marker lights in rear quarter glass Four switches on steering wheel (w/o SYNC, 53M) Four switches on steering wheel (w/SYNC, 53M) My Speed Fleet Managemnet Speed Limited Calibration w/EcoBoost V6 131 mph top speed - standard with EcoBoost EcoBoost 3.5 L V6 engine 131 mph top speed (non E85) Police engine secure idle feature NEW for 2017 Garnet Red Clearcoat for MN State Patrol Bright Red for Fire Dept. vehicle Two tone with vinyl on roof and 4 doors Two tone with vinyl on roof and 2 front doors Two tone with vinyl on roof only Two tone with vinyl on 2 front doors only Vinyl Word "POLICE" wrap on both sides for 2 tone effect Vinyl Word "POLICE" wrap reflective Black Vinyl Vinyl Word "POLICE" wrap reflective White Vinyl Vinyl Word "SHERIFF" wrap White Vinyl Scuff Guards clear film on front of rear doors; protection from duty belt Additional owners manual Service/Driveability/Emissions/Electr cal Manuals (late avail.) Parts Manuals (late avail.) Technical Service Bulletins (annual subscription) Extended Warranty, Ford Extended Service Plan $1500 to $5500; will quote Page 1 subtotal 153 17A 88F FW 87P 87R 53M 41H 16C 51Y 51R 51T 51Z 51S 51V 60R 59B 59C 59D 59E 59F 59G 591 595 18D 52H 52P 60A 18X 17T 942 86L 43L 21L 21W 96W 65L 64E 65U 16D 68Z 85D 19L 55B 549 63B 63L 61R 61S 43S 99T 47A 58M00 W4650 91A _ 91C 91H - 911 91D - 91E 91F 91G _ 55D OMANUAL SMANUAL PMANUAL TSB ESP $25,562.95 $25,562.95 $0.00 $569.00 $57.00 $284.00 $0.00 $276.00 $84.00 ($117.00) $200.00 $369.00 $392.00 $327.00 $579.00 $620.00 $93.00 $48.00 $48.00 $48.00 $48.00 $48.00 $48.00 $48.00 $243.00 $0.00 $130.00 $150.00 $48.00 $280.00 $48.00 $42.00 $106.00 $19.00 $514.00 $596.00 $1,039.00 $57.00 $443.00 $364.00 $0.00 $145.00 $0.00 $19.00 $508.00 $57.00 $271.00 $536.00 $145.00 $145.00 $57.00 $3,073.00 $243.00 $994.00 $939.00 $783.00 $653.00 $457.00 $284.00 $742.00 $742.00 $742.00 $742.00 $84.00 $90.00 $498.00 $495.00 $1,395.00 $25,562.95 K8A 17A SK.123 09/15/2016 Customer: Attn.:(Name,Titie) Dept: Address: Phone: Fax: email MN Contract 83065 Nelson Auto Center Fleet Department PO Box 338 Fergus Falls, MN 56538-0338 Sue Kugler Phone: 218-998.8864 skugler@nelsonfleet.com Fax: 218-998.8813 Page 1 subtotal Additonal Factory options: rear console plate recommended Cargo storage vault (NOT available with rear AC) Underbody Deflector plate recommended Ballistic door panels Level III, driver door only Ballistic door panels Level III, both front doors Ballistic door panels Level IV, driver door only Ballistic door panels Level IV, both front doors Rear window switches inoperative Rear locks operable, but rear door handles inoperable Delete rear door locks & handles inoperable (allows them to work) Courtesy lamps disabled when door opened (Dark car feature) recommended Perimeter anti theft alarm (activated by hood, door, decklid) [req. 595 keyless entry] Reverse sensing Row 2 glass Light Solar tint, instead of std. deep tint Row 2 & cargo glass Light Solar tint, instead of std. deep tint Ultimate wiring package Police Wire Connector Kit Front Police Wire Connector Kit Rear Pre -Drilled holes only for LEDs in headlamp housings recommended Pre -Drilled holes only for LEDs in taillamp housings NEW for 2016 Two front integrated LED lights in headlamps Two rear integrated white LED lights in tail lamps (see options for red/blue) Four flashing LEDs: 2 in back window & 2 liftgate bottom recommended Pkg. #24 Whalen PCCBR controller, relay center, wiring, rear plate Ready for the Road; Whelan Cencom controller, relay center, wiring Option to delete driver side halogen spotlamp 51Y Option to delete engine block heater 41 H Dealer Installed items Dealer reprogramming per item (daytime running lamps, dark car feature, etc.) Dealer re -key 4 locks (ignition, 2 doors, liftgate) to specific key code Dealer silence chime tone for key in ignition Dealer installed keypad keyless entry (must have #595 remote entry) Dealer installled keyless entry, remote start, 1 fob w/o feedback Dealer installed remote start and keyless entry, 1 fob w/feedback Dealer installed power lock button in rear, accessible with liftgate open Dealer installed 2" receiver hitch w/4 wire flat plug-in (add $100 for 7 blade RV plug) Dealer installed running boards, black Roof Rack cross bars, dealer installed Ford molded mudflaps dealer installed Rubber slush mats, front pair Dealer installed Surveillance Mode Module (requires 76R reverse sensing) Dealer installed vinyl wrap on 4 doors for two tone Dealer installed vinyl wrap on 4 upper door frames around windows Dealer installed vinyl wrap on 4 doors & roof for two tone Dealer installed vinyl wrap on 2 doors & roof for two tone Dealer installed vinyl wrap on hood and roof for two tone Dealer installed vinyl word wrap, White or Black, POLICE or SHERIFF Dealer installed Reflective vinyl word wrap, White or Black, POLICE or SHERIFF Push Bumper, Setina PB 400VS, installed Push Bumper, Seting PB 450L2VS w/2 red/blue lights, installed Push Bumper, Setina PB 450L4VS w/4 red/blue lights, installed Fender Protector, Setina PB8-VS Rear Window barriers Setina steel Rear Window barriers Setina Polycarbonate Setina 10 -VS sliding partition w/o recesssed gun panel w/lower extensions Selina 110-VSRP sliding partition w/recesssed gun panel w/lower extensions Setina 10XL partition uncoated, w/recessed panel and seat extensions Selina 12-PolyC rear cargo partition, polycarbonate scratch resistant Setina 12 EXP rear vinyl coated expanded metal partition Selina single vertical gun mount Universal lock, handcuff key, unwired Setina dual vertical gun mount/lock shotgun/AR-15, handcuff keys, unwired Toggle switch to disable brake lights and backup lights Red/Blue LEDs in taillamps only Red/Blue LEDs in taillamps & grille (not available with EcoBoost V6) Red/Blue LEDs in taillamps & Headlights (requires 86P pre -drilled holes $110.00) Headlamp flasher system, flashes 2016 halogen High Beams Alarm system: Horn/lights upon door/hatch violation, w/2 remotes Extra key (w/o microchip, simple "dumb" key) each Extra remote entry keyfob (limit of 4 total per vehicle on dealer installed) each Transit Improvement Vehicle Excise Tax on any delivery within any Transit Tax county including at our dealership; only marked emergency vehicles are exempt Option to pick up car in Fergus Falls, MN Total pages 1 and 2 Line 2 Marked Utility Vehicle $25,562.95 85R $32.00 REKEY 63V $228.00 $130.00 76D $312.00 KLES 90D $1,479.00 $509.00 90E $2,957.00 HITCH4 90F $2,251.00 _ 9013 $4,503.00 FLAPS 18W $23.00 $117.00 -68G, +68L $0.00 WRAP4 -68G ($32.00) $190.00 43D $19.00 WRAP2R 593 $113.00 $525.00 76R $256.00 REFWORD 92R $80.00 $679.00 92G $113.00 PB454 67U $514.00 $545.00 47C $97.00 WBVSP 21P $121.00 $990.00 86P $117.00 CAGEXL 86T $57.00 $808.00 66A $794.00 1GUN 66B $396.00 $536.00 66C $425.00 TAILRB 67G $1,249.00 $883.00 67H $3,184.00 HFLASH 51Y ($200.00) $310.00 41H ($84.00) REMOTE RPRGRM $85.00 REKEY $330.00 NOCHIME $130.00 KPAD $195.00 KLES $408.00 RSTRT $509.00 RLOCK $192.00 HITCH4 $525.00 RBDS $710.00 RACKCB $257.00 FLAPS $198.00 SMATS $117.00 SURVEIL $696.00 WRAP4 $400.00 WRAPF $190.00 WRAP4R $695.00 WRAP2R $550.00 WRAPTOP $525.00 WORD $695.00 REFWORD $695.00 PB400 $679.00 PB452 $1,037.00 PB454 $1,198.00 PB8 $545.00 WBVSS $382.00 WBVSP $398.00 CAGE $990.00 CAGER $1,099.00 CAGEXL $1,076.00 RCAGE $808.00 RCGEM $773.00 1GUN $436.00 2GUN $536.00 CANCEL $397.00 TAILRB $397.00 GRILTAIL $883.00 4CRNRRB $883.00 HFLASH $397.00 ALARM $310.00 KEY $12.00 REMOTE $147.00 TIVET $20.00 ($45.00) $25,662.95 K8A 17A SK.123 09/15/2016 CNGP530 VEHICLE ORDER CONFIRMATION 11/03/16 13:35:48 Dealer: F58648 2017 EXPLORER 4 -DOOR Page: 1 of 2 Order No: 1111 Priority: M3 Ord FIN: QC453 Order Type: 5B Price Level: 745 Ord Code: 500A Cust/Flt Name: XXX PO Number: RETAIL RETAIL K8A 4DR AWD POLICE $31510 66C REAR LIGHT PKG $455 fmcdealr@DESKTOP-6JRI2K7 `9� 0? 77`71q, T 14 a, si �iceoise 6 r �-ees R 7'1� Affe /,lir u�eg a- /, " Nov 3, 2016 12:35:59 PM .112.6" WB 76D DEFLECTOR PLATE 335 G1 SHADOW BLACK 76R REVERSE SENSING 275 9 ..CLTH BKTS/VNL R W EBONY BLACK 500A EQUIP GRP 85R RR MOUNT PLATE 35 .PREM SINGLE CD _ 87R RR VIEW MIR/CAM NC 99R .3.7L V6 TIVCT NC DEST AND DELIV 945 44C .6 -SPD AUTO TRAN NC TOTAL BASE AND OPTIONS 34315 52P DR LOCK PLUNGER 160 TOTAL 34315 17T CARGO DOME LAMP 50 43D COURTESY DISABL 20 _ 51T SPT LAMP DR LED 420 549 PWR MIRR HTD 60 59C KEY CODE C 50 e/�rr fmcdealr@DESKTOP-6JRI2K7 `9� 0? 77`71q, T 14 a, si �iceoise 6 r �-ees R 7'1� Affe /,lir u�eg a- /, " Nov 3, 2016 12:35:59 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: November 14a`, 2016 ITEM NO: 8 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Adam Edwards Public Works Director/ Title Public Works Director/City Engineer City Engineer's Report Item Description: Baldur Park Road Pay Request #3- Final List of Exhibits A- Pay Request B- Drainage Work Invoice 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain Council approval of a design option for the Baldur Park Reconstruction Project. 2. Background. Baldur Park Road is a 1,000 ft. long bituminous low volume residential road. In July 2015 the Council awarded road project to GMH. 3. Cost. The construction cost brake down for the nroiect is in the table below Who Work Approved Cost This Pay Total to Request Date Bolton &Menk, Inc Design and Bid Engineering $ 23,850 $ 23,850 GMH Road Construction $ 143,523 $ 127,060 Pride Construction Drainage $ 14,980 $ 14,980 AET, Inc Geotechnical Engineering $ 3,300 $ 3,300 Bolton &Meek, Inc I Construction Oversight $ 14,750 $ 14,750 TOTAL $185,423 $ 180,640 4. Funding. The project is funded with a combination of the funding sources below: Pavement Management Fund, FEMA Funding and the Storm Water Fund. Funds for these pay requests will come from the following: Fund Total Est. End of Year Fund Balance Pavement Management Fund $ 98,028 $ 332,896 FEMA $ 59,223 --------- Storm Water Fund $ 23,389 $ 1,413,358 Total $180,640 5. Status. GMH completed the majority of the road work in the 2015 construction season. GMH completed punch list items for the road construction and requests the balance of the retainage be paid in the amount of $1,443.85 in 2016. Pride Construction completed drainage work in 2016 for $14,597. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve Pay Request No. 3 to GMH in the amount of $ $1,443.85 and Pride Construction $14,980.00 for the Baldur Park Road Rehabilitation project. BOLTON 3 & MENK Real People. Real Solutions. November 8, 2016 City of Orono Attn: Adam Edwards 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 RE: Baldur Park Road Improvements Project No.: 109535 Dear Adam: 2638 Shadow Lane Suite 200 Chaska, MN 55318-1172 Ph: 19521448-8838 Fax: 19521448-8805 Bolton-Menk.com Enclosed is Pay Request No. 3 —Final for the Baldur Park Road Improvement Project. We have reviewed the work, verified the quantities, and recommend payment to Bituminous Roadways in the amount of $1,443.85. Please let me know if you have questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Bolton & Menk, Inc. -1).4 ? Iii David P. Martini, P.E. Principal Engineer H:\0RM0\C13109535\1_ComoS\C_Tu Others\Pay Request No. 3 - RmLdoc 801to, 11 Menk a or. egijO opparla idy amplog CONTRACTOR'S PAY REQUEST NO. 3-FINAL BALDUR PARIS ROAD IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF ORONO Bill PROJECT NO. C13.109535 TOTAL AMOUNT BID PLUS APPROVED EXTRA WORK _......... ...... ................................................. TOTAL, COMPLETED WORK TO DATE..a............................................................................................. 3 TOTAL, STORED MATERIALS TO DATE............. ............. ....................... _........................................ .... $ DEDUCTION FOR STORED MATERIALS USED IN WORK COMPLETED.......................................... TOTAL. COMPLETED WORK & STORED MATERIALS ........................................................................ $ RETAINED PERCENTAGE ( 0%) ................................ _................ ....................................,... $ TOTAL AMOUNT OF OTHER DEDUCTIONS................................................................................ S NET AMOUNT DUE TO CONTRACTOR TO DATE............................................................................... $ TOTAL AMOUNT PAID ON PREVIOUS ESTIMATES..................................................................... $ PAY CONTRACTOR AS ESTIMATE NO. 3- FINAL......................................................... $ Certificate for Final Payment I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, all items quantities and prises of work and material strewn on Oris Estimate are correct and that all work has been performed in full accordance with the berms and conditions of the Contract for this proJeet between tis Owner and it* undersigned Contractor. and as amended by ary authorized changes, and that the foregoing is a true and correct sta e"IMA of the amount fortha Final Estimate, # atthe provisions of M. S. 290.92 have been complied Wkh and that all claims against me by ressom of the Contract have been paid or satisfactorily secured. Contracter: GMH ASPHALT 9160 LAKETOWN RD CIAA563 By V Nam Title Date $143,523.00 177,080.24 127,080.24 125.616.39 1,449.85 CHECKED AND APPROVED AS TO QUANTITIES AND AMOUNT: BOLTON & MENK, INC..,�ENGINEERS, 2638 SHADOW LN, SUITE 200, CHASM MN 55.918 By ? N r , CONSULTANT CITY ENGINEER DAVID P. MARTINI, P.E. Date APPROVED FOR PAYMENT: Owner. CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA Itamoe w O Zi L 0 S Page 1 of 1 MINNESOTA- REVENUE Contractor Affidavit Submitted Thank you, your Contractor Affidavit has been approved Confirmation Summary Confirmation Number: 0-756-163-520 Submitted Date and Time: 11 -Jan -2016 1:24:45 PM Legal Name: G M H ASPHALT CORP Federal Employer ID: 41-1662485 User Who Submitted: gmhasphelt Type of Request Submitted: Contractor Affidavit Affidavit Summary Affidavit Number: 53569296 Minnesota ID: 2837091 Project Owner. CITY OF ORONO Project Number. C13.109535 Project Begin Date: 01 -Sep -2016 Project End Date: 15 -Oct -2015 Project Location: ORONO Project Amount: $126,885.24 Subcontractor Summary Name ID Affidavit Number G F JEDLICKF INC 7579212 680099328 WARNING LITES OF MINNESOTA INC 3086922 218578944 ALVERO LLC 3051898 1586346032 ASSURED ASPHALT CORP 1720800 1420509184 AEG PROCESSING CTR No 56 INC 6619984 1371488256 MIB STATE RECLAMATION INC 1719563 1752514560 SHAWN GRAVES 2481444 1534771200 Important Messages A copy of this page must be provided to the contractor or government agency that hired you. Contact Us If you need further assistance, confect our Withholding Tax Division at 851-262-9999, (toll -tree) 800-657-3594, or (email) withholdtng.tax@state.mn.us. Business hours are 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Monday - Friday. Please print this page for your records using the print or save functionality built into your browser. https:llwww.mndor. state.mn.usttpleservicesl lRetrievel0lb-I 1 td5 GaOgrnPiwsGQt4MzStQ... 1/11/2016 MINNESOTA- REVENUE Contractor Affidavit Submitted Thank you, your Contractor Affidavit has been approved - Confirmation Summary Confirmation Number Submitted Date and Time: Legal Name: Federal Employer i0: User Who Submitted: Type of Request Submitted: Affidavit Summary AfBdevit Number: Minnesota ID: Project Owner: Project Numbar. Project Begin Date: Project End Date: Project Location: Projard Amount: Subcontractors: 0-892-430400 11 -Jan -2016 12:45:11 PM G F JEDLICKI INC 20-2149869 GFJedlidd Contractor Affidavit 680099928 7578212 CITY OF ORONO 013.109535 01 -SOP -2015 15 -Oct -2015 ORONO $17.724-00 No Subcontractors https:/Iwww.Tnndor.suft.mn.us/tp/eservices/ /Retrievel01b-/rX4dr1 Y... Important Messages A copy of this page must be provided to Bre contractor orgovemment agency that hired you. Contact Us If you need further assistance. oontact our YYthhokting Tax Division at 651-282-9M, (toil -free) $00-657-3584, or (emall) wflhhotding.tax@stsle.mn.us. Business hours are 5:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Monday - Friday. Pisses print thts pag for your records using the print or save functionality built into your browser. 1 Of 1 11111201612:45 PM NN e-ScTvtces Contractor Affidavit Completed Ttwnit ycu your ContiWot McWvn hes been approved Confirmation Summary CONimepon Number 1-78"79.040 SubliftY ed Date end rune: WWWIG 1}2&56 AM Legal Name- LINING UTES OF MINNESOTA INC Federal Employer 0 86-4752529 User Vft Submilserl warningdghts TWO ofRequestSubmitted. ConlrWorAffdawn AfNdovit Summary Affidavit Number: 216678944 Mimeads ID. $485622 Project Owns. CITY OF ORONO Pro)eet Nranber: C%10036 ftw Begin Dale: 014Btq M5 PrOJM End Dubs, 154D* -2D15 Project Loca6en BALOUR PARK ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Projed Amount. $1.000.0 $Amntrpows: No SDmmrlsadora Important A%waages A Dopy of this Page must be prowlded to the contractor or government ageriq that hired you. Contact Us It you need 4rriher+weistwm canted our WiAlhotling Tax Diviston al 651-2112-=% (w free) scW7�M94. or (emd] withhoidtt 1weslate.mn us Buehress hatrre are 9:00 e.m -4:30 P.m. Monday - Friday Now to vlow and Print this Request YOU can we copies of your requests plr gdng tc the Kis M Tab, or by Gil*Ing the Aryl below. To print or smell a copy of this con irrnalbn page. dick me of the k tons bduw. 1wui4klmr rrnd:y �a,;EMe Conlect lis About Us Taxpayer Rights Other Language Fr0.•acy 6 Security Use of Information Link Pohcy Minnesotagov FraUdAlErl Suehelp RelaledSnes Cateers https://www.rnndor.state.mn.us/tp/eser%tices/—/ Page 1 of 1 1/512416 115120/6 httpsJhvww.mndor.stale.mtLMAPreSWMCWJRelriev%%t-/FP69c 90 PLACFZiZAFAUw ?FILE- =Pdn 2 MINNESOTA. REVENlJE Contractor Affidavit Submitted Thank you, your Conlraclor Affidavit has been approved. Confirmation Summary Confirmation Number. Submitted Date and Time: Legal Name: Federal Employer ID: User Mo Submitted: Type of Request Submitted: Affidavit Summary Affidavit Number. Minnesota ID: Project owner Project Number: Project Begin Date: Project End Dale: Project Location: Project Amount Subcontractors: 0-291-981-376 5 -Jan -2016 10:23:43 AM ALVERO LLC 46-25524al alvero Contractor Affidavit 1586348032 3051898 C ITY OF ORONO BALDUR PARK ROAD 01 -Sep -2015 10 -Nov -2015 ORONO, HENNEPIN COUNTY $150.00 No Subcontractors Important Messages A copy of this page must be provided to the contractor or government agency that hired you. Contact Us Nyou need iurther assistance, contact our Withholding Tax Division at 651-282-9999, (toll-free) 800-657-3594, or (emall) wlthhoIdIng1ax@sla1e.mn.us. Business hours are 81)0 a.m.-4:30 pm. Monday- Friday. Please Dilint1his Done for your records using the print or save functionality built into your browser. tMpslMrw+rr.mndor.state.mr►usApreseMc.es/ 1Retrieve/Ot-iFF69C 9oLPLACl71ZAFAUw 7F1LE=Print2 1m 7bsrdr you, your Comtrar wAtidavithas been approved. Confirmation Summary CoMmatlen Number. Submitted Doha and Time: Legal Mame; Federal EaWloyerIM UserwhoSul, Wo : Type of Request Submitted: Affidavit Summary AAidavik Number. Mhaneedta ID: Prof r Owner: Pmject Number ProjM Begin Date: Project End Oats: Pmjaot Looa6mr: MtRwt Amount: SubOd'*wboim7 Impotftant Messages 1.664-167,248 &32n-2016 7.38:16 AM ASSURED ASPHALT CORP 41-9702174 mldnfghtlti1 Contreaw ABidavtt t164 1720600 MY OF ORONO 073.169655 014WP-2016 18-Sep2018 ORONO $1.134.00 No Subowitracbmt Complete A copy of this page not be pm wkied to the dontreclor or govemmarrt agency that Wred you. Contact Us If you Mead fUrOw assisWnme, m- our Withholding Tax DMulm at 661 262 M, pdF*W) 601).72Sg4, or (emal4) wkhhW1lin9. .mni+e. 8"*8ee haum are 81M am. - 4" P.m. Monday - Friday. Now to View and Print this Request YOU Can sae 0001is d4 yes rMquesha by going tD the Hlatoey Tab, or by afthp the lhdc below. To Print or email a copy of his cdnfrnmaimn page, diol one orth8 buttons below. T Printer Fdm* ' Forex Me _ Cfow _._ .. . _i Contractor Affidavit SubmWed rnw*yam+, fir GrkU�adOrARld�lR nes seen approved, Confinnmidon Sumgmq OWAM OM NWWW, amballad pace and iIW. Law Nares Federal Lw*w Im Um Vft subri md! Tw e d !Moser Subrl*W', Asf davk Sun mary Allidav# Urmber. mirsom0. P"d Number: PmJW s"ln pa%K pmjmd End 4ale: Rroecx Lewd= PP"WAmourC suboormadbow. 1A�B 04Wr $ 11.42A AM AEG PFiOMSING M NO ea INC 8145843= AEGUMn OmftebrAffldffa 13" WN" OW OF ORONO Crows oa4ep-2015 16-oe MIS ORONO $%=.Do Ne sbCGnIm*m Impoftwit I Sas A cupy dthl6 pop moat b# apane y "W hired you, cul"d us If you need iu hw a66WWwk om iM aur Widlhol *Q Tea OWelon at 86444.90 .0014me) $OM7.40W, ur (wg" wwgxftlmg� ,emit WWri ss horns an IkOO q.m, -A,90 p.m. Monday - FWq. PlaaSgPAO% g)JA AM ibr your Minds uelnp P* pint or am tundWaltF bM IMc your brwAm, huw:Y/w wjmdax.stalte.mn.0 escrvicW/R,etrievelft-/jF7x87AbWOZgNdOh9yhmQ—... 1/0016 Page 1 of I MINNESOTA- REVENUE Contractor Affidavit Submitted Thank you, your Contractor Affidavit has been approved. ConRrmation Summary Confinnatlon Number, Submitted Date and rune: Legal Name: Federal Employer 10: User Who Submitted: Type of Request Submitted: Affidavit Summary Affidavit Slumber: Minnesota ID: Project owner. Project Number. Project Begin Date: Project End Date; Project Location, Project Amount: Subcontractors: 1417234-496 5 -Jen -201 B 10:4123 AM MID STATE RECLAMATION INC 39-1727526 brendepetsch Contractor Afidavit 1752514560 1719663 CITY OF ORONO 019.109536 01 -SOP -2015 15 -Oct -2015 ORONO $3,087.00 No Subcontractors ImPortant Messages A copy of this page must be provided to the contractor or government agency that hired you. Contact Us If you need further assistance, cmftOt our Witflholding Tax Division at 651282-9989, (SII -free) 80M57-3594, or (emall) wlthholding.tax@stMe.mn.us. Business hours are B.00 a.m. - 4:30 p,m. Monday - Friday. Please print this us oe for your records using the print or sane functionality built into your browser. httDs://www.mndor.qtate.mniiq/tn/t-qe.rvie-,Pet 1k10 —L—rA1,.n I IC111M C MN *,Owwoe9 Contractor Affidavit Submitted �#.-- - --- - - -- - _ Eoter Izttaa wO Review =Cl tAd MR Thank you,yourCorrtumr Aadarkhes been appmved CoMlrrnation Summary Contlmatmn Number. 1-269415%W S ubuNksd Data and Tlms: 7-Isn+2m8 6:3M PM LegNJtame: SHAVM ORAMM SodalSewdlyNumber User Vft Submked: sgmwes0l TypeofRequeatSubmad- Coni n In AlEdavlt Affidavit Summary Afl bvk Number. 1694711200 Mbptesau ID: 2481444 PMPOOener. CITY OF ONOW PrOjed Namber: C13.109535 Projn l Begin Dam: 014OP- 015 Ploj d&d Data: 154002015 ProjectLocalm OKCNO ProjeotMtount $1.70840 Suboorttrac1otp: No 6ubr oatradcm Important Massages A copy cfthle page muthe proMad to the ooetradororgovemmentagwa Ihethked you. Contact us Myou need ftrMrasslabm. conlad ow Mhhording Tax Division a1961.2824WO, polWWw) 60"M35%, or (wndo udihhcldlrtgJax*alsmurn,us. Business hours are 8:00 sen. -4= Pm Monday • Friday, Now to View and Print this Request You can see coMes otyoferaqussm by gohtA la Bre Hlsmuy Teb.or by 9Wdng the Ink below. To Print or ear0 a copy of tNe eonrmratlen page, tlltd� one of Ire lluegne below. PdnrarFdandry Erns 11 Me I [:sues # CwaetUs AbrmtUx UO".-Wght OlherLonguaga P6vacyBS uflty UsaarinfounaWn UnkPuficy. MInnesols4ov Fraud Mort V* Help RafskKf 8lkra Carew IP hn whN mndorsW&anr>.uWWeserviQW M3 1H BOLTON +� & MENK Real People. Real Solutions. October 25, 2016 City of Orono Attn: Adam Edwards 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 RE: Balder Park Road Improvements Project No.: 109535 Dear Adam: 2638 Shadow Lane Suite 200 Chaska, MN 55318-1172 Ph: 19521448-8838 Fax: 19521448-8805 Bolton-Menk.corn Enclosed is an invoice for drainage work that was completed on Baldur Park Road. The work was necessary to improve drainage in a driveway. The cost of the improvements fits within the original contract amount for the project. We have reviewed the work, verified the quantities, and recommend payment to Pride Construction in the amount of $14,980. Please let me know if you have questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Bolton & Menk, Inc. David P. Martini, P.E. Principal Engineer 14:\0RN0\C13109535\1 COrres\C To Others\Drainage lnvoiee.dom Hoaan 8 i. enit r% an cgoai opporitoM iy e..niPL0F•e'. Pride Construction & Excavating, Inc. 9480 West Hill Road Watertown, MN 55388 Phone: 952-446-9804 Fax: 952-446-8882 Customer Bolten & Menk Name Attn: Art Taylor Address 2638 Shadow Ln * 5 feet of 6 inch pipe. Chaska MN, 55318 Phone 612-756-2048 Fax 952-448-8805 Email arta bole Job Location: Baldur Park Orono Invoice Date: 10/13/2016 Job No: Description Hours Amount Completion of work for trench drain per bid. $11,480.00 Extra's * 5 feet of 6 inch pipe. * Removal and replacing of asphalt. * Topsoil, Grading, Seeding, Sod. Labor and materials. $3,500.00 ,Total Due $ 14,980.00 Note: All invoices due upon receipt. A finance charge of 1.5% per month at 18% per year will be charged on past due accounts over 30 days. -rha nkyou, f&r your vu k!! REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: November 14, 2016 ITEM NO: 9 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Adam Edwards Y"_4 Public Works Director/ Title Public Works Director/City Engineer City Engineer's Report Item Description: Brown Road Trail Rehabilitation -Final Pay Request List of Exhibits A. Bolton and Menk Review Letter B. Invoice 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain Council authorization for Pay Request #1 for the rehabilitation of the trail that runs along the west side of Brown Road North. 2. Background. The rehabilitation of the Brown Road trail is part of the City Pavement Management Plan and is listed for 2016 in the Capital Investment Plan (CIP). In December of 2015 the Council approved Bolton and Menk proposal to conduct surveying and engineering for the project. In July the Council awarded the project to Bituminous Roadways and Advanced Wall Structures. 3. Scope of Work. This project rehabilitated the 0.7miles bituminous trail that runs along Brown Road North. Rehabilitation included a combination of patching, replacing, and sealing the pavement. In addition, the retaining wall along that section of the trail was rehabilitated by salvaging existing blocks and correcting/adding geogrid and re -installing the block on portions of two walls leaning into the trail. 4. Cost. Who Work Approved This Pay Total to Date $ 870,000 Total Cost Request Bolton &Menk, Inc Design and Bid $ 5,300 $ 2,539.00 Engineering Bituminous Trail Rehabilitation $ 35,650 $ 28,745.20 $ 28,745.20 Roadways Advanced Wall Retaining Wall $ 14,315 $ 14,315.00 Structures Rehabilitation Bolton &Meek, Inc Construction Oversight $4,500 $ 3,298.50 TOTAL $59,765 $ 28,745.20 $ 48,897.70 5. ndin . The project is funded from the Park Fund. Fund Total Est. End of Year Fund Balance Park Fund $ 48,897.70 $ 870,000 Total $ 48,897.70 7. Status. The retaining wall repairs are complete. Bolton and Menk has reviewed the payment request and confirmed that the work has been completed to standard (Exhibit A&B). COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve Final Pay Request to Bituminous Roadways in the amount of $ 28,745.20 for the Brown Road Trail Rehabilitation. BOLTON & MENK Real People. Real Solutions. October 26, 2016 City of Orono Attn: Adam Edwards 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 RE: Brown Road Trail Maintenance Project No.: 109535 Dear Adam: 2638 Shadow Lane Suite 200 Chaska, MN 55318-1172 Ph. 19521448-8838 Fax: 19521448-8805 Bolton-Menk.com Enclosed is Pay Request No. 1 — Final for the Brown Road Maintenance Project. We have reviewed the work, verified the quantities, and recommend payment to Bituminous Roadways in the amount of $28,745.20. Please let me know if you have questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Bolton & Menk, Inc. -L>--� P 'M David P. Martini, P.E. Principal Engineer N:\0RN0\C13111231\7_Corres\C_To Others\Pay Request No. 1- Final.doac Bolton & Menk is an equal opportunity CONTRACTOR'S PAY REQUEST NO. 1 - FINAL BROWN ROAD TRAIL MAINTENANCE CITY OF ORONO BMI PROJECT NO. C13.111231 TOTAL AMOUNT SID PLUS APPROVED EXTRA WORK....................................................................... $35,BSo.00 TOTAL, COMPLETED WORK TO DATE.................................................................................................... $ 28,745.20 TOTAL, STORED MATERIALS TO DATE.................................................................................................. $ DEDUCTION FOR STORED MATERIALS USED IN WORK COMPLETED ............................................. $ TOTAL, COMPLETED WORK & STORED MATERIALS........................................................................... $ RETAINEDPERCENTAGE ( 0%)......................................................................................... $ TOTAL AMOUNT OF OTHER DEDUCTIONS.................................................................................. $ NET AMOUNT DUE TO CONTRACTOR TO DATE. .................................................................................. $ 28,745.20 TOTAL AMOUNT PAID ON PREVIOUS ESTIMATES......................................................................... $ - PAY CONTRACTOR AS ESTIMATE NO. 1 - FINAL........................................................... $ 28,745.20 Certificate for Final Payment I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, all items quantities and prices of work and material shown on this Estimate are correct and that all work has been performed in full accordance with the terms and conditions of the Contract for this project between the Owner and the undersigned Contractor, and as amended by any authorized changes, and that the foregoing is a true and correct statement of the amount for the Final Estimate, that the provisions of M. S. 280.92 have been complied with and that all claims against me by reason of the Contract have been paid or satisfactorily secured. Contractor: BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS, INC. 1520 COMMERCE DRIVE E A HEIG T , MN 15120 By J IG�rrta eft Name l C }Title// Date =66e r aoll, c t. CHECKED AND APPROVED AS TO QUANTITIES AND AMOUNT: BOLTON & MENK, INC., ENGINEERS, 2638 SHADOW LN, SUITE 200, CHASKA MN 55318 By —D—LQ -P 7Aj, , CONSULTANT CITY ENGINEER DAVID P. MARTINI, P.E. Date 1012812016 APPROVED FOR PAYMENT: Owner: CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA Title Date Q z WL w r LU � .,zv d1 -oz° j Q O U U. Qao o� am�m REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: November 14th, 2016 ITEM NO: 10 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Adam Edwards Y"-4 Public Works Director/ Title Public Works Director/City Engineer City Engineer's Report Item Description: CSAR 112 Trail Extension Option Exhibits: A. Project Area Map. B. Council Minutes Excerpt, September 26", 2016 C. Cost Estimate. D. Comprehensive Trail System Map. E. Excerpt from Hennepin County 2014 Bicycle Transportation Plan. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this item is to get a Council approval for trail extension from Old Long Lake Road to the Luce Line Trail to be included in the CSAH 112 (Wayzata Blvd) Turn Back Phase 2 Proj ect. 2. Summary. Hennepin County intends to improve CSAH 112 from Highway 12 to 6th Avenue as a joint effort with Long Lake and Orono. The overall project is broken into three phases. Currently we are in the final design portion of phase two which includes the stretch of CSAH 112 from Wolf Pointe Trail to the Highway 12 ramps. As part of the preliminary design a trail was planned from the Orono School campus to Old Long Lake Road (Red line on map below). During the Phase two design the City and County are considering an extension of the trail along the north side of CSAH 112 from Long Lake Road to the Luce Line (Blue line on the map below) (Exhibit A&B). The estimated cost of the extension would be $220,000 to be cost shared with Hennepin County. The Orono Cost would be $110,000 (Exhibit Q. 3. Considerations. a. Existing trail connection to the Luce Line Trail. The intent of the trail extension (blue line in image below) is to tie the eastern end of the 112 Trail directly into the Luce Line Trail (purple line in image below). There are two other ways to access the Luce Line within the general vicinity of the extension. One is an existing trail connection along the highway that would require a street crossing (green line in image below) and the other is traveling on the existing roadway of Old Long Lake Road (green dashed line in image below). b. Comprehensive Trail System Plan. The City's comprehensive trail plan envisions future connection throughout the city however the extension is not part of that plan (Exhibit D). The 2040 Hennepin County Bicycle Transportation Plan contemplates the use of Old Long Lake Road as an access for bicycles at the eastern end of the 112 trail (Exhibit E). c. Timing / Cost Sharing. Currently, Hennepin County funding is available for the trail extension at 50% of the cost. In addition if constructed in conjunction with the road construction most of the earth/grading work for the trail would be done as part of the State Turn Back Project expense. Should the City attempt to create this trail in the future, separate from the proposed Hennepin County Turn Back Project, the estimated cost is $400,000-$470,000. d. Tax Forfeit Parcel. The connection to the Luce Line would require an easement over the parcel of land highlighted above in yellow. The parcel is currently tax forfeit. A separate Council item addresses the potential purchase of this property. (see following Agenda Item) 4. Park Commission Recommendation. The Park Commission reviewed the proposed trail extension at their November 7' meeting. The Commission voted 5-1 to recommend approval of the extension and recommended funding '/z the cost from Park Dedication Funds and '/z from the Community Investment Fund. 5. Funding. The Orono portion of the trail extension, $110,000 could be funded from the Park Fund or the Community Investment Fund. 2 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approval to include the trail extension along CSAH 112 from Old Long Lake to the Luce line as part of the Phase 2 of the turn back project. PRELIMINARY WAYZATA BOULEVARD (CSAH 112) PHASE 2 LAYOUT "k Y' . ,�,,;;•� fir_ - >e - 1 _ v i• r J C y q .96 - d LEGEND ` ,. -4 •°' PAVED ROADWAY t rr , e '��," O�v:R'.. \ - ` r' _ - •-'T{. - ♦r' `�. T ! _ RETAINING WALL Q ' Kv'f •` - -,� \\ . _ ) RAISED MEDIANS & CURBS +4', - --,a�" ♦• PAVED SHOULDERS 4 � \.T� h�'1 + '' _ BITUMINOUS TRAILS & BIKEWAYS . f.. ` �� • ) • t w� ,.t� O CONCRETE SIDEWALKS & TRAILS '•�., �- "WF' •' t •+-'�-`� •d FUTURE CONSTRUCTION "BY OTHERS" 0 100 200 l i PROPOSED PONDING LOCATION pl sy-. •' Y. r�'• _ '�,, .. + rt'' ' x:�. r j... L r \ ; i•,' -t,_ - - i ?.. , stole in feet GUARDRAI �r � ; _ �'. �, i • • +y; f \ s.y� I .,7 EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY r '. PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION LIMITS "yy �.''• l.,s '� ••'y r wt- (TOE OF SLOPE) r - - P 1 :� t�'1 •� • •1. �''c� . - Y,,'. - -- t. WETLANDS A�,A •('+ j,• 1~ ' _.•, .+. ,L a, ._ "'� N.\Yral<4eW9WOV215\[AU9[YLLoyouY\9315_lou-Troll Cenva4lan.Upi p4.,�R ,��` _ � � _l,. -'t ., __���.. .555 fF -.• < r PRELIMINARY �• _ •41"; > k :��}: �-� SUBJECT TO CHANGE , 1. 1. , ';�,.. -R.t,•aC�a _ - o' y� �: :'�I``�a; ! j , a.:'A'� ''+ +yam �,_ ��r�. f• 9/22/2016 r _ 1 'YR .yr ry r' SY 1 �__ .Y - `-"!j•,�a R'. ',dt".� I' ,. Consulting Group, Inc. - n. y� I _ ,A, ...,y .. � yr ,�� ►gam t yo '�'.,� � , �� T�,p �• �r ..� �r . � r�'�-' r � f; Q1; d- -"`� K *. :s .2�-•e.?-' - v` •� y3.. ti T '!� r mT ,...t'-ya 1 .,I' 1 'i,'+ l� •1 • c x yy � Y" 3:.. ♦ i 1.IY'V q � �k ', :mss`«.,. � • � - • - l ^ R .. '''~. ''\, '.. 4" .� ,:> �. � .- - : - � +.'`x)71 _ +. �f�} R,_f +• ;� _ r -T' ' ^ .,1� \�� � V4 y � ti i•t .,.�,. \- _ a -•, Il I�t "'!S',+d rte. ^' •:'�'- .� a,, , , .,•. '�„ 0 r "`'ti � +� ,_. _-� '- ;-' � 'acs - - .� .fir .,. r3r,.,"� '+u- '.'�d �j� I ti kr k, _ f w --. ' i \ '. ..\ >. � _ , 1•• > ` ,Y r.` +T �--•q,���,+r �v'•`f ,,• •i � nI�,. r ,► \ ter. 400Y fir' j a ,t/ s\s i♦ syr �� �Y� x -• { - - r Y J• . , } �S\ / fT.s�;._a-.�r.`\. - 1.--�"t•.. r' f •:� •i�R'IIt"'-,,...-. � -�N a., yt. U� J �i` ��. , ,yy �'' ,-. ♦• >j kir :Y _ _ •I 'is+ ' t • ."7"" M^ `Y.• M . ,s• -, j a Gyir f n f _ -.��y . „� x - - �'- � •' !• c .'i,Y( - - � ;•, „�4. - :y s � - ._tg„ � Wit'.-�dt fi IP� _ :� ,. '`, •' Lam,`., ...'tC'; ' r• „ . � : . -:�' �' _ ' ♦ ,4 . '<.# ' , ,f" �S - ' ,r � - l,r,. f �r"• iv !�e; ` a • A d y.. ; $ .. � � . . ! ' , � .k�+ ; ,fit '_ `� ,:' �_� 4 , � � -k' • rrMom r. ot J. ikt ZMN ^PG , ..r • . , :�. � i,y ms's,'-..fi.7t. F „�.P _ - k. ,fk \" _ � �- ��«� `�` t a J "' 121 - �• ,9 ., , .' •+'!�, - � + � -mss +- �•- , ` l / , r , _ $x5 •1 ...ice` kr k, _ f w --. ' i \ '. ..\ >. � _ , 1•• > ` ,Y r.` +T �--•q,���,+r �v'•`f ,,• •i � nI�,. r ,► \ ter. 400Y fir' j a ,t/ s\s i♦ syr �� �Y� x -• { - - r Y J• . , } �S\ / fT.s�;._a-.�r.`\. - 1.--�"t•.. r' f •:� •i�R'IIt"'-,,...-. � -�N a., yt. U� J �i` ��. , ,yy �'' ,-. ♦• >j kir :Y _ _ •I 'is+ ' t • ."7"" M^ `Y.• M . ,s• -, j a Gyir f n f _ -.��y . „� x - - �'- � •' !• c .'i,Y( - - � ;•, „�4. - :y s � - ._tg„ � Wit'.-�dt fi IP� _ :� ,. '`, •' Lam,`., ...'tC'; ' r• „ . � : . -:�' �' _ ' ♦ ,4 . '<.# ' , ,f" �S - ' ,r � - l,r,. f �r"• iv !�e; ` a • A d y.. ; $ .. � � . . ! ' , � .k�+ ; ,fit '_ `� ,:' �_� 4 , � � -k' • rrMom r. ot J. ikt ZMN ^PG , ..r • . , :�. � i,y ms's,'-..fi.7t. F „�.P _ - k. ,fk \" _ � �- ��«� `�` t a J "' 121 - �• ,9 ., , .' •+'!�, - � + � -mss +- �•- , ` l / , r , _ $x5 •1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 26, 2016 7:00 o'clock p.m. Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: od McMillan, Council Members Jim Cornick, Jr., Lizz Levang, Aaron Printup, and De 'V -e nting Staff were City Administrator Jessica Loftus, Community Development Dir r Jeri I inance Director Ron Olson, Public Works Director/City Engineer Adam Ed ds, City rney en Mattick, and Recorder Jackie Young. McMillaigcalled the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m., followed by the P1e4jCof Allegiance. OVAL OF A CONSENT AG Nos. 6 and 10 were added ikthe Consent Agenda. Item lalsh moved, Cornick seconded, to a Z ve the ays 0. OVAL OF MINUTES 2 was removed from the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5, CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTE\and Lncil Member Walsh noted the eo for Item Nohe last Council meeting, which trding the home occupation ' nse application. meetings should be videotaped minutes do not completel effect the entire discws someone to go back and wat video to get the entire text of the meeting. Talsh stated toward end of the discussion on that item, a motion wa ade by him to deny the ho /moved, mit. ayor McMillan then asked whether that was just for 7 and whether Staff shou d -.al f the events in 2016. Walsh noted his denial motion was f he rest of 2016 and 20 73 equently passed. Walsh stated he would like the minutes to refle that part of the , Walsh seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council eeting of , 2016, as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PRESENTATIONS 3. CSAR 112 PHASE 2 DESIGN AND TRAIL EXTENSION Christine Morter, Hennepin County Transportation, stated she is managing the Highway 112 project. Morter reported they are working on finalizing plans for Phase 1 of the Highway 112 project, with bids being opened in December and construction expected to start next spring. Page 1 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 26, 2016 7:00 o'clock p.m. 3. CSAR 112 PHASE 2 DESIGN AND TRAIL EXTENSION (continued) Work has also begun on the plans for Phase 2, which should be completed early next year, with construction expected to begin in the spring of 2017. Construction on Phase 3, which is the section west of Willow Drive, is planned to start in 2019. Nate Will, SRF, stated Phase II of the project will begin around Wolf Point Trail and proceeds east to Wayzata Boulevard. Will illustrated on the map how the trail section will be extended on the north side of the road up to Long Lake Road. The trail is currently planned to go up to Old Long Lake Road and will terminate and turn into a shared use road/trail on Old Long Lake Road. Based on some recent public discussions with the PAC committee, there was some desire expressed to extend the trail from Old Long Lake Road along the east/north side of Wayzata Boulevard and provide a connection at the Luce Line Trail. Will noted during the preliminary design, some of these options were looked at in 2012 to provide a connection to the Luce Line along Highway 112. Will displayed a cross-section of the roadway and noted the trail would be on the east side of the road. The color red on the map is what is being proposed for a current roadway design without the trail. The blue line depicts the trail being added. Curb and gutter would also be added with this design. The impacts would be approximately 15 to 20 feet of additional work that could be done under the County's current turnback project. The cost summary to extend the trail from Old Long Lake Road to the Luce Line is approximately $220,000, of which the County would be sharing $110,000. That cost includes paving the trail, bituminous and aggregate. The other portion would be paid for under the turnback project. One of the cost estimates included in the packet is the projected cost of the work if it were to be done separately from the highway project. Will noted if that should occur, the cost would be $450,000, which also does not take into account inflation costs. Walsh asked what doubles the cost. Will indicated the County would construct only what is in red, which would be a rural roadway. The extra cost would be associated with the curb and gutter, replacement of the necessary storm sewer infrastructure, removal of the existing shoulder and put it back, and then pave the trail and restore the right-of-way. Will stated they are here tonight on behalf of Hennepin County to present this concept and to get the thoughts of the City Council. Will stated they would perhaps look for Council action in October either for or against the project so planning can proceed forward. McMillan commented she understands Hennepin County's desire to move forward on the engineering if the Council is in favor of doing this project. McMillan stated this Council has discussed looking into the costs of doing that portion of the project and that now is a good time to combine the two projects if it is to be done. Walsh asked if the new trail is within the existing right-of-way or whether any new easements would be required. Page 2 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCM MEETING Monday, September 26, 2016 7:00 o'clock p.m. 3. CSAH 112 PHASE 2 DESIGN AND TRAIL EXTENSION (continued) Will indicated the majority of the trail will be located within the existing right-of-way and that there will be construction easements obtained in conjunction with this project. There is a little section of right-of- way that will be required across two properties. Will noted the Luce Line is DNR and Three Rivers property. Walsh asked how wide the trail would be. Will stated it is anticipated to be 8 feet wide and would follow what is being done in Phase 1, with a 7 - foot wide grass boulevard to provide some separation between the curb and traffic. There is also room for some signage and snow storage. The trail would be bituminous and it would basically connect in with the Luce Line. Steps would also be taken to attempt to minimize the number of trees that would be impacted. Will noted no final engineering has been done to date and the alignment might change slightly. Walsh asked if Hennepin County would maintain the trail since it is in their right-of-way. Morter indicated the trail would be maintained by the City through their agreements. Council Member Levang asked whether the trail is included in the Master Trail Plan. Public Works Director/City Engineer Edwards stated he does not know the answer to that at this time but that he will look into it. Walsh commented he would like to know what the thoughts are from the neighbor who would be asked to have a trail in front of their properties. City Administrator Loftus stated they have not been contacted but that there is an open house planned for October 27. Loftus stated this concept could be presented that evening if the Council would like. Council Member Levang commented the open house would be a good opportunity for the City to get the feedback of the residents before the Council makes a decision and that she would like to ensure the, residents are well notified prior to the open house that this is being considered. Walsh stated the City should make sure the two property owners are spoken to prior to the open house. Edwards stated the existing trail plan has a shared use trail going down Old Long Lake Road and the new proposal would shift it along Wayzata Boulevard. McMillan asked whether anyone would like to provide public comment on this item. Rick Meyers, Park Commission Chair, stated as a general principle, the Park Commission likes to see connections to the trails, but that his question is how it would be funded. Meyers stated they could have the residents come to a Park Commission meeting to discuss it as well. Meyers stated the Park Commission also looks favorably upon any plans where the City shares in the costs with other parties. Levang asked when the next Park Commission meeting will be. Page 3 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 26, 2016 7:00 o'clock p.m. 3. CSAR 112 PHASE 2 DESIGN AND TRAIL EXTENSION (continued) Meyers indicated it would be in November and that there is a work session in October. McMillan commented the next official Park Commission meeting would be a good time to have the Commission review the proposal. Levang stated in her view it would be important to have the Park Commission weigh in on this issue. There were no further public comments. McMillan noted the first November Council meeting would be November 14. Morter stated there is some flexibility in the schedule and that they could wait until November 14. The City Council took no formal action on this item. T AND PRELIMINARY LEVY — RESOLUTION NOS. 6675 and 6676 FiFhva Director Olson noted the Council has discussed the preliminary budget as part of the last tbpre Counc' Sk sessions. The preliminary budget and tax levy was presented to the public at the ptember 12 Council ting. As required by state law, the 2017 preliminary tax levy is required to certified to Hennepin Coun September 30. In order to meet this deadline, the preliminary bud and tax levy needs to be adopted a night's meeting or else a special meeting will need to be cjUedl before September 30. Olson noted followin doption of the preliminary levy, it can only be decreafed until the time the final levy is adopted in Dece rand that public comment will also be allo,,y4 at that time. The 2017 General Fund revenue bud is projected to increase 3.8 DeEent, which does include an increase in property taxes of $180,744 oNanin . Olson no the City's tax levy has not increased significantly in the past few years. The n for ail crease in 2017 has to do with contract and step wage increases as welse ' ublifety charges of $61,000. Olson noted the Mound police contract has an inflatot. Olson reported the expenditure budget will . rease $279,2 which is a 3.62 percent increase. Olson stated the City's expenditure budget co is largely of wages contracted services, with 64 percent of the budget being personnel services owed by professional servi Olson commented Orono budgets very conservatively and does n ave a lot of discretionary items in th udget. Olson noted supplies and maintenance is only 8 p t of the budget and that the other expens category includes electricity and gas and other simil ' ems. Olson stated wa and benefits for next year's budget have a lot to do with the incr e. Non-union step increases equ 18,000. Olson noted non-union wages has a two percent COLA incre which adds $321000 t e budget, and union step/longevity increases amount to $45,000. Olson note e City had more or police officers that have retired and that they were replaced with younger officers, hich has re ed in the increased step increases. Page 4 of 26 x x ri O 00 O lD ri m E t/1 a m E N Lu � 0 a m N r r ai Ln L r O N i 0) CL LL Y O O O CD O O O V' OC 00 O Z V O m m cn 0 0�0 tomo J o0 0 O 0 v o O M LL OO O Z O m m ni o Itt oc V O Tz:� <.n �, r-, � r, r-1 n CG O U U O0 �n- O O Z} W Z Z � O � O O Z Q N K* r Ln 0 O m cy) r -I o O O O = t/? t/} V) t11 ice/? ri �} M l/? N Z L O 0 Op O LL 0 M u mLn N Z -tn CC D H O O O O C) O O O O 00 J O O O O HRt "° r: 00 r Lr) 0 C 0 ILD C Lri O M r -r) Rt 00 m ON � 0 O Lr) O rr- N o�0 4j) -i!? Lr V). r-1 -Ln r -I VIP V)- N -L4 00 ih r -i ih � O O � O (V U ate+ O U> \� O v� C to V) C N N C to � V U V N a� m .., > s m 4, a , N q0 N m Q1 E4-0 N m ri C r1 u ? 0 .0 a -� C O a L Ln 0 r O a� (, 4- p ^ M a O L O O 4 L � H 72 C (0 O O C d + u w O O ca C O N O> p O p J a H > - C F+ o a m sa 0 Q H J o0c v = "Zt ri O N t ti.0 U C fD � O N c: E U •0 OL Q 0 - Ln � a r -q � m O O N "O V) N O C O a O O > tL a a � �d � tD U 6 O j f— U O C O U C Q O� C -0 L U lL cv _ Q O s O }' 4-J N x O a cv O °' u 0 D- :3 CP t 0 Q 4� i Z H ate+ -0 O = to LLCL 0 C Cn E O OO a) f0 Y 4 — Ln i — N J }' N to Q) -0 c E O O O O tv Q --'- c 3: E A - O x ru O p U C U a"' a OE L 41 O a + cB U � O tL c V U C O C kn 4 p O u N O Q E CCA i _0 a ° -00 C: +, O 41, 0 v .� c +- o W i o 4O C V, C N O0 0 Ln a + 4� u O C Qj U CU _0 cv a a 3 C 4- Cl) 4- O U U +' 4- C V) 4--C f0 4-J O LJ Ov a CU Q- o o o 3 cn >` O lun C + rO C Ln O ~ O `ncn -0 tU U Q Q Q) L tU Q U L ^ i V) N v N M c 8 S R cu G � 4 % n t - N J = n (!1 O °m m 1 ti F -M 'cu � 0 N O Ca fl 1 W ~ c m a o C co y-- � i z c a_ / m w 1 r o k ♦ 8 S $p t - J t 1 ti 1 � i / 1 k ♦ j a / 'a t i ♦ _ V �—i i. _.. _ aN 1 ♦ i- I —� W MOTUM KLWN I 1 ♦ , z •Na MOTUM 1UOOS LL z 1 a / LL lim IMID38 •aa Avg 1V15A:L1 33N3aN3d3aN1 3NV1 ♦ e, z ` I t ♦ �m 1 ` — 1 � ♦ 1 ♦ w 1 ♦ j � � ♦ i .♦ W .2r! V S = ♦ i g rm i� •aa Ave seatus Lwow. y 1 1 1 / C3 ♦ 4 m j a ti - y�Q � I m 1 �= 8 .-. Q Off p �^ p Q P p G 8 rev n ,p m O P p O ^ 8 ry wniv Q f6 0 f6 L Q N to L U MV W 0 4—j 0 U c .CL E 0 4--j Q V W w ~1 Nr uo- cc. , it 1 1 1 w 'r 1 M wniv Q f6 0 f6 L Q N to L U MV W 0 4—j 0 U c .CL E 0 4--j Q V W REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: November 9, 2016 Item No.: 10 Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Y"_4 Planning Dept. Title: Senior Planner Item Description: Proposed Acquisition of Tax -Forfeit Parcel 35-118-23 410010 It was recently brought to the attention of staff that a property long thought to be owned by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources as part of the Wood -Rill Scientific and Natural Area (SNA) was listed by Hennepin County to be included in a tax -forfeit auction November 18. We believe that the current status as tax -forfeit land is due to errors that occurred 15 years ago and that the property should remain in public ownership. At the request of City staff the County has removed this parcel from the auction and has offered it to the City at the appraised nominal value of $1,000 plus transfer fees totaling a few hundred dollars. The property is approximately 5.7 acres in area and abuts the north side of the Luce Line Trail and the east side of Wayzata Boulevard. Currently appearing on MnDNR maps as part of Wood - Rill, the property was formerly owned by the City via tax forfeiture. Briefly, the history of this parcel is as follows: 1990 — City of Orono acquired the parcel from Hennepin County via a tax -forfeiture conveyance (Exhibit B). 1999 — In a letter (Exhibit C) dated 4/22/99 Lee Markell of MnDNR requested that MnDNR acquire the parcel for inclusion as part of Wood -Rill SNA, as it abuts the SNA as well as the Luce Line Trail. City of Orono took steps to release the parcel back to the State for MnDNR acquisition via Resolution No. 4340 adopted August 23, 1999 (Exhibit D). 2000 thru 2016 — Hennepin County property records (Exhibit E) continued to show the parcel as tax forfeit land — apparently the County or MnDNR or ??? did not follow through on the acquisition paperwork. In the meantime, MnDNR maps (Exhibit F) continue to show the parcel as part of Wood -Rill SNA. 2016 (October) — Hennepin County placed the parcel up for tax -forfeit auction, to be sold at auction November 18 (Exhibit G). City staff found out about this thru inquiries from potential purchasers in the last few weeks. 2016 (November) — Hennepin County Public Works is working towards gaining an easement over the parcel for trail connection purposes (Exhibit H) as part of the Highway 12 Turnback improvements. The easement would allow for a trail connection between Wayzata Boulevard and the Luce Line Trail. Whether the easement would be in place at the time of City re -acquisition is under discussion, but likely does not impact the City either way. Tax Forfeit Parcel November 9, 2016 Page 2 - At my request the County Tax -Forfeit group has as of last week removed the parcel from the auction list and we are working towards re -acquisition by the City to ensure the ability of this parcel to remain either as City park/open space/drainage or for future acquisition by MnDNR as originally intended in 1999. We have been in contact with MnDNR who is reviewing the property history as of this writing. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Authorize staff to pursue completion of the re -acquisition of the parcel in question at a cost to the City of $1,000 plus transfer fees (anticipated at approximately $300). List of Exhibits A — Map & Airphotos of Subject Parcel B — 1990 Conveyance to City of Orono & Resolution No. 2747 C — 1999 Letter from MnDNR Requesting Acquisition for Wood -Rill SNA D — 1999 Resolution No. 4340 Release for MnDNR Acquisition E — 2005 Hennepin County Tax Records Excerpt F — 2016 Map of Wood -Rill SNA from MnDNR Website G — County Tax -forfeit Auction Notice — November 18, 2016 H — Depiction of Proposed Trail Connection (111 29 II4)2y �, 100 120 °' Q5) Bt(14 �� m 365 ................... ZVV ------ _ .., -- _ .n'3'-' 894:3 ' F ? 25.22 �9��.-� } } ° 277.4 T� yd0 �j14 v 9 120.06 3 _8 53' 187.5 . 3.6 �� 4570960 � � .............250...-......... •1��7 � �]]]]]]] f ;. 0 J 3 . (Ft S) 50 I 848 �' R= 2 _. 1 X05 P ,;,r'' 10.52 Rc. ° 1.. IA ,n �3?66Xl i 26.a15 Pp C12 X47 xg, f� ` 73 28'30'!: 93 Oti i Z� A s {14) w ° (53) Lra s2. ,., 1V. 9 i9l 4' �, o (62) (67) il5) - ,� t>; (5) '� la " ' i D ,5'Ss------------ ,2 45 $ m I 4-- tie, ....,M.x -.. 108a.` Ny--A9�5-- 85 85 EAST (10) a� , 238.5 '12 F t�170 of !a s 3s �03s o (69) �c (70) Q (16} (54) i (180 (6) (2) + � ..Ah , fir � j ��fS J a' Lo 3 ` -- 238 u, 139 I'. fill kl4,3 - _ (65) J �B °° Ira (3) rn n°fi z yv ry 239.5 J (50} (55}... 1 N ��/] (12) (2) o z3B.43 sB4 24.1: _ u9 139. r g (20) (4) ; (40) (76) C • H' 170 1 .5 ° 20 a in gg�� 9 - r40 i - O � 4 (131 0. a s ? '•.,� : l (4) (!3) Q �• 9s9 r 2 (57) r4rTz Q� (7 7) - (49} m (52) i [7} "° 1 a, _ 2g 1� 3 C� y� ° (3) r 238.74 ;' 139 51 5 (45) - 50 zs "o, �x /LLVJ 2 �� rip 139 t .9 1 (22) 1 i :,1}•, "� +n IT m z 17 "}. M N 4) ,; 3 R 1� ® 'a Int 124 123.5 N (41) V ry O x 3 Sj •237.61(r7i 8)1 .50 (59) - (60) R'2fF (26) 66) O 200 ° o O�v .n ^,t �� w z ~� (4i HiGNVIEW L o 125 � , 7 h (72) "' ) %= (24) (73) 4 .ti g •.,:1 2 ITO EAST l" ® 2 N O 2 � m 7 a = o r u, 9826 x30.7 NB B' ra 9 rc vil __---- - �(42) r� M Z 8391 4679 (33) z N1 (12) s0 5 (35) _ry ID 1 r72.85 r DOC NO 3990364 123.5N 200 (6) sry 6 x (34) ry B 3166'_ a_ (74) : Q a �� �70 (20) ?8.97 ill or 7 rc% 34r (32} V DOC NO 3990364 s'% n0i J i6l n +n T, (8)0 $ rDj?9 �T�s w t (II) ------ 0 O 32'30' IC -1y2 ' m 1 QS 00 �° m +, uo 3 401.3 WEST EAST 387.5 C (25)� � ss (31) : ¢ r N 3 m O _ �(43) � (23) <P, Ay ' . w 4 �� (26�� w �� „ o ilu :: o (75) N � 11 rr I) �ro ! 8593'- T�44 (27) 4 4 (3a� ry (39) Q 200 A� rr (39) �' (28)z 0) :•39x7 }25.65 I (22) 113 9p .440)�o �po"� �P �0 �. 208.5 17 30' . % (37) = i (29) _ (38) o '^ (44)Ln N s� a 0 . "52.53 0 4 N (24) M 67*, �T N (36) o :..7'. T ro'N'__� _T 239.75 v (10) {4$) r _ O�a� I: W $ �° h 2 n; „"'; 50:.2 13427 108.48 z - 0ZQo - 67' by ocr h° �(37) `�9p ' o• s5 bg1 (10) N 2 _ _ 123.5 0 _ 5 $ p4 t (5) p (14) 31 ` -p N (I) Ao -- - -` -- -- -- N - I v OL A r` W (6} D O 6. \0 2 (12) (15) m 200 N N N 01 S 6 .n (9) a 3pA� Z Z 1435sgr__ $; (7) 'z Z'• ., so -�'� * (17l n o 6 r ° ° :; %- 'k 4 130.9 1-; a u} UI rwF 110 3595692 `. (8) .��� ,2 ti r 42 (I) m (21) R.98 : 32 _ r �'S? 50.61 vin e 7 •°'Y o '?6;o 1 -- (2) d (9).n 7Q_IN- �� r 9 n TT/9 32 (;sy0 -, o �• +` � F (10) (IU e N t3o.9 o (10) OF LONG LAKE 390.5 - - ,/y` ° N 9 N (19) W (27) 165 C1TY ORONO (7l 512) 140 3595693.: y�y,'rTy y s. 11o.s9 CIYY OF �L (1036 DS J 1 40.89 y •'Sa OOC No 3548467 \ 0 t2a•28 l - _ i - \+ 59.' - (4) »x N°.'354Q460 �' - 9'87'30" R�258g 64 - M1 (20.) ;,, - ___ 45._ DE _ e95 Feet BOLTON & MENK Real People. Real Solution& OI.I.r.- tRk Silo This drawing is neither legaIP0 retarded map nor sur-yand fa not intended to be used as one. This drawing Is a wepilation of records, Information, and data located In —ions 6W, county, and stile otfixs, and other sources affecting the arm shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City of Orono snot responsible for any Inaecurades herein conbslned. ® Bolton & Menk, Inc- Web GIS 11/2/2016 12:18 PM l.a R b coN ve_YANc_j� -m e_Ajy ZWJ Norm IM Mt , 9l791 i l�+aaer2•nr i- I STATE: OF MINNESMA DErPAfiTMeNT OF TOWENUE W4783 CONVEYA14 "C.E OF FORFESED LAVIM ilasued liurixuant W Mtnncevta Statulca. FMCI Non 282.0 1. SULAW Sion 11 P0 T> IS DENTURF-, made ibis 18th day of may. 1990. between the State of Minnesota. as party of the first pari. Find The City of Orono. a Govcrnxrirntal Subdlvlsibn, as party of the sec nd pari, WiTI M- WEMIRE", iris: land hereinafter described wwi duly fgrfeited to the State of',ul4ule wta for the nonpayment of taxer, and, WiAiVIRW6, pursuant to MITITICSOW $tatutca 5=Uan 282.01. 8ubdlvision 1. the party of the ticcond pari has applied td the Commissiaagr of Revenue for tho cmveyarioe of lands hereinafter desenbcd to De used by it exclusively r4r drainM Aw eonservntton, and, W1MAi3AS. the Board of County CanUnikOftnera of the County of Henrwepin, State of Minncsota, hOL4 recommended to the CwMl:rshmer of Revenue by resolution adopted on the 24th day of April, 1990, that such aonveyptpe be made, NW, TIMWORE, the Statc ai Minnesota, pursuant to said Java And In oarmiderat'ion of the premises, does hereby ,grant, bargain, sell and convey unto the pa of the second part, forever. all the tracts or parcels of land lying aril bring in the C*Ltnty of Hermapin, State of Mlnriewta, describeo a8 milows, to -wit; Parcel A' PID4035-118.23.41.60101381 1'arcG1H: PlD+r3B•118-23-5°�-4iiiBt88j Parcel A: isl17O35-1 I8-28-41-0610!38} City of Aruna Unpl8ur-d. 5eCtlon 35, Township 118. Flange 23 COM AT THE 11 SEC OF E 1 THE OF NO 27 TH HWLY ALONG WD C711t LlNE LEFT I = DEG 48 MW A AIS OF 745 35 MIN TO A Pr 799 S& t0 Fr W FROM ACTUAL Pr OF BW TH E ALONG LAST 7•O'1YIER'r79DW 47 MIN TOTRE WLY ALONG SAID R&W UNE TO THE ALONG SAID HWY LINE TO A Yr 788 N TO BEr. Y Pared S. PM4136.118-28-3_11-0diMa1 bot 4. Block 2. Myrtkwood City of Oram. SEC 35 WPlii 'FELE CM LDM OF CO P40AD aid .,,)Filo r -T Tli DISFigC'MG TO THE PT TH DEFLEC LNG TO THE Rr 77 DEG E LINE W SW AND M*WH 15 TFM DESC I NS-4FQ131 110 F7 TH DEPL 1C13IiIG NLY f1NVOP'1�lS+ N VVF.;S,'i`EEil1T R&W TH FLY L11+Fr+3:6SISTATE HWY H NLY SWOrTW 1;iWl F, LINE of MC TH KENNEPN Mt"' PRUPEPIT TXX DE tH DEED TO'% PAT!? Ml, -1/90 lr 17PP i= AIU va TO HAVE AND TO SPLD THE S^tidiE, to with All the heredi[ameslts ArRlI appurtcnanma thereunto belonging or In anywtge appy #aiiiln , to the said party olxhe SOCCM: art so to as it shall eOntlAue to use said !arid- for tine Au�Ope aforeiaid. and u that if Such use shall cease said land shall revert to the party or the first part as provtd�drtr�' law. "eme totai cansidaraftn for` NG,I'3I5fer?: of property ss�ral'cr 'f A� MEV MAY ,,...tea•..- "'., TSLS SbS cTS cfOSS3SSU AiD NId3NN3H T O . S . 666 T—Sz—Jfld i IN IESTIMONT WHEMDOV. the State of MinnigG a. Darty of the firM furl, has ^aused � { thts deed to be executcu m Its nanie In the City of St. PAUL Ramsey Caurtty. Minnesota. the day and year Furst above written. In p iesem c aim STATE OF AEMESMA r•� 0oa#Ceotn STATE OF 1{MH'$CI'1`A } C:oo�ttyoLR�PaQy � on this Cath day of May. MO, before me personally appeared MICKA1" L P, WANAMI HE, the duly appointed representaltve Of We CcnnniasfanaT UT Revenue of the State of Ntl=Mta. to me known to be #hC person who executed the foregoing eotnveyanee in behaff of the State of Minnesota. and ACttnowiedged that he executed the same as the frca act and deed of said state pursuant to the istntutt& in such Case n *Ae and prm-1ded. 4 PATRICIA M9NT 9 NWARY PUBLIC —tk'LI R8M 4 'rids lmUrumml. ww DmW by RAMSKY COUNTY 71W Owm iapta"r el' 12evcnua 1�y Gb mhlwion L�LwJ4pR 70. ipp:L auckio or Msnnmota }S [jC➢pl't�p�eil Or c s[PltllA rl-, $L Patst Mlftnc55f4ti i. 41 v. fub a Day ate. a-, 1E ,zt J` 1+t1`5 .A a. 28/28'd ZS2,8 8b2 ET9 d0SS3SSb AiD NId3NN3H E8:9Z 666T—sE—onu City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2747 REQUESTING CONVEYANCE OF TAY FORFEIT LANDS FOR PUBLIC USE BY THE CITY OF ORONO WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a munic pay, corporation organized and existing under the lams of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 282, the City has received from Hennepin County a list of lands within the City which have become the property of the State of Minnesota for non- payment of real estate taxes; and AREAS, the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners have classified said lands as non -conservation land and have authorized the sale of each such parcel of lana subject to review and release by the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed said lands for compliance with local zoning ordinances, for the amount of outstanding special assessments remaining unpaid to the City, and/or for possible public use by the City as authorized by the statutes, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orono, pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 282.01, Subdivision 1, hereby applies to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners and to the Commissioner of Revenue for conveyance of the following tax forfeited land to the City for drainage and conservation purposes. PARCEL RETAINED FOR USE BY THE CITY District P.I.D� 38 03-117-23 33 0001 05-117-23 -24 9105 38 5-118 23. 41 0010 11 11111h Adopted by the City Minnesota at a regular meeting Public Purpose Specials Drainage & Conservation None Drainage &�)nNone Drainage & Conservati Dra3.nag _ a Council of the City of Orono, held the 8th day of January, 1990, 4/22/1999 gycg . Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Ron Moorse, City Manager City of Orano 2750 Kelley Parkway Post Office Box 66 Orono, Minnesota 55323 Dear Mr. Moorse: . 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-40_ y OR 12.3'1999 I am writing to inform you of our interest in the tax forfeited parcel (#35-118-23-41-0010), which lies adjacent to the Luce Line Trail and T. H. 12 in Orono. I have included a map that shows the subject property. We would be very interested in acquiring this parcel as an addition to the Wood -Rill Scientific and Natural ,Area. In my preliminary discussion with Michael P. Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator, he indicated that conveying the land to the Scientific and Natural Areas Program may be a possibility. It is our understanding that the City acquired this parcel for drainage and conservation purposes. We would not propose any modifications to the land surface as a part of our management.We would, over time, restore the parcel to presettlement conditions (Big Woods). I would be happy to meet with you and your staff regarding the SNA Program and this parcel in particular. I will give you a call in this regard in the next two weeks. If you have any questions please feel free to give me a call. Thank you for your interest in natural area protection. Sincerely, Lee Markell, Land Protection Specialist Scientific and Natural Areas Program. -Box 25-500 Lafayette Road -St. Paul, MN 55155-4025 651-296-4781 phone 651-297-1158 fax E-mail: lee.markell@dnr.state.mn.us L-7CEF . D CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A 3 t 0 A RESOLUTION TO RELEASE TAX FORFEITED LAND FOR ACQUISITION BY THE DNR WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the parcel known as PID: 35-118-23 41 0010 became the property of the State of Minnesota for non-payment of real estate taxes on June 8, 1989, and was conveyed to the City of Orono by State Deed No. 173562 on May 18, 1990; and WHEREAS, the City has determined the public use for which the City acquired the parcel is no longer necessary; and WHEREAS, the parcel is adjacent to the Woodrill SNA and the Luce Line Trail; and WHEREAS, the DNR has indicated a strong interest in acquiring the parcel. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono does hereby authorize the reconveyance of the parcel listed below to the State of Minnesota for acquisition by the DNR: PID: 35-118-23 41 0010 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and the City Admini-y-irator be authorized and directed to sign the Reconveyance of Forfeited Lands to State of Minnesota by Governmental Subdivisions on behalf of the City. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of August, 1999. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Gab Jabbour, Mayor Page 1 of 1 Property Information Search by Property ID Result page Pagel of 2 Hennepin Coin, H Vvartw:- "usProperty Information Search The Hennepin County Property Tax web datat daily (Monday - Friday) at approximately 9: Sea. ch 13y. Parcel Data for Taxes Payable LAO�lnr>o MW 1 Property ID: 35-118-23-41-0010 Address: 38 ADPD5REU SSIGNED - Municipality: ORONO School Dist: 278 Constru" Property ID: Watershed: 3 Approx. P 3511823410010 Sewer Dist: Owner Name: HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND Search Clear Taxpayer Name (HENNEPIPIN FORFEITED LAND & Address: Most Current Sales Informal Sales prices are reported as listed on the Certificate of Real Estate Value arms -length transactions. NO SALE INFORMATION ON FILE FOR THIS PROPERTY. Tax Parcel Description Addition Name: UNPLATTED 35 118 23 Lot: Block: Metes & Bounds: Abstract or Torrens: COM AT THE INTERSEC OF E LINE OF SEC 35 WITH THE CTR LINE OF CO R0, NO 27 TH NWLY ALONG SAID CTR LINE 338 3/10 FT TH DEFLECTING TO THE Note: This is a Partial Metes & Boun To receive full tax parcel descriptioi taxdescription@co.hennepin.mn.us ABSTRACT Value and Tax Summary for Taxes Pi Values Established by Assessor as of Ja Estimated Market Value: Limited Market Value: Taxable Market Value: Total Improvement Amount: Total Net Tax: Total Special Assessments: Solid Waste Fee: Total Tax: http://www2.co.hennepin.mn.us/pins/Pidresultjsp 8/29/2005 Long tape Lydiard Lake Scientift"nib r LA ........... ............. - ..........._..._*�lir.rl.�..s._..-i.—..s..F Buffleh"d Pond Sugar Maple Forest (Big Woods) Black Ash - Alder Swamp - �' ,—.—._._._.*� I ,,, ,r' .- Tamarack Swamp qp%A. s _ . _ .L . - —6A,. Sedge Meadow +jEfrr Forest Restoration Deer Exclosure Q Parking 8 Interpretive Sign ......•• Hiking ---Luce Line State Trail r 1 r old LarSW6 - Al WWAU Ux"ry CKLb APPRAISAL LIST #1885 -PA Auction Date: Friday, November 18, 2016 (4) PID: 02-117-24-24-0012 MINNETRISTA (36) 6110 Hillsdale Dr LOT 5, BLOCK 1, ROLLING HILLS ADDITION Appraised Value: $ 1,000.00 specials before Forfeiture: 0.00 Specials after Forfeiture: Minimum bid: L000,i7U Approximate size:17396 sq ft Type: Residential Land (LR) Zoned: A Current Title: TORRENS Sale Inspections: Not applicable (5) PID: 35-118-23-41-0010 ORONO (38) l 38 Address Unassigned CDM AT THE INTERSEC OF E LINE OF SEC 35 WITH THE CTR LINE OF CO ROAD NO 27 TH NWLY ALONG SAID CTR LINE 338 3/30 FT TH DEFLECTING TO THE LEFT 122 DEG 48 MIN A DIS OF 745 �i FT TH DEFLECTING TO THE RT 77 DEG 35 MIN TO A PT 799 8/10 FT W FROM E UNE OF SEC AND WHICH 15 THE ACTUAL PT OF BEG TH E ALONG LAST DESC LINE 4013/10 FT TH DEFLECTING TO THE RT 79 DEG 47 MIN TO THE NLY LINE OF MINN WESTERN R&W TH WLY ALONG SAID R&W LINE TO THE ELY LINE OF STATE HWY TH NLY ALONG SAID HWY LINE TO A PT 799 8/10 FT W FROM E LINE OF SEC TH N TO BEG, UNPLATTED SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 118, RANGE 23 Q � Appraised Value: $ 1,000.00 Specials before Forfeiture: 0.00 Specials after Forfeiture: U 0 Minimum bid: $ 1,000.00 Approximate size: 249703 sq ft Type: Residential Land (LR) Zoned: RR -1B Current Title: ABSTRACT �I I Sale Inspections: Not applicable N ext? P EL1 TAY WAYZATA BOULEVARD (CSAH 112) PHASE 2 LAYOUT LEGEl� I mmKrc sroEvrus niwar .` +.■ .• PRELIMINARY z r :: I NI 4 A iOfkXIL 71 • Y -" i yrµ, r. 1 _ . � 3. e _ _ _ � _ F �� , - �. �� r r.� � �,�}�,•KF= 44 di X }. _ M1 i`• ;�' 7 : _* �'. � ''" lam' � `� � � � -� e } a ur y Al m f - ' a, � s _ _ � • - _ +F` 'All. - i �I'l ap � •''etw,4Y !.'- ,'-�%- l - � � „ •�. _� y � � W1 _ ' F`�r .. . � � 4r,y. roa'�,►' i'�' F . bet�Jol REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: November 14th, 2016 ITEM NO: 11 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Adam Edwards Y"-4 Public Works Director/ Title Public Works Director/City Engineer City Engineer's Report Item Description: North Arm Trail Study Exhibits: A. Engineering Proposal B. Comprehensive Trail System Map C. Excerpt from Hennepin County 2014 Bicycle Transportation Plan 1. Purpose. The purpose of this item is to gain Council approval to undertake a feasibility study for creating a trail along North Arm Drive. 2. Background. At the September 6th Park Commission meeting the Commission voted 5-0 to recommend the City complete a feasibility study for a possible trail connection from West Branch Road to the Lakeview Legacy Park along the south side of North Arm Drive. Bolton and Menk, the City's consulting firm, has prepared a proposal for the study (Exhibit A). At the November 7th Park Commission meeting the commission voted 6-0 again to recommend the City complete the study and that the funds for the study come from the 2016 Park Operating Budget. Further the Commission indicated that the trail would be a pedestrian trail. 3. Considerations. a. Comprehensive Trail System Plan. The City's comprehensive trial plan envisions future connection throughout the City however a trail along North Arm Drive is not part of that plan (Exhibit B). b. Connections and Use. The western end of the trail would tie into the Lakeview trail (privately owned public Trail). The south eastern end would stop at West Branch Road which is listed as an existing on road bikeway by Hennepin County (Exhibit Q. c. Cost. The cost of the study is $3,000. The estimated cost of adding a trail is $155,000 to $230,000 depending on the configuration chosen. 4. Funding. The study would be funded from the 2016 Park Operating Budget. The Minor Park Improvements Line has $4,000 available. For the trail itself, if approved, this could be funded by the Park Fund which has a projected balance for EOY 2016 of approximately $870,000. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Bolton and Menk to conduct a feasibility study for a trail along North Arm Drive for a fee not -to -exceed $3000. 2 Q&BOLT MENOK Real People. Real Solutions. October 31, 2016 City of Orono Attn: Adam Edwards 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 RE: North Arm Drive Trail Preliminary Engineering Report Proposal Dear Mr. Edwards: 2638 Shadow Lane Suite 200 Chaska, MN 55318-1172 Ph: (952) 448--8838 Fax: (952) 448--8805 Bolton-Menk.com As requested we have performed a preliminary analysis of a proposed trail along North Arm Drive from West Branch to the Lakeview Parking lot, approximately 2,300 feet long. Our initial estimates place the cost of constructing this trail to be on a range of approximately $155,000- $230,000 (total project costs, including engineering and administration) We propose to prepare and deliver a Preliminary Engineering Design Report that includes: 1. Recommend a width and placement for the proposed trail 2. Identify cost effective construction materials 3. Further analyze the need for retaining walls 4. Avoid points of conflict with existing utilities and power poles 5. Establish a budget for both Construction Costs and to perform final design Bolton & Menk Inc. Proposes to prepare and deliver the above described Preliminary Engineering Design Report at an Hourly, Not to Exceed Fee of $3,000. Sincerely, Bolton & Menk, Inc. .000 Brian D Simmons, P.E. Project Manager H:\ORNO\2016-10-31 North Arm Trail Proposal.docx Bolton & Menk is ap equal opportunity emptoyer. tV V O .i N M N O p n O OC9 8 $ C f i � �C j —o J 1 1 1 1 ar 1 3 v 1 j i « j r m' � / ./ - .. w..r I•.i r.. s. .....� r,. r.....r r .w„a..r. a. a., r•..,�. r i ;♦ �� ZZ i % j x 'l1f1 maniM HUVON I j/ — z I i •aa MUMM + nos llVkU VWM3-d 33N3aN3d3aNI WVI n •Ob Ave-visAlda ago �. m — N i � ♦ s -i w j w 1 d . n m m , m . � Y L k m ,moi 4 cnl Aol 1 m p d ci ti” 1 P cc 2 1 yy� �-�r.,a..a..a.. �. i.r..r.aw e,r,. �... r,.r..r �..r,.w.'r .. �_,.....i s. �-,TAY. r,. w.F.:. rrar�r�. Vii. tit+r •�r�. ifu:a..r..w..a.t •' p 'C EOp r,� I'm O f•. Q OD Q Oi O p .-. M pm c an 3; g $ 2 N O g $ Q W +•t ..� ry L7Q �• a, Y� 0 r.rw ECD4-0 L W�as VI � ..,0 O 0 =u ® p Q) tTs n3 Q ' 1I W 0 a) m 1- � � M c0 (n o z tr o ' 'r .._ to a) tV V O .i N M N O p n O OC9 8 $ C f i � �C j —o J 1 1 1 1 ar 1 3 v 1 j i « j r m' � / ./ - .. w..r I•.i r.. s. .....� r,. r.....r r .w„a..r. a. a., r•..,�. r i ;♦ �� ZZ i % j x 'l1f1 maniM HUVON I j/ — z I i •aa MUMM + nos llVkU VWM3-d 33N3aN3d3aNI WVI n •Ob Ave-visAlda ago �. m — N i � ♦ s -i w j w 1 d . n m m , m . � Y L k m ,moi 4 cnl Aol 1 m p d ci ti” 1 P cc 2 1 yy� �-�r.,a..a..a.. �. i.r..r.aw e,r,. �... r,.r..r �..r,.w.'r .. �_,.....i s. �-,TAY. r,. w.F.:. rrar�r�. Vii. tit+r •�r�. ifu:a..r..w..a.t •' p 'C EOp r,� I'm O f•. Q OD Q Oi O p .-. M pm c an 3; g $ 2 N O g $ Q W +•t ..� ry L7Q �• a, Y� Yo" CP Cc, VZ a C: CD CL C: 0 4-J cu 4-J 0 CL VI C: cu V V 0_ co 0 lqt 0 r*4 4-J 0 U C: SIJ D�E E 0 L= V X LU G. :r N 6 rm .. am Le k lh Af wj � m jm in Yo" CP Cc, VZ a C: CD CL C: 0 4-J cu 4-J 0 CL VI C: cu V V 0_ co 0 lqt 0 r*4 4-J 0 U C: SIJ D�E E 0 L= V X LU G. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: November 14, 2016 ITEM NO: 12 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Adam T. Edwards, P.E. Y11�4 Public Works Director/ Title Public Works Director City Engineer's Report Item Description: 2016 Sanitary Sewer Inspection List of Exhibits A- Project Area Map 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve a sanitary sewer televising proposal for the 2016 sanitary sewer inspections. 2. Background. As part of the preventative maintenance program, the City cleans and inspects 20% of the sanitary sewer system. The cleaning was completed this summer by Public Works Employees. The Sewer department solicited proposals. 3. Project Scope. The sanitary sewer inspection project will consist of televising approximately 50,000 feet of sanitary sewer pipe. 3. Cost. The lowest proposal was for $$38,500.00 from Visu-Sewer. Contractor Proposal Visu-Sewer $ 38,500.00 Hydro-Kleen $ 39.092.50 Sewer Services No Response 4. Fundine. This Droiect will be funded through the Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund. Fund Project Total CIP Amount Estimated Fund Balance EOY 2016 Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund $38,500.00 $44,558.00 $2,304,501.00 5. Timing. Project is to be completed by the end of year 2016. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to accept the proposal from Visu-Sewer for sanitary sewer televising for $38,500.00. stip . r .6 awl .. . a If 4tCr;� HP S.Ly, ti'b 4 stip . r .6 awl .. . a If Date Application Received: 08/17/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 09/01/16 120 -Day Review Period Expires: 12/30/16 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 30 September 2016 Item No. 13 Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Melanie Curtis VY1GG Planning Title: Planner Item Description: #16-3862, Robert Lund, 2732 Caroline Ave, Variance & CUP — Resolution Application Summary: The property owner originally proposed to construct a second story addition over their existing detached garage to use as a guest house. After receiving bids for the construction they have decided to scale back the project and remodel the interior of the existing detached garage to function as a guest house. No expansion is proposed. The property has 1.25 acres in area, therefore a guest house is permitted via a conditional use permit (CUP). Because the existing detached garage footprint is larger than 1,000 square feet, it is nonconforming with respect to size, a variance from Section 78-1437 is required to plumb the building in addition to the guest house CUP. Planning Commission Recommendation On September 19, 2016 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the application including the evidence submitted. Following the public hearing the Commission voted 6 to 0 on a motion to approve the original proposal for the variance and CUP according to the staff recommendation which included requiring the standard covenants. Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the revised project. A draft approval resolution has been provided for Council's consideration. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Council should consider adopting or amending the approval resolution. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Survey & Proposed Plans (Revised) Exhibit B. Draft Resolution Exhibit C. PC Action Notice Exhibit D. PC Minutes — Draft Exhibit E. 60 -Day Extension Exhibit F. PC Staff Report Exhibit G. PC Exhibits x 4 2:-- C14 A- SO; x St PO im cm C', Q) Go A o6 t, 0� 17) 4 q45.5 cj53,8 i 4.0 rl) 4,5 a 4:°0 Ln r4 LO w 7.3 00" INAl-KO,AF AVEp,. . A16 CAROL '0 cl� 2732 to "6 U') t- 20 1. q -- cn tn Ln Ar CO m 2.4 0. C4 c CA aD x cc . 03 "1 '0 0 cn co, Lon Ilk cp Rck w Im Icy.; �,Cg6 co 24.3 4-5 954,2 e�. c; -96 0'096 'Kt- d v Ln u) M cn ui c� rn a) LO Lo Lon S P? M of Ln Ln Y ko 9 LO (D Do ai LO N ui ch CF— t> 4 Zm 9560 In. co .4 i co �96 z CD Ln CP Lr) LD 07 r') w S 0) w CO Q), Q� 4m rn (�m Got Cd /V elk Ln cblb A3 x Lo cD cb CO C) LD LO cn c� Lo la, Cj 441 a) Cr) Ki c 4b' c? "9" 9 cv c'r, cy Ln oj to cD '0 W eq 00' �0Lcnl) > lep 40 W) Lo o) 0 m Qi cl) 11,4 -0 i� .4 C) Q) Ti ss 88 m w cm 133 01V \ I 8�ss6 \ �� \ 14a1ix a.. N I \ ; 03c 41 �7 Cv 4o c 9 J \BEEP \ / / oho ;� yz 9592 \ ' 4 y � 954 A. / x 962.8 f 560.643 RFT Wq /J, 48 48 rr 1. F /�8 961.0 v / x 944.8 / O d 929.4 >�s3zo9 2915 n '\API 1, E\ \946.8 x\\ \1 f'iq�� 3 1 r ; ✓ ` 0 T 'IttE 2 �j�s0 \ 9ss� i 1 (� \ c g9a ,3\6 7 V 4z v ; 158_ 2 0��050 qa0 4"1 99. m I /Oc6`� 1934x` X181 1,N ��i \ 2ROW _ e M 12 48 , 9589959 59?f, e�. p� 9 9�;�1 9539 /PPVER953.6 9528 948.8 A9�o�''��� I I q , 955.8 \ S3 ,/ 9536 E 953-5 144 .0 r \ I z 41.8 w 9 1 1RATl v ROW" g5n g �cc 953.a N 195 ® 1E 4J m w ,II91 R \ 36'- 90_ 24.9 147 42�,aF w�444\ 959.7 \D58. /650 mwk?9419 1344 - 929.5 359.4 9596 Qr ROW" 42 \''s/ 00v 944,8 94.0 �\ I 1 �C '�) `�' e9\COI�MN � FN69A813/ - ( 558 ID 'q Al�\ 953.9 18.1 99C439Pts:\ .09350 341 933.4 932.2 _ x 941,21 I I 1 ROW / c 25.4 J � s pG3 '� W eT -9503 `ssl� Ri I \° x16 0� a 9q9 4 WACC� 96!5 FWAY n- \ 951 l 535 9j 5 -moi ro FFE- Z F 9410x 934 5 6 r \ \ 9552 PA 955.1 98 92 r 5 Q ��fi C{NQS 9Pe mA� ER OR/VeW4 B, 2 y}h 956.3\.\ 9550 (moi 9550 7 959.9951 - �9 WOE= 196 ' 40"� \, ' 934.4x \ r'i 9318 Sry5'R q��,bo 9442 p .9437 43.6 `n 0 '/II CQIAJ20, 26. h 956 513 939.5 a g6'Oty�o ,o OFF= 529 3-20" 176 a (> /050 `° .r5 0��' /4 542 9541 �/" \ 5 01 J � L X51 955.3 9ry .o P � 4i � ezev 9 435.] � ,10"0 bi o 96 P % 9/ 953 y 954.2 519- i -f ` 9520 952.1 9 945 B Tl m' 4t. 493 o 958 ✓50C 952.9 949.5 .939.3 n �W 9 95g9�492949.4 9197 9b 1 41 . Ir t\gg30 x935.0 GPR IBS N m��7'n uND o5p3 yS./ ��9q�.4 9A5� _ q39? 26" -6 936.4 983.0/REt/�P 1-� 4 :I 944.3 20" 1 i 26' ants 930 9sz2 -9sr -9 /9s13 55O 9aa ] 9 00 I- D / - - TRAC7'/ 8 959.9 1-Cj 9569 9 r10' S2 953.8 t A 9aL 9401 N69 f �� / 939.2 X99 P3Z 325/ 92 /BG00� 0 � -s ! 9N 7 -938.1 / 1 /n - / $$ // 9 rNIOPEN yO NSFP/�4445( * l >; 940.8 ( =939= / 94$.'0 9447 30" 36 '/ 958.0 !x9 ! 5 / / j /v'S`• l ^ /I9� /, 8.0 S se/ / / / ,fl 994.4 a �� Ja �! h e� /rn A I 9916.,55 l\ o� a 3 FIELD CREW DH NS DRAWN EMW CHECKED DBP DATE REVISION USE (INCLUDING COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, ANDIOR CONVEYANCE OF INFORMATION) OF THIS PRODUCT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT SATHRE-BERGOUIST, INC.'s EXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION. USE WITHOUT SATO AUTHORIZATION CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGITIMATE USE AND SHALL THEREBY INDEMNIFY SATHRE-BERGOUIST, INC. OF ALL RESPONSIBILITY. SATHRE-BERGOUIST, INC. RESERVESm THERIGHTTOHOLD ANY ILLEGITIMATE USER OR PARTY LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES OR LOSSES RESULTING FROM ILLEGITIMATE USE. / 1 TWP.117 V Projt T l- Her / / N 1 N N O CONCRETE CURB GUY WIRE FIELD CREW DH NS DRAWN EMW CHECKED DBP DATE REVISION USE (INCLUDING COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, ANDIOR CONVEYANCE OF INFORMATION) OF THIS PRODUCT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT SATHRE-BERGOUIST, INC.'s EXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION. USE WITHOUT SATO AUTHORIZATION CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGITIMATE USE AND SHALL THEREBY INDEMNIFY SATHRE-BERGOUIST, INC. OF ALL RESPONSIBILITY. SATHRE-BERGOUIST, INC. RESERVESm THERIGHTTOHOLD ANY ILLEGITIMATE USER OR PARTY LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES OR LOSSES RESULTING FROM ILLEGITIMATE USE. I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I an, a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Dated this 27 day ofluly, ]fi. ry�jbp C�"son� David B. Pemberton, PLS Minnesota License No. 40344 pemberton@sathre.con, 6ER5 St!R` fij? �� A 2SAT H R E -B E RG Q U I ST INC. v'I-E1 r..150 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN. 55391 (952) 476-6000 h N �? WWW.SATHRE.COM G`kF p�2 TWP.117 V Projt IF, r� T.E Her -ETV- / N 1 N N O CONCRETE CURB DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYED Tenet B, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1451, according to the -dW plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 2. Flood Zone Informstlan: This pmpeTty appears m lie in ZoveX (Areaaautside the 1-pereem a..ual obavce Floadplah�, areas of 1 % mnual ehar�ce sheet Pow Flooding wbere average depths are less than 1 foot, areas of I%annual chance stream flooding where Ne contributing drainage Brea is less than I square mile, or eas protected d Zone annual chanty flood I levees. Nf Base Flood Elevations or depths are shown within Nis zone. lnsumn g puccbase is not aae, d se these zones.) and Zone AE (Areas with a 1 %annual chance of flooding end a wid chance of Flooding over the life ae 30 -year,, C, -most instances, base Flood elevations derived from detailed analyses are shown at selected intervals witlrw Nese zones.) per Flood Inswance Rate Maq Commwity Panel No. 27053CO311E. effective date of September 2nd 2004. 3. Parcel Area Information: Gross Aree: 54,723s.f. - 1.256- 4. Benchmark: Elevations are based a. MNMOT Geodetic Station Name: JOHNSON which has an elevation of 939.00 feet (NAVD88), convened to NGVD29 using NOAA Vertcon appli,.han. 5. Zoning lot ---III The current Zoning for the subject Inaptly is LRAC (One Family Lakeshore Residential - IR acre) per the City of Or,,&, zoning map dated March 2011. The setback height, and floor space area restrictions for said zoning designation were obtained from the City of Orono found on thenweb site on Ne date of July 26, 2076 and areas follows: Principal Stmctme Setbacks - Fmnn 30 Peat (Caroline Avenue) Side: 10 fect Rear 30 feet Lake. 75 feet (From Ordinary High W- Line) Height: 30 feet Haalt. c: 25 No- afro[area-Tier1 Please note that the general restrictions for the subject properly may have been amended through a city process. We could be unaware of such amendments if they not in a recorded document provided b us. We recommend Nat a inning letter be obtained from [he Zoning Administretm for Ne current restrictions for [his site. 6. Uflflfles: We have shown h location ofurilities on Ne surveyed property by observed,vide... only. There may be underground utilities e -baring Ne subject property we are unaware. Please note. Nat we have not placed a Gopher State One Call for this survey. There may a may not be underground utilities in the mapped area, therefore extreme caution must be exercise before any excavation takes place on or near this site. Before digging, you ere required by law to notify Gopher State One Call m least 48 hours in advance at 651/454-0002. Eslsting Douse Ele..thm First Floor Elevation 9551 Attached Gereg, Elevation 953.9 Walkout Elevation = 944.2 Detached Garage Elevation 960.1 m v i Fence ties are shown on the _ side of the boundary line that 20 SURVEYLEGEND [he fence is located on r, 4'! 9 ', Bearings are based aanRthe Hennepin County Coordinate: System (NAD 83 -1986 adj.) 10 0 10 20 40 SCALE TN FEET CAST IRON MONUMENT taX 4 I 0 BITUMINOUS ® CATCH BASIN r 6 V eine- BUILDING SETBACK LINE IF, r� T.E 1 C -ETV- / N 1 N N O CONCRETE CURB GUY WIRE \ l Y 6 C a ' M A w A L '" �____ P E GUARD RAIL ELL m v i Fence ties are shown on the _ side of the boundary line that 20 SURVEYLEGEND [he fence is located on r, 4'! 9 ', Bearings are based aanRthe Hennepin County Coordinate: System (NAD 83 -1986 adj.) 10 0 10 20 40 SCALE TN FEET CAST IRON MONUMENT Al A/C UNIT 0 BITUMINOUS ® CATCH BASIN © CABLE TV PEDESTAL -sss. eine- BUILDING SETBACK LINE 4 FLARED END SECTION ® ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER -ETV- CABLE TV 14 GATE VALVE ® ELECTRIC MANHOLE CONCRETE CURB GUY WIRE ® ELECTRIC METER 0 CONCRETE CO' HYDRANT © GAS METER eso- CONTOUR EXISTING O SURVEY MONUMENT SET 0 GAS VALVE '" �____ -- CONTOUR PROPOSED • SURVEY MONUMENT FOUND GUARD RAIL ELL DRAIN TILE Q SURVEY CONTROL POINT © HAND HOLE ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND %1 LIGHT POLE SOIL BORING -xx-FENCE r"O, POWER POLE TREE CONIFEROUS FO FIBER OPTIC UNDERGROUND Q SANITARY MANHOLEtJ TREE DECIDUOUS cAs GAS UNDERGROUND Q SANITARY CLEANOUT �TELEPHONE MANHOLE -I OVERHEAD UTILITY v SIGN C] TELEPHONE PEDESTAL +HiFFF.... . RAILROAD TRACKS s GROUND ELEVATION P® TRAFFIC SIGNAL I SANITARY SEWER STORM DRAIN 0 UTILITY MANHOLE 0� STORM SEWER Si STORM MANHOLE 0 UTILITY PEDESTAL TESTELEPHONE UNDERGROUND b YARD LIGHT ® WELL uTt UTILITY UNDERGROUND WATERMAIN '3 - SEC.20 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY PREPARED FOR: FILE NO. 54048-001 Orono ounty ROBERTLUND Council Exh«g ; z j 2 z CD j ® ; \ o©1? { � � ( \ � . \! ] n a2 :j2 9«S lam: o:kmoz //§§) 2)m2 7§;Q ` ,X;k 2*\20 ) , § / § Z� ,,,+ ;gym» 'm!`m °!§§i 20 ! \ ! ){k§ §0 \ \ ) ( m z £IMfR § :/ d , ( . in \ \� Cn m § E § \ - j § / G i ) ` a�§;�� 2r ; �} ((k} , j\ )} CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1437 AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-328 FILE NO. 16-3862 WHEREAS, Robert Thomas Lund and Maria Cote Lund, a married couple (hereinafter the "Applicants"), are the owners of the property located at 2732 Caroline Avenue and legally described as: Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 1451, accorded to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "Property"); WHEREAS, on August 17, 2016, the Applicants made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1437 and a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 78-348 to allow conversion of an existing 1,164 square foot detached garage to a guest house; and WHEREAS, according to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1437 plumbing, including a shower or bathtub, is permitted in an accessory building that is conforming in location, size, and height; and WHEREAS, the existing detached garage exceeds the permitted maximum accessory structure footprint size by 164 square feet; WHEREAS, on September 19, 2016, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on September 19, 2016, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance and conditional use permit as requested; and WHEREAS, on October 19, 2016, the Applicants submitted a revised plan removing the second story from the guest house plans; and WHEREAS, on November 14, 2016, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested variance and conditional use permit as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #16-3862. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The Property is located in the LR -11C, One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 1.25 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 120 feet. 4. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25% according to the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. 5. The purpose of City Code Section 78-1434 is to regulate overall massing on individual lots, in relation to the lot size. Lots up to 1.99 acres are limited to a total structural level of 15% of the total lot area. Additionally, lots up to 1.99 acres are permitted one accessory building up to 1,000 square feet in area; and additional accessory buildings less than 1,000 square feet up to a maximum total of 2,000 square feet of accessory building. 6. The existing detached garage is nonconforming because it exceeds the accessory building footprint limit for a property with an area between 0-1.99 acres by 164 square feet. 7. Applicant has applied for the following variance[s]: a. Variance to permit conversion of an existing non -conforming detached garage to a guest house. 8. The Applicant has applied for the following conditional use permit: a. Guest house CUP 9. In considering this application for variance, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ANALYSIS: Variance Analysis: 1. "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance..."The proposed variance will be in harmony with the intent of the Zoning Code as the structure is existing. The conversion of the garage to a guest house will be conforming with respect to setbacks, and height. 2. "Variances shall only be permitted... when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan." The variance resulting a guest house use within the existing nonconforming residential garage in a residential zone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. "Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. `Practical difficulties,' as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that: a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls. The size of the garage was not the result of actions by the Applicants. A guest house is permitted on residential properties which meet the size requirement. The 164 square feet of additional structure is minimal, reasonable, and will not result in the building appearing to be too massive on the Property. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The detached garage is an existing building on the Property not constructed by the Applicants. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. " The Property is 1.25 acres in area, the proposed guest house use within the existing detached garage will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The total footprint of the detached garage exceeds the limit by 164 square feet, however 151 square feet of the overage is open deck and will not be as impactful on the appearance of massing. 4. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties." The Applicants have not requested consideration based on economic reasons. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 5. "Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78." This criterion is not applicable. 6. "The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located." The guest house on this residential property is permitted by conditional use. This criterion is met. 7. "The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." This criterion is not applicable. 8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." The garage, constructed in 1996 by a previous owner as a replacement to a then existing detached garage, is nonconforming with respect to size on this 1.25 acre property. The proposed guest house use of the garage will not increase the nonconformity (footprint size). 9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located." The Property is 1.25 acres, enough acreage to accommodate a guest house, however does not have adequate width to subdivide into two buildable lots. 10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." The Applicants have indicated that this is true. 11. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter." The guest house in the proposed location will not impair the health, safety, comfort or morals of the public. 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty." The Applicants have indicated that, although permitted to construct a separate, conforming guest house building less than 1,000 square feet in footprint, they wish to minimize hardcover by utilizing the existing nonconforming structure. Conditional Use Permit Analysis: The Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant a conditional use permit as it was applied for or in modified form. On the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the city must find that the proposed use at the proposed location is or will be: CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1. Consistent with the community management plan. The proposed use is residential in nature and residential use is consistent with the CMP guiding for this neighborhood. 2. Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as required by article V, division 3 of the City Code. The guest house will be otherwise conforming in location and height on the Property; the proposal to convert the existing nonconforming detached garage into the guest house requires a variance due to the nonconforming footprint size. 3. Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management. The proposed use will be adequately served by existing services and facilities. 4. Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system. The proposed guest house will be connected to City sewer and water. 5. Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost. Staff believes this criterion is met. 6. Compatible with the surrounding area as the area is used both presently and as it is planned to be used in the future. The proposed use of the detached garage for the guest house space is residential in character and its use is expected to be compatible with the surrounding area. 7. Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, and the community management plan, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan. The guest house is residential in visual character and from the exterior, no change will be observed, and will be compatible with the surrounding area. 8. Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the properties in the area or have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses. The use of the structure as a guest house is not expected to have any adverse impacts. No information has been presented to indicate such. 9. Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and activities likely to disturb surrounding uses. The existing detached garage and guest house will not be significantly visible when viewed from off the property due to its location on the lot. No additional screening or buffering is required. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 10. Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes, dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means. The proposed guest house use is not expected to cause any of these undesirable impacts. 11. Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or unsafe access. It is anticipated that the proposed guest house use will not generate any of these undesirable issues. 12. Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact. The proposed guest house will not affect these features or have a negative environmental impact. 13. All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts. Applicants are hereby advised of this requirement; and 14. Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. Staff believes this criterion is met. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1437 and a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 78-348 to allow conversion of an existing 1,164 square foot detached garage to a guest house with garage; subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the survey by Sathre-Bergquist, Inc., dated July 27, 2016 and updated on August 2, 2016 and building plans dated October 19, 2016 submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A & B. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. All exterior lighting associated with the guest house shall be downward cast and not directed off the Property. 3. The Applicants agree to covenant the following regarding the guest house: a. The guest house is for the sole use of the occupants of the principle dwelling, including their domestic employees and nonpaying guests. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. b. No future subdivision will be approved that places the structure within a lot that has no principal structure, except that the city in its subdivision approval may grant a finite time period in which the oversized accessory structure may remain without a principal structure, in order that a principal structure may be constructed. At the end of this time period, the oversized accessory structure must be removed if no principal structure has been constructed. c. If the property is subdivided, the oversize accessory structure and principal structure will be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size of accessory building. d. In subdivision approval, the setback required for the oversize accessory structure shall remain. 4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction and commencing construction of said project. A framing inspection must be completed within one year of the date of Council approval, or the approvals will expire on that date (November 14, 2017). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6. The undersigned Applicants have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the Applicants and the Applicants' heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the Property. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 14' day of November, 2016. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor Property Owner STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. Property Owner This instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2016, by Robert Thomas Lund, husband of Maria Cote Lund. STATE OF MINNE" COUNTY OF HENN m This instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2016, by Maria Cote Lund, wife of Robert Thomas Lund. Notary Public E 10� .n N 1 \ 1 \ yocq v P C �EQ1 PS$T NNW � p291 1 a \�p� O�NPFk9294 ,.Y .. V �C , WNMU ,U \ - l'l \ Ld HillR . III ,N_K_�. �Idfl' s _ W n Z W o LL o LL LU E Lu "s lu s�U�sga�:oaab h F- Q W _ a W m O N W q�� U s8a� ]sed r a �a -._ ._» p. ®oa.p o•Qa�i®ohq.®®� x 10� .n N 1 \ 1 \ yocq v P C �EQ1 PS$T NNW � p291 1 a \�p� O�NPFk9294 ,.Y .. 4.� m �;3awo� 5�sau��wa£ 03�.�€wraa H. ho'�o=gpp Resol Ex A V �C , ,U \ l'l \ Ld 4.� m �;3awo� 5�sau��wa£ 03�.�€wraa H. ho'�o=gpp Resol Ex A Res&EB ; z § G \ § § CD\ z \ o©1? { � � ( \ � . I ,® \! ] ll' -ll :j2 12'-10 lam: omo z =E§ 2] m]I2.. ¢d/] ` ■`;$ § B§m� \ ` 2"2� a Z� ,,,+ �/R>1 (§§) °!§§i ;; 0 ! \ ! ))k§ 'o / p E \ )) -z IMq m , \ \� C) § E IM § z - j § / G i b ` a§;�� 2r --I ; >} ((k} , j\ )} NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4620 ZONING FILE Council Exhibit C #16-3862 DATE OF NOTICE: 19 Sept 2016 TO: Robert Lund COPIES: Robert Lund 2732 Caroline Avenue Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF REQUEST: Guest House CUP/Variance DATE OF MEETING: 19 September 2016 The Orono Planning Commission voted on a motion to recommend approval of the guest house CUP and variance as requested. VOTE: 6 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next meeting is tentatively scheduled as: Monday, October 10th This is a City Council meeting. The meeting begins at 7 PM If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please contact Melanie Curtis at mcurtis(Oci.orono.mmus or 952.249.4627. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 19, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 5. #16-3862 ROBERT LUND, 2732 CAROLINE AVENUE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE, 6:39 P.M. — 6:43 P.M. Robert Lund, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to permit a guest house on the property. The guest house will be constructed above an existing detached garage with a footprint of 1,164 square feet. The footprint includes a deck and a stair on the exterior. A variance is required because the existing detached garage is nonconforming because it exceeds, by 164 square feet, the permitted 1,000 square foot maximum OAS size for the 1.25 acre property. The detached garage does meet the required principal structure setbacks. Lot coverage, the overall hardcover levels are conforming, and the property is served by city sewer. Plumbing is permitted in accessory structures provided the structure is conforming. The variance is necessary because the garage is nonconforming because it is too large. According to the plans, it appears the existing deck will be extended. Staff would ask for clarification on that and recommend that that not be permitted. Properties within the LR -1C zoning district require a minimum of one acre per lot for a guest house and this property meets that requirement. The Planning Commission may choose to review the practical difficulty criteria within Staff's report. Staff finds the criteria permitting a guest house conditional use permit have been satisfied. It is not feasible to reduce the garage's footprint to gain compliance as the building itself without the deck is 13 square feet above what is permitted. Staff finds the variance reasonable. Curtis noted Staff's report regarding the neighbors' signatures was in error and the City did not receive any comments from the neighbors regarding the application. Planning Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the guest house use and variance permitting the guest house as proposed. Staff recommends there be no expansion of the deck or footprint during the remodel which results in additional structure. Approval of the conditional use permit for the guest house will also require the guest house and OAS covenants be recorded against the property. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Robert Lund, Applicant, stated he has nothing to add to Staff's report but would be available to answer any questions. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:42 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:42 p.m. Thiesse stated he did speak with one of the neighbors who indicated he thought it was a great idea. Lemke moved, Olson seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3862, Robert Lund, 2732 Caroline Avenue, granting of a conditional use permit and variance subject to Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. 26 October 2016 Robert Lund 2732 Caroline Ave Wayzata, MN 55391 Council Exhibit E CITY OF ORONO Street Address: Mailing Address: Telephone (952) 249-4600 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Fax (952) 249-4616 Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 www.d.orono.mn.us SUBJECT: Zoning Application #16-3862 SENT VLA EE ARL On September 9th your variance and CUP application for the property at 2732 Caroline Avenue was considered to be complete. Your application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on Monday, September 19. Following the Planning Commission meeting you modified your request and submitted revised plans on October 191h, final Council approval will happen after the original 60 -day review deadline of October 31, 2016. Therefore the deadline will be extended by an additional 60 -days. Please note that pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 3(f) the time period for action on this application is hereby extended until Friday, December 30, 2016. Your application is scheduled to be before the City Council for their review on November 141h. Please contact me at 952.249.4627 or mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us if you have questions on this matter. The City Council agenda and staff report will be mailed/emailed to you the Friday prior to the meeting. Sincerely, CITY OF ORONO elanieurtis Planner Date Application Received: 08/17/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 09/01/16 60 -Day Review Period Expires: 10/31/16 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Jessica Loftus, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner WGG Date: 15 September 2016 Subject: #16-3862, Robert Lund, 2732 Caroline Ave, Variance & CUP Public Hearing Council Exhibit F Application Summary: The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to permit a guest house on the property. The guest house will be constructed above an existing detached garage which has a footprint of 1,164 square feet. A variance is required because the existing detached garage is nonconforming because it exceeds (by 164 square feet) the permitted maximum OAS size for the 1.25 acre property. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Proposed Survey/Site Plan Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. Hardcover Calculations Exhibit F. Aerial Photos Exhibit G. City Code Excerpts Exhibit H. Property Owners List Exhibit /. Plat Map Background The property owner is proposing to construct a second story addition over the existing detached garage on the property to serve as a guest house. The property has 1.25 acres in area, therefore a guest house is permitted via a conditional use permit. Because the existing detached garage footprint is larger than 1,000 square feet, it is nonconforming with respect to size, a variance from Section 78-1437 is required. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-420 & 78-1434 — Guest House Setbacks: The guest house is proposed to be constructed within an existing 1,164 square foot building (including the deck and stair) which is considered to be a non -conforming oversize accessory structure (OAS). The property is over 1.0 acres and is permitted one OAS up to 1,000 square foot footprint. An OAS must meet principal structure setbacks. FILE # 16-3862 15 Sept 2016 Page 2 of 6 LR -1C Required Existing/Proposed Front/Lake 75' ±270' Rear /Street 30' 98.2' North Side 30' 34' South Side 30' 47.5' Average Lakeshore Setback The existing garage and all proposed improvements to it will meet the average lakeshore setback. Section 78-420 - Lot Area/Width: LR -1C Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acre) 100' Actual 54,723 s.f. (1.25 acre) ±120' @ OHWL & 75' Section 78-1403- Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 54,723 s.f. (1.25 acre) Allowed: 8,208 s.f. (15%) Existing/Proposed: 5,249 s.f. (9.5%) Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Total Area in Allowed Existing/Proposed Hardcover Overlay District Zone Hardcover (No change) Tier Tier 1 54,723 s.f. 13,680 s.f. 9,932 s.f. 155 s.f. w/in 75' (25 %) (18.1%) Applicable Regulations: Guest House use in a Nonconformine Accessory Structure Variance (Code Section 78-1437) Plumbing is permitted in accessory structures, provided the structure is conforming. A variance is necessary because the Oversize Accessory Structure (OAS) is 164 sq ft too large; a 1,000 sq ft structure is permitted on the lot. According to the plans it appears the existing deck on the detached garage will be extended between from 5.5 feet to 6.5 feet which would expand the footprint of the building and therefore the nonconformity; a new, upper deck is proposed. Guest House Conditional Use Permit (City Code Section 78-418(2)) The property is within the LR -1C zoning district which requires a minimum of 0.5 acres per lot. The Code provides for a guest house use on properties with twice the minimum acreage for the respective district. In this case 1.0 acres is required; the property meets this requirement. The guest house and OAS covenants apply. FILE # 16-3862 15 Sept 2016 Page 3 of 6 Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The proposed variance will be in harmony with the intent of the Zoning Code as the structure is existing. The two story addition will be conforming with respect to setbacks, and height. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variance resulting in a guest house to be constructed in the upper floor of the existing residential garage in a residential zone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The size of the garage was not the result of actions by the landowner. A guest house is permitted on residential properties which meet the size requirement. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The proposed guest house use of the existing detached garage will not alter the character of the neighborhood; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The property is 1.25 acres in area, the proposed guest house use within a second story addition to the existing detached garage will not alter the character of the neighborhood. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The garage, constructed in 1996 by a previous owner as a replacement to a then existing detached garage, is nonconforming with respect to size on this 1.25 acre property. The proposed guest house use and 2nd story addition will not increase the nonconformity (footprint size). 5. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The property is 1.25 acres, enough acreage to accommodate a guest house, however does not have adequate width to subdivide into two buildable lots. 6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant has stated that this is so. FILE # 16-3862 15 Sept 2016 Page 4 of 6 7. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. The guest house in the proposed location will not impair the health, safety, comfort or morals of the public. 8. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The applicant has indicated that, although permitted to construct a separate, conforming guest house building less than 1,000 square feet in footprint, they wish to minimize hardcover by utilizing the existing nonconforming structure. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Applicable Regulation: Conditional Use Permit (Section 78-916) The Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) as the use permit was applied for or in modified form. On the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the city must find that the proposed use at the proposed location is or will be: 1) Consistent with the community management plan; The proposed use is residential in nature and residential use is consistent with the CMP guiding for this neighborhood. 2) Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as required by article V, division 3 of the City Code; The guest house will be otherwise conforming in location, and height on the property; the proposal to convert the existing nonconforming detached garage into the guest house requires a variance. 3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management; The proposed use will be adequately served by existing services and facilities. 4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system; The proposed guest house will be connected to City sewer and water. 5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost; Staff believes this criterion is met. 6) Compatible with the surrounding area as the area is used both presently and as it is planned to be used in the future; The proposed addition to the detached garage for the guest house space is residential in character and its use is expected to be compatible with the surrounding area. 7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; The guest house is residential in visual character and is expected to be compatible with the surrounding area. 8) Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; The architectural styling of the proposed building is expected to be residential in character and consistent with that of the principal structure on the property. 9) Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the area or have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses; The use of the FILE # 16-3862 15 Sept 2016 Page 5 of 6 structure as a guest house is not expected to have any adverse impacts. No information has been presented to indicate such. 10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and activities likely to disturb surrounding uses; The existing detached garage and therefore the addition for the guest house will not be significantly visible when viewed from off the property due to location on the lot. No additional screening or buffering is recommended. 11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes, dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means; The proposed guest house use is not expected to cause any of these undesirable impacts. 12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or unsafe access; It is anticipated that the proposed guest house use will not generate any of these undesirable issues. 13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact; The proposed guest house will not affect these features or have a negative environmental impact. 14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts; Applicants shall be advised of this requirement; and 15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. Staff believes this criterion is met. A CUP may be granted subject to such conditions as the Council may prescribe. Additionally, a CUP shall remain in effect as long as the conditions imposed by the City Council are observed, but nothing in this section shall prevent the city from enacting or amending official controls to change the status of conditional uses. Covenants Required In accepting this conditional use permit, the property owner will be required to agree to the filing of a covenant in the title of the property providing that the accessory building will not be: 1. Used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by the city or if allowed by this Code. 2. Used as a dwelling unless a guest house conditional use permit is obtained. 3. Rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. Additionally, as the detached garage/guest house is classified as an OAS, additional covenants are applicable as follows: Such structure shall be allowed only when the property owner agrees and covenants in writing with the city as follows: 4. No future subdivision will be approved that places the structure within a lot that has no principal structure, except that the city in its subdivision approval may grant a finite time period in which the oversized accessory structure may remain without a principal structure, in order that a principal structure may be constructed. At the end of this time period, the oversized accessory structure must be removed if no principal structure has been constructed. 5. If the property is subdivided, the oversize accessory structure and principal structure will be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size of accessory building. FILE # 16-3862 15 Sept 2016 Page 6 of 6 6. In subdivision approval, the setback required for the oversize accessory structure shall remain. Septic System Status The property is served by City sewer. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties and Conditional Use Permit Analysis Staff finds the criteria permitting a guest house conditional use permit have been satisfied. It is not feasible to reduce the garage's footprint (deck and footprint) to gain compliance as the building itself is 13 square feet above what is permitted. Therefore regarding the variance to expand the existing detached garage for use as a guest house because all setbacks and height requirements will be met, staff finds it reasonable. Engineer Comments The City engineer has performed a cursory review of the site plans and identified no immediate concerns. A comprehensive review of the plans will be conducted at the time of the building permit application. Public Comments No public comments. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the CUP and variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested CUP and variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the CUP for the guest house use and variance permitting the guest house as proposed. Staff recommends there be no expansion of the deck or footprint during the remodel which results in additional structure (specifically, the proposed deck expansion should not be permitted). Approval of the CUP for the guest house will also require the guest house and OAS covenants be recorded against the property. Council Exhibit G City of Orono Conditional Use Permit Application Street Address: Kelley Parkway Orono, I \� Orono, MN 55356 Main: 952-249-4600 fax: 952-249-4616 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Application # Date Received: Staff : M Fee: Escrow # & $ Permit Fee Notes: Please complete. Applicant will be notified within 15 days as to the status of the application. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agendas. SITE LOCATION: APPLICANT 1 AG Applicant Name: Phone (Primary): Applicant Email: Address: Agent Name: Agent Email: INFORMATION: r Biu k-rAA "T L� Agent's phone number Applicant is: Contractor ZIP: Homeowner (Circle One) PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION: /Check here if property owner is same as applicant Name: Phone (Primary): Mailing Address: City: ZIP: Email: APPLICANTIAGENT AND/OR OWNER: • Agree to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, • Agree to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and • Certify that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant and owner recognize that they are solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reject It until It is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of its potential merit. • Acknowledge the Escrow Agreement is completed and signed. • The Owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents, Commission and Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner and/or Applicant acknowledge they must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant and/or owner is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicant/owner and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. Applicant/Agent Signature: 9:yz!?� Date: f +�%k ( „ Applicant/Agent Signature: Date: Property Owner Signature: Date: Property Owner Signature: - Date: CUP Application - January 2016 RECEIVED AUG 17 2016 Page 2i � CITY OF ORONO DATA PRIVACY ADVISORY In accordance with Minnesota State Statute 13.04 Rights of Subjects of Data, Subd. 2, "Tennessen warning", we would like to inform you that your request for a permit or license from the City of Orono or any of its departments may require you to furnish certain private or confidential information. You are notified that: 1. The information you furnish will be used to determine your qualification for the permit or license requested. 2. You may refuse to supply data, but refusal may require that the City deny the permit or license. 3. The information may be shared with other local, state or federal agencies to the extent necessary to process the permit or license. 4. If your requested permit or license requires Council action to approve, some information may become public. 5. You have certain rights under Minnesota State Statute 13.04 (see following page) to review private data on yourself. 6. Your full name is required to process this application or permit. First Middle Address City Last State Zip CUP Application - January 2016 Page 8 3862 Phone �V20� RECEIVED AUG 17 20% CITY OF ORONO RECEIVED SEP 0 12016 PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FQAMF ORONO This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An application will not be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the City. Minnesota State Statutes Section 462.357, Subdivision 6(2) requires that practical difficulties be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. The difficulties must be unique to the property as variances run with the land and not the land owner. Personal and economic situations are not considered valid practical difficulties. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council practical difficulties having merit must be demonstrated. HOW DO I PROVE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if practical difficulties exist and how the variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove practical difficulties, address all the relevant points listed below and answer them as clearly as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is justified. The information the City receives is what is used in determining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave something out it will not be considered. Please address each of the twelve practical difficulties criteria as they relate to the request, if they do not apply, write NIA in the space provided. 1. "The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter." 2. "The plight of the landowner is due to 3. "The variance, if granted, will not alter the unique to his property not created by the landowner." character of the locality." ,rl, 4. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.' _ w 5. "Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116.I.06, Md. , 2, when in harmony with this Chapter." NZ& - 6. "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where theAffected persW's lang,is located." Variance Application — May 2016 Page 4 Variance Questions -Answers for Orono- Casco House 1. The purpose of project is allowed by zoning rules for this property. 2. The plight is with the size of the existing building which is slightly over the allow 1000 SQ feet. e0 (v 1'3 3. The variance would not alter the foot print or the existing structure at all nor the character of locality. 4. The reasonable use of the project is allowed and economics are not a factor for this variance. IV fk5. The practical difficulty is that the existing structure foundation is already slightly over the allowed limit. 6. The use of this project is allowed for this property. N )A 7. There is no request being made for a temporary use of dwelling. 8. There is no variance being asked for pertaining to adjoining property 9.- 10. The granting of this application is cessary to preserve the enjoyment of the property 11. This variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. 12. This variance will alleviate difficulty of adding an additional building and reduce hard cover on the existing property. This variance is to allow for an improvement to an existing building which is slightly over the allowed 1000 square feet (1013). Improving the existing structure will replace the need to build a new building and foundation which would cause more hard cover to built on the property. It is therefore desirable to improve the existing structure and reduce the hard cover impact on the property. 40 o A6'p0 269 5 �I �N0 04,56 LPI Q 40 `v9oiN" a r1 r` 1 N69 06 �g P 952.71 -951.3 1 9 f I Al. .J �2! r1�9OROW"\ x94 .7 �F /�-.�4 CJA am �58A, So 953.9 n ° l /! / o ��/ROW" a s 9x13.6! ,Y I X85 9s- �.2�823,,'8 � /53� v-.�.. Q�,vE�S $ � a.s <,-'� ti xli� cp 4 12 0 3 55?4 h /f� �r �S . 6 953.6 952. 4 a 2 u_ 1 5� .`a 993. E 953-� J 514. w Gl h�8 ROh �S� 955.6 d - _ - o``'h� 'o,Sg9592 Q io�f ♦ � %� _ ROW 953-5 14.7 Ncfl �,\CQR 355rj16, OY.24g 47 po.4.2. Cl' YO/` 44.4 c; % t x59.3 9s94� °i 959.7 fig, m �. &9448 �k� 959 4 g5g g ,.� 959.4 1%� ROW" 42" \ 955.8 s.� 3. ., 94 944.0 4 959.7 sSCp,.MN FN 92 12" g n 6FE= 18.4 N x943.9 1 J i9.4 959 4 ' 1 A5n.9 9 �+' 1 s < f9 Io 953.9 v < 59 8431 - �!0" i u' w N a pix 39 14 `s ` ° 9 959 8 959.5 / ".9 \ 960.3 g6 _ .. ' s ' '. / N y �i �h v 94 rn a 28 0 5 ,.� ROW" � 1 ! h s 4 960, 9. -9`4.6 �• O Q 943.0 x / ss 1 5 0, Qi? yas ♦_41 F Pq y w , i 955.1 O� U' 268.2' �$ 6?0 ;F ` 5g ! Q 55.6 Q� QIP �' �h til (� : a a ' 956 r a r rR ` 3 955 0 7 955.0 0. 940� 6 g944.2940" i 43.6 ! 9 `' 953.3 r' ° �c�0 °'i�i�iY r. 962.8 / _ \ 8 9 0 .� $ 56.4 5 952.9 3-20" 0 47-° cfl O � 1 / 955.2 ` , 9..4.1 / ,7 \ \ P1 962. �Q�1 955.,E 954. 952. 952-1 4 z O h Q 353.4 2 0 `� { 8 { a 40 S fiv r 964.1 j♦ Th K 5 x52 849.7 949 5 *o (' �' 9 1, 37. ✓ c,i' 958.4 § 3 `49.2949.4 & i g, 9 9 A9 °�' 8 i CA cn ?3�h.. �4 / � - 9� 2-8" $ 5 _ �"� pL 41 gsz, oy \ q�@ 949.4 9& �,°� ob '�9&3 r � G��Av� °� ` GRQU�Vp 4 sSsa4 � �4 : �4 9�/ J j26�.1 s CT) 0 �IdE 5g5,�30" LO �°'`�g`'♦ h� i _ 444.3 9 i,, % / " / � n 952.E X52- `9 -1 951.3g`'o ` l f 9§0 �6 \ L. /x 965.0 \ - 1 959.9 ` SA x`1956 ' / �gS• r �/ ���- 940.7 ` r�- I \-O) k ;32' , [�E,Ce`; a5 Aq� 9 4� 00 p 59 --� ' _ _ ��1 .►E 2 Psi } X5.5 f �� Li / �, .952.8 �o� o O� 6.2 � j Q+� p,' / - x 959-5 --i _-, �� ' - ; 1 j94i - ' / 940 / k' / 940.4 `., ♦ / l / OILJ /x 939.2 9 2" 9 955.9^ r 9g/ ,( / x 94 / x 938.1 965.2 _ 96 / s x 32 f ; / /` I / ,-'X939.7 ROW1- 13 • \ ` ... � �/ � � `/ � 945.3 � x 934.4- /ND IP 1/�' OPEN kFAN SES' / � ` }' 940.8 9 / 946, w 44. sr 1 /`/ 9x4 3 RST �q(� 1 o R59.9 E / / / 944 7 94 .376-- 59.9 3 6' 6 946.2 / / 942.6 / E ,>o 2 O _ 1 � 955.6 30" / QO��S�� g 5�i / 94°.B 0zo /� 961.0 958.Q /' / / c_ , /V Q ao { �� e / ! (o 8 0/ 2> 961. r 9x4.4 x %` � p 14' x / - } x % �7 Cv 4o c 9 J \BEEP \ / / oho ;� yz 9592 \ ' 4 y � 954 A. / x 962.8 f 560.643 RFT Wq /J, 48 48 rr 1. F /�8 961.0 v / x 944.8 / O d 929.4 >�s3zo9 2915 n '\API 1, E\ \946.8 x\\ \1 f'iq�� 3 1 r ; ✓ ` 0 T 'IttE 2 �j�s0 \ 9ss� i 1 (� \ c g9a ,3\6 7 V 4z v ; 158_ 2 0��050 qa0 4"1 99. m I /Oc6`� 1934x` X181 1,N ��i \ 2ROW _ e M 12 48 , 9589959 59?f, e�. p� 9 9�;�1 9539 /PPVER953.6 9528 948.8 A9�o�''��� I I q , 955.8 \ S3 ,/ 9536 E 953-5 144 .0 r \ I z 41.8 w 9 1 1RATl v ROW" g5n g �cc 953.a N 195 ® 1E 4J m w ,II91 R \ 36'- 90_ 24.9 147 42�,aF w�444\ 959.7 \D58. /650 mwk?9419 1344 - 929.5 359.4 9596 Qr ROW" 42 \''s/ 00v 944,8 94.0 �\ I 1 �C '�) `�' e9\COI�MN � FN69A813/ - ( 558 ID 'q Al�\ 953.9 18.1 99C439Pts:\ .09350 341 933.4 932.2 _ x 941,21 I I 1 ROW / c 25.4 J � s pG3 '� W eT -9503 `ssl� Ri I \° x16 0� a 9q9 4 WACC� 96!5 FWAY n- \ 951 l 535 9j 5 -moi ro FFE- Z F 9410x 934 5 6 r \ \ 9552 PA 955.1 98 92 r 5 Q ��fi C{NQS 9Pe mA� ER OR/VeW4 B, 2 y}h 956.3\.\ 9550 (moi 9550 7 959.9951 - �9 WOE= 196 ' 40"� \, ' 934.4x \ r'i 9318 Sry5'R q��,bo 9442 p .9437 43.6 `n 0 '/II CQIAJ20, 26. h 956 513 939.5 a g6'Oty�o ,o OFF= 529 3-20" 176 a (> /050 `° .r5 0��' /4 542 9541 �/" \ 5 01 J � L X51 955.3 9ry .o P � 4i � ezev 9 435.] � ,10"0 bi o 96 P % 9/ 953 y 954.2 519- i -f ` 9520 952.1 9 945 B Tl m' 4t. 493 o 958 ✓50C 952.9 949.5 .939.3 n �W 9 95g9�492949.4 9197 9b 1 41 . Ir t\gg30 x935.0 GPR IBS N m��7'n uND o5p3 yS./ ��9q�.4 9A5� _ q39? 26" -6 936.4 983.0/REt/�P 1-� 4 :I 944.3 20" 1 i 26' ants 930 9sz2 -9sr -9 /9s13 55O 9aa ] 9 00 I- D / - - TRAC7'/ 8 959.9 1-Cj 9569 9 r10' S2 953.8 t A 9aL 9401 N69 f �� / 939.2 X99 P3Z 325/ 92 /BG00� 0 � -s ! 9N 7 -938.1 / 1 /n - / $$ // 9 rNIOPEN yO NSFP/�4445( * l >; 940.8 ( =939= / 94$.'0 9447 30" 36 '/ 958.0 !x9 ! 5 / / j /v'S`• l ^ /I9� /, 8.0 S se/ / / / ,fl 994.4 a �� Ja �! h e� /rn A I 9916.,55 l\ o� a 3 FIELD CREW DH NS DRAWN EMW CHECKED DBP DATE REVISION USE (INCLUDING COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, ANDIOR CONVEYANCE OF INFORMATION) OF THIS PRODUCT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT SATHRE-BERGOUIST, INC.'s EXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION. USE WITHOUT SATO AUTHORIZATION CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGITIMATE USE AND SHALL THEREBY INDEMNIFY SATHRE-BERGOUIST, INC. OF ALL RESPONSIBILITY. SATHRE-BERGOUIST, INC. RESERVESm THERIGHTTOHOLD ANY ILLEGITIMATE USER OR PARTY LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES OR LOSSES RESULTING FROM ILLEGITIMATE USE. / 1 TWP.117 V Projt T l- Her / / N 1 N N O CONCRETE CURB GUY WIRE FIELD CREW DH NS DRAWN EMW CHECKED DBP DATE REVISION USE (INCLUDING COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, ANDIOR CONVEYANCE OF INFORMATION) OF THIS PRODUCT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT SATHRE-BERGOUIST, INC.'s EXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION. USE WITHOUT SATO AUTHORIZATION CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGITIMATE USE AND SHALL THEREBY INDEMNIFY SATHRE-BERGOUIST, INC. OF ALL RESPONSIBILITY. SATHRE-BERGOUIST, INC. RESERVESm THERIGHTTOHOLD ANY ILLEGITIMATE USER OR PARTY LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES OR LOSSES RESULTING FROM ILLEGITIMATE USE. I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I an, a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Dated this 27 day ofluly, ]fi. ry�jbp C�"son� David B. Pemberton, PLS Minnesota License No. 40344 pemberton@sathre.con, 6ER5 St!R` fij? �� A 2SAT H R E -B E RG Q U I ST INC. v'I-E1 r..150 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN. 55391 (952) 476-6000 h N �? WWW.SATHRE.COM G`kF p�2 TWP.117 V Projt IF, r� T.E Her -ETV- / N 1 N N O CONCRETE CURB DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYED Tenet B, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1451, according to the -dW plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 2. Flood Zone Informstlan: This pmpeTty appears m lie in ZoveX (Areaaautside the 1-pereem a..ual obavce Floadplah�, areas of 1 % mnual ehar�ce sheet Pow Flooding wbere average depths are less than 1 foot, areas of I%annual chance stream flooding where Ne contributing drainage Brea is less than I square mile, or eas protected d Zone annual chanty flood I levees. Nf Base Flood Elevations or depths are shown within Nis zone. lnsumn g puccbase is not aae, d se these zones.) and Zone AE (Areas with a 1 %annual chance of flooding end a wid chance of Flooding over the life ae 30 -year,, C, -most instances, base Flood elevations derived from detailed analyses are shown at selected intervals witlrw Nese zones.) per Flood Inswance Rate Maq Commwity Panel No. 27053CO311E. effective date of September 2nd 2004. 3. Parcel Area Information: Gross Aree: 54,723s.f. - 1.256- 4. Benchmark: Elevations are based a. MNMOT Geodetic Station Name: JOHNSON which has an elevation of 939.00 feet (NAVD88), convened to NGVD29 using NOAA Vertcon appli,.han. 5. Zoning lot ---III The current Zoning for the subject Inaptly is LRAC (One Family Lakeshore Residential - IR acre) per the City of Or,,&, zoning map dated March 2011. The setback height, and floor space area restrictions for said zoning designation were obtained from the City of Orono found on thenweb site on Ne date of July 26, 2076 and areas follows: Principal Stmctme Setbacks - Fmnn 30 Peat (Caroline Avenue) Side: 10 fect Rear 30 feet Lake. 75 feet (From Ordinary High W- Line) Height: 30 feet Haalt. c: 25 No- afro[area-Tier1 Please note that the general restrictions for the subject properly may have been amended through a city process. We could be unaware of such amendments if they not in a recorded document provided b us. We recommend Nat a inning letter be obtained from [he Zoning Administretm for Ne current restrictions for [his site. 6. Uflflfles: We have shown h location ofurilities on Ne surveyed property by observed,vide... only. There may be underground utilities e -baring Ne subject property we are unaware. Please note. Nat we have not placed a Gopher State One Call for this survey. There may a may not be underground utilities in the mapped area, therefore extreme caution must be exercise before any excavation takes place on or near this site. Before digging, you ere required by law to notify Gopher State One Call m least 48 hours in advance at 651/454-0002. Eslsting Douse Ele..thm First Floor Elevation 9551 Attached Gereg, Elevation 953.9 Walkout Elevation = 944.2 Detached Garage Elevation 960.1 m v i Fence ties are shown on the _ side of the boundary line that 20 SURVEYLEGEND [he fence is located on r, 4'! 9 ', Bearings are based aanRthe Hennepin County Coordinate: System (NAD 83 -1986 adj.) 10 0 10 20 40 SCALE TN FEET CAST IRON MONUMENT taX 4 I 0 BITUMINOUS ® CATCH BASIN r 6 V eine- BUILDING SETBACK LINE IF, r� T.E 1 C -ETV- / N 1 N N O CONCRETE CURB GUY WIRE \ l Y 6 C a ' M A w A L '" �____ P E GUARD RAIL ELL m v i Fence ties are shown on the _ side of the boundary line that 20 SURVEYLEGEND [he fence is located on r, 4'! 9 ', Bearings are based aanRthe Hennepin County Coordinate: System (NAD 83 -1986 adj.) 10 0 10 20 40 SCALE TN FEET CAST IRON MONUMENT Al A/C UNIT 0 BITUMINOUS ® CATCH BASIN © CABLE TV PEDESTAL -sss. eine- BUILDING SETBACK LINE 4 FLARED END SECTION ® ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER -ETV- CABLE TV 14 GATE VALVE ® ELECTRIC MANHOLE CONCRETE CURB GUY WIRE ® ELECTRIC METER 0 CONCRETE CO' HYDRANT © GAS METER eso- CONTOUR EXISTING O SURVEY MONUMENT SET 0 GAS VALVE '" �____ -- CONTOUR PROPOSED • SURVEY MONUMENT FOUND GUARD RAIL ELL DRAIN TILE Q SURVEY CONTROL POINT © HAND HOLE ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND %1 LIGHT POLE SOIL BORING -xx-FENCE r"O, POWER POLE TREE CONIFEROUS FO FIBER OPTIC UNDERGROUND Q SANITARY MANHOLEtJ TREE DECIDUOUS cAs GAS UNDERGROUND Q SANITARY CLEANOUT �TELEPHONE MANHOLE -I OVERHEAD UTILITY v SIGN C] TELEPHONE PEDESTAL +HiFFF.... . RAILROAD TRACKS s GROUND ELEVATION P® TRAFFIC SIGNAL I SANITARY SEWER STORM DRAIN 0 UTILITY MANHOLE 0� STORM SEWER Si STORM MANHOLE 0 UTILITY PEDESTAL TESTELEPHONE UNDERGROUND b YARD LIGHT ® WELL uTt UTILITY UNDERGROUND WATERMAIN '3 - SEC.20 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY PREPARED FOR: FILE NO. 54048-001 Orono ounty ROBERTLUND big aE Rj 41 7RlJ RE tit uk ... 4 i'7c�r f ���'��� oo �� '' �� '?'ate.• �'� /.: 0 q0 9 O m /" � z 1 i � - -, , ,:iia r r'"��r r �� $ ♦ Z €ll .'r�1 i�TS r� ' 11��y'%-i ,i/ i.+ 1, ,♦ � � 'L. .. —"� E� 'l7 I � i7 ���/ / l �/1. '� •COs v �.�44 y , z c m a a o ; 0rn n p ^ r m Q i_' n 0 �Z m .. a! DG) �n �> p 20 4 P.1 �I A r m c C ......... r C C.n o m r CD> m m O C h _ m ......... .--..... .... 0 *"""1► K L7 _ �l O 0 z 0 G �7 N CJS N C M ! z i r. P < I m' E I I • I I 4 1 I! { AT..0 Y: I ! i J _ S �3 cn d------------------- ' > 1 _ Zf rf if I .-. ... --- ........ .... ....... ....... ... C O m o m < . e a y m m 0 r 0 N` CP = « City of Orono Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Address: 2732 Caroline Avenue ° _ f Prepared By: Sathre-Bergquist Date: 7/26/2016 SB Job Number: 54048-001 Prepared by: EJ Wirtz Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle One) Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Step 1: EXISTING HARDCOVER In the following table, identify all items of existing hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to Certificate of Survey (survey must accompany this form). Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict existing hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, Identify any features by letter which are split at the 75' setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. Key to Survey Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width Total (Square Feet) (Example) (Garage) (24'x 30') (720 S.F.) A House Varies 3500 S. F. B Detached Garage 38.5X26.3 1013 S. F. C Driveway Varies 4262 S. F. D Pavers Varies 169 S. F. E Pavers 3x3 9 S. F. F East Deck Varies 354 S. F. G Concrete Pad 2x4 8 S. F. H Stairs within OHW Setback 8x8 64 S. F. I Pavers Varies 62 S. F. J South Deck Varies 140 S. F. K Patio Vaires 68 S. F. L Steps Varies 60 S. F. M Sta i rs 4x6 24 S. F. N Stairs 3X8 24 S. F. 0 Detached Garage Deck 5.5X26.3 145 S. F. P Stairs 2X3 6 S. F. Q Column 2X3 6 S. F. R Decorative Wall 1.5X12 18 S. F. S Lake Shed within OHW Setback 9.6X9.6 91 S. F. T S. F. U S. F. V S. F. W S. F. X S. F. y S. F. Z S. F. (1) Total Existing Hardcover 10023 S. F. Excludable Hardcover (See City Code Sec 78-1684): F First 100 Sq Ft of Deck 100 S. F. S. F. S. F. S. F. S. F. (2) Total Excludable Hardcover 100 S. F. (3) Net Existing Hardcover [Subtract line (2) from line (1)] 9932 S. F. (4) Total Lot Area 54723 S. F. Proposed Hardcover Percentage [(3)+(4)] 18.15% % (Proposed Hardcover next page) This is an information packet regarding Hardcover. Every effort has been made to insure the accuracy of the information controined herein; however, if any information is not consistent with City Code, the Code provisions will prevail. � r � � �-�aL�� � �.' +'�.�/t ' � ter, �� � _• 4, a ):jOct Prop( ` _ -r yP'"i Q.- ;',+_' �`,-�,.-,� -_��'`•],�� f.' Aye{-4 -E r PC Exhibit G Subdivision IV. - LR -1C One -Family Lakeshore Residential District Sec. 78-346. - Purpose. The LR -1 C one -family lakeshore residential district is intended to provide a district which will allow a combination of medium -density residential development and limited agricultural activity. Planned residential developments may be allowed by conditional use permits. The proposed land use may not endanger the quality of stormwater runoff into Lake Minnetonka. Because of the location of the district near Lake Minnetonka, special regulations are necessary to protect that natural resource from the effects of intense development. The district shall have immediate access to highways and public sanitary sewer. Sec. 78-347. - Permitted uses. Within the LR -1 C one -family lakeshore residential district, no land or structure shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: (1) City -owned public service structures that have been approved by the city council after the required public hearings for public improvement projects, provided that: a. All buildings are located at least 50 feet from any adjacent property zoned for residential use. b. The architectural design of the structure is found to be compatible with the surrounding area. c. If the city proposes amendment to the approved design plans or the placement of the structure, notice of the proposed changes shall be mailed to all property owners within 350 feet of the parcel on which the structure is to be located. If the proposed structure is to be located within a public right-of-way, property owners within 350 feet of the structure shall be mailed notice of the proposed changes. Notice shall be mailed at least 14 days before the council meeting at which the amended plans will be considered. (2) Gardens. (3) Municipal buildings. (4) Nonrental guest apartments (no exterior ingress or egress). An apartment within the principal residence structure on a lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal residence, including their domestic employees or nonpaying guests. The only means of ingress or egress to the apartment shall be from within the principal structure. Application for such a guest apartment shall address the concerns of parking, sewage treatment, entryway and interior access method. Such apartments shall not have utilities metered separately from the principal residence utilities and shall not have a separate street address. (5) One -family detached dwellings. (6) Personal wireless service antennas and towers. ((Antenna details removed to save space.)) (7) Publicly owned parks and playgrounds. Sec. 78-348. - Conditional uses. Within any LR -1C one -family lakeshore residential district, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses without a conditional use permit: (1) Golf courses, country clubs, tennis clubs, non-profit camps, and religious camps, provided that: a. All principal buildings are located at least 100 feet from any adjacent property zoned for residential use; and Page 1 b. All accessory buildings and structures more than six feet in height are located at least 50 feet from any adjacent property zoned for residential use. (2) Guest houses and nonrental guest apartments. a. Guest houses, provided that: The lot is at least two times the minimum lot area required by this section; and The guest house is for the sole use of the occupants of the principle dwelling, including their domestic employees and nonpaying guests. b. Guest apartments with exterior ingress and egress, provided that: 1. The application for a guest apartment adequately addresses the concerns of parking, sewage treatment, exterior access method, and interior access method; 2. There is at least one access door to the apartment from inside the principal dwelling and this door is the primary means of accessing the apartment; 3. The guest apartment does not have a separate address; 4. The guest apartment's utilities are not metered separately from the principal dwelling; and 5. The guest apartment is for the sole use of the occupants of the principal dwelling, including their domestic employees and nonpaying guests. (3) Keeping of farm animals for noncommercial purposes and for the use of the occupants of premises, provided that: a. Where the applicant requests a conditional use permit to keep horses, there must be at least one acre for the dwelling and two acres of open pasture for the first horse. If the applicant requests a conditional use permit to keep more than one horse, the property must have one additional acre of open pasture for each additional horse. Calculations of minimum pasture acreage shall not include any land defined as a wetland or wetland buffer under section 78- 1602. b. Where the applicant requests a conditional use permit to keep farm animals other than horses, there must be at least one acre for the dwelling and one acre for each animal unit. Calculations of minimum acreage required shall not include any land defined as a wetland or wetland buffer under section 78-1602. c. Any building or structure associated with the animals is located more than 150 feet from the nearest adjacent residence and at least 75 feet from the nearest lot line. d. The use is operated in compliance with Chapter 62, Animals. (4) Personal wireless service antennas. Personal wireless service antennas erected on a municipal structure other than a water tower may be allowed as a conditional use if they meet the following criteria: ((Antenna details removed to save space.)) (5) Places of worship, provided that all buildings and structures, except columbaria, are located at least 50 feet from any adjacent property zoned for residential use. (6) Planned residential development, limited to detached single-family dwellings only and subject to the limitations of division 10 of this article. (7) Public service structures, provided that: a. All buildings are located at least 50 feet from any adjacent property zoned for residential use; and Page 2 b. The architectural design of the structure is compatible with the architectural design of the surrounding area. (8) Provision of a bathtub or shower in an accessory building. Approval shall be conditioned on provision of municipal sanitary sewer or a conforming sewage treatment system designed to handle the anticipated flows from the building plumbing. Approval shall be granted only when the following criteria are met: a. The council finds that the proposed use of the accessory structure with a bathtub or shower will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood. b. The council finds that the plumbing fixtures proposed are in keeping with the intended use of the accessory building. c. The accessory building is conforming in location, size and height. d. The property owner agrees to the filing of a covenant in the title of the property providing that the accessory building will not be: Used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by the city or if allowed by this Code. Used as a dwelling unless a guest house conditional use permit is obtained. Rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. (9) Schools, daycare centers, uses accessory to a high school. a. Pre -kindergarten, primary and secondary public schools and private schools with a curriculum similar to a pre -kindergarten, primary or secondary school. Schools may include before and after school care for students. b. Daycare centers, nursery schools and similar programs that are not associated with a public or private school and serve pre -kindergarten children. c. Indoor ice arenas accessory to a high school provided the arena, including accessory uses, is: Located on the same tax parcel as the high school to which it is accessory and is owned by the local school district; Not separated from the high school building by a public road; 3. Operated by the school district or by a nonprofit organization; and 4. All structures are located at least 50 feet from any adjacent property zoned for residential use. (10) Two-family dwelling, provided that: a. Public sanity sewer service is available; b. The lot is adjacent to a commercial or industrial parcel; c. The dwelling is within 200 feet of the commercial or industrial parcel; and d. The design of the dwelling is compatible with the surrounding residences. (11) Columbaria, provided that all portions of columbaria located at or below ground shall be located at least five feet from any adjacent lot line and at least 50 feet from principal structures located on any adjacent property, whether such property is zoned for residential or non-residential use. All portions of columbaria located above ground shall meet the following standards: a. Located at least ten feet from property boundaries. b. Located at least 50 feet from principal structures located on any adjacent property, whether such property is zoned for residential or non-residential use. Page 3 c. Located at least ten feet from the edge of the paved, traveled roadway. d. Shall not exceed eight feet in height including any appurtenances. e. Direct views from all adjoining residential parcels shall be buffered by appropriate means. Sec. 78-349. - Accessory uses. Within any LR -1C one -family lakeshore residential district, the only permitted accessory uses and structures are the following: (1) Buildings temporarily located for purposes of construction on the premises for a period not to exceed time necessary for such constructing. (2) Driveways, sidewalks and parking spaces. (3) Detached private garages and buildings subject to the performance standards of this chapter. (4) Private recreational facilities subject to the pertinent accessory structure location and height requirements of this chapter. (5) Private docks, subject to this code and other applicable regulations, including boat storage density requirements. The accessory use of a private dock shall not include renting space. (6) Kennel structures and dog runs, subject to the provisions of chapter 62, article 3. (7) Fencing subject to the provisions of section 78-1405(7). (8) Signs, as regulated in this chapter. (9) Flagpoles, subject to accessory structure location and height requirements of this chapter. (10) Gardening and other horticultural uses, including arbors, trellises, aviaries and decorative landscape features, and lawn sprinkler systems. (11) Compost structures and firewood piles, subject to the accessory structure location requirements of this chapter. (12) Home occupations, as defined in this chapter. All home occupations shall comply with the provisions of section 78-1376, and the licensing provisions of [section] 26-76, when applicable. (13) One temporary roadside stand offering for sale only farm products produced on the premises, provided such stand does not exceed 200 square feet in area and is located at least 30 feet back from the public right-of-way. (14) Storage of recreational vehicles and equipment such as RVs, boats, snowmobiles, etc., subject to the provisions of sections 78-1511 through 78-1515 and 78-1577. Ice fishing houses and similar structures equipped with wheels or mounted on a trailer shall be regulated as recreational vehicles. Ice fishing houses and similar structures not equipped with wheels or mounted on a trailer shall be regulated as accessory buildings and subject to accessory building regulations. (15) Garage sales, yard sales, estate sales or rummage sales, limited to a maximum of four consecutive days and occurring no more than two times within one calendar year per property; and sales of personal or recreational vehicles and equipment, limited to no more than two items per calendar year, and such items for sale shall not be parked in any portion of the public right- of-way, public boulevard, or required front yard except a designated, improved driveway. (16) Laundry drying equipment. (17) Other uses that are customarily incidental to, and subordinate to, the allowed permitted and conditional uses in this district. Sec. 78-350. - Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. Page 4 (a) Height. No structure or building in the LR -1C district shall exceed 2'/z stories and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. (b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Side Yard Lot Lot Front Side Rear Area Width Yard Yard Yard Adjacent to Street (acre) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) 0.5 100 30 10 30 15 DIVISION 3. - ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES Zz Sec. 78-1431. - Accessory buildings and structures on through lots. All accessory buildings and structures on through lots located in R districts shall meet the following requirements: (1) The building or structure shall meet the principal building setbacks that are established under sections 78-230, 78-255, 78-305, 78-330, 78-350, 78-370, 78-395, 78-420, 78-444. (2) No negative impacts to adjacent neighbors or public right-of-way result in the placement of the building or structure, determined at the discretion of the planning director. Should the planning director determine that item (2) above cannot be met an accessory structure or building may be permitted by conditional use permit if the planning commission determines no negative impacts result in the placement of the building or structure. The planning commission may apply reasonable conditions as part of the approval. Sec. 78-1432. - Time of construction. No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. At the time of demolition of the principal building, all nonconforming accessory structures must be removed. Accessory structures, which comply with this title, are allowed to remain contingent on a signed agreement stating the following: (1) Applicants agree to obtain a building permit for construction of the replacement residence within 60 days of demolition; to begin construction on the new residence within 120 days of demolition; and to complete all exterior work within one year of building permit issuance and interior work within two years of building permit issuance. (2) In the event that any activity described in item (1) has not been accomplished within the defined timeframe, the applicants shall remove the accessory structures at the applicants' expense, or the applicants shall apply for an extension of this agreement. (3) If one of the item (1) events occurs and the applicants fail to perform their removal obligations per item (2), the applicants hereby agree as follows: a. The city may enter upon the property and remove the accessory building(s). b. The city may assess the costs of removal to the property. (4) The agreement shall be binding upon current and future owners of the property, and shall be filed within the chain of title of the property. Page 5 (5) Fee owner(s) of the property, if not the applicants, consent to the execution of the agreement and to its terms, as shown by his/her/their signature(s) upon the document. (6) Applicants shall indemnify and hold harmless the city, the city council, and the agents and employees of the city from and against all claims, damages, losses or expenses, including attorney fees, which the city, city council and agents and employees of the city may suffer or for which it may be held liable, arising out of or resulting from the assertion against them of any claims, debts or obligations in consequence of the performance of the terms of this agreement. Sec. 78-1433. - Height restrictions. No accessory building or structure in an R district shall exceed the height of the principal building, nor shall an accessory building or structure exceed 30 feet in height. Sec. 78-1434. - Area restrictions. In all R districts, no accessory building shall exceed 1,000 square feet of footprint area; except that accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet will be allowed under the following conditions: (1) Not more than one oversized accessory structure (OAS) shall be permitted on any property. An oversized accessory structure is defined as an accessory structure of footprint area in excess of 1,000 square feet, except that the following nonroofed accessory structures which exceed 1,000 square feet footprint area are not considered as oversize accessory structures, but are subject to the special setback restrictions of section 78-1404. a. Tennis courts and sport courts. b. Pools, when pool basin structure (excluding non encroachment -type patios) is greater than 1,000 square feet. c. Paddocks or arenas. (2) Oversized accessory structures are regulated by the following table: Page 6 Maximum Maximum Allowed Total Individual of All Accessory Lot Area Accessory Structure (acres) Structure Footprint Footprint Area Areas* on (square feet) a Property (square feet) 0-1.99 -T 1,000 2,000 2.00-3.00 1,200 2,400 3.01-3.50 1,400 2,800 3.51-4.00 1,600 3,200 Page 6 4.01-4.50 1,800 3,600 4.51-5.00 2,000 4,000 5.01-6.00 2,200 4,400 6.01-7.00 2,400 4,800 7.01-8.00 2,600 5,200 8.01-9.00 2,800 5,600 9.01 or more 3,000 6,000 * Excluding nonroofed tennis courts, sport courts, pools, paddocks, arenas. (3) Any oversize accessory structure shall be subject to the following conditions: a. No such accessory structure shall be located within a required yard area (principal structure setbacks must be met). Further, no such structure shall be nearer the front lot line than the front line of the principal residence on the property, and no such accessory structure shall be located less than 30 feet from the side or rear lot line regardless whether less strict principal structure setbacks apply. b. The maximum height for such accessory structure shall be 30 feet or the defined height of the principal residence structure on the property, whichever is less. c. Such structure shall be allowed only when the property owner agrees and covenants in writing with the city as follows: 1. No future subdivision will be approved that places the structure within a lot that has no principal structure, except that the city in its subdivision approval may grant a finite time period in which the oversized accessory structure may remain without a principal structure, in order that a principal structure may be constructed. At the end of this time period, the oversized accessory structure must be removed if no principal structure has been constructed. 2. If the property is subdivided, the oversize accessory structure and principal structure will be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size of accessory building. 3. In subdivision approval, the setback required for the oversize accessory structure shall remain. Such covenant shall be binding on current and future property owners and shall be filed in the chain of title of the property. Sec. 78-1435. - Location. Except as may be specifically provided, no detached garage or other accessory building shall be located nearer to the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot. Detached garages or other accessory buildings on lots which have frontage on a lake may be located between the rear yards of such Page 7 lots and the principal building only if setback requirements of section 78-305(b), section 78-330(b) and section 78-350(b) are met. Exception: Detached garages on lots that have frontage on a lake may be located ten feet from the street or rear lot line when doors face away from the street and an adequate vehicle turnaround is provided on the site. This section shall not apply to lakeshore lots that are divided by streets or private roads or are corner lots. Sec. 78-1436. - Setbacks. Accessory structures in excess of 750 square feet footprint area but not exceeding 1,000 square feet footprint area shall be located at least 15 feet from any lot line. Sec. 78-1437. - Plumbing. Because the provision of plumbing fixtures and wastewater plumbing in accessory buildings has the potential to allow such buildings to be used as dwelling units, and because it is the policy of the city to limit residential development density to the allowed densities within the respective zoning districts, plumbing in accessory buildings shall be regulated as follows: (1) The provision of outside sillcocks and indoor water supply shall be allowed in any accessory building that is conforming in location, size and height. (2) Installation of any combination of fixtures requiring wastewater plumbing that does not include a shower or bathtub shall be allowed in any accessory building that is conforming in location, size and height with, subject to provision of municipal sanitary sewer or a conforming sewage treatment system designed to handle the anticipated flows from such fixtures, and subject to the property owner's executing a covenant providing that the accessory building will not be: a. Used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by the city or if allowed by this Code. b. Used as a dwelling unless a guest house conditional use permit is obtained. c. Rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. (3) Installation of any combination of fixtures requiring wastewater plumbing that includes a shower or bathtub shall be allowed only in an accessory building that is conforming in location, size and height and which meets one of the following criteria: a. The accessory building has been approved for a guest house conditional use permit; or b. The accessory building has been approved for a bathtub or shower in accessory building conditional use permit. Sec. 78-1438. - Crowding principal building. No accessory building, unless an integral part of the principal building, shall be erected, altered or moved within ten feet of the principal building, nor within ten feet of another accessory building. Sec. 78-1439. - Garages. Accessory buildings which are for the storage of automobiles shall have the doors 30 feet or more from the property line when the doors face on a public alley or street. Sec. 78-1440. - Exterior materials. Except for accessory buildings that are less than 120 square feet in area or are located on lots two acres in area or larger, an accessory building and the principal building shall be consistent in design and color. Detached garages located within the rear yard on lots that have frontage on a lake shall have windows or other ornamental features on the wall facing a street or private road. Page 8 A113Ab-09-009-4 wimAime•mmm 38 20-117-23 24 0005 PEGGY L KADLEC 2726 CAROLINE AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23240007 RANDALL L ENGELHART ELIZABETH A ENGELHART 2715 CAROLINE AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 24 0008 DONALD J & DAWN R HEBIG 2735 CAROLINE AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 24 0010 LANCE L & RHODA L VICKNAIR 2740 ETHEL AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 24 0013 JACOB HEYDT 2700 ETHEL AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 24 0025 HARRY E PULVER JR 105 MEADOW LANE N MINNEAPOLI MN 55422 38 20-117-23 24 0033 ZIV & TAL LIBERMAN 2690 CAROLINE AVE ORONO MN 55391 38 20-117-23 24 0034 CHARLES D & JILL R MILLER 2696 CAROLINE AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23240040 CATHERINE R & JOEL W SHOOP 2720 ETHEL AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 2G-117-23240041 ROBERT T LUND 2732 CAROLINE AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 wian-aod plogw al aalgAW i--w-www- i 0945 Ab3AtV �iAe e6 a za51 i aP suss ® ® 4 I I.i op uge wnlpeq el @ zGlldell salad a salne; seanbl 38 20-117-23 240044 # 3862 38 20-117-23 31 0027 JANET' C'KAUFFMANN CITY OF ORONO 2696 ETHEL AVE P 0 BOX 66 WAYZATA MN 55391 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 20-117-23 310002 38 20-117-23 310039 DONALDSCHRADER DONALDSCHRADER 3704 CASCO AVE 3704 CASCO AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 310003 38 20-117-23 310040 JILL R & WILLIAM H KOCH II JAMES W & PATRICIA DONGOSKE 3730 CASCO AVE 3700 CASCO AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 310004 38 20-117-23 310041 JOHN F KLICK PETER M GRAFFUNDER 3703 CASCO AVE 3630 CASCO AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 310005 38 20-117-23 310042 ROBERT PRESLER JON DUK KIM & YOUNG HYI AN 3709 CASCO AVE 4700 COVEY TR WAYZATA MN 55391 MEDINA MN 55340 38 20-117-23 31 0009 38 20-117-23 310043 ALISA A MILLER NUTCHELLTIASTA M GERSOVITZ 3753 CASCO AVE 3650 CASCO AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 310010 38 20-117-23 319058 PAUL J FUHRMAN D R WELTY & M M JW 3759 CASCO AVE 3721 CASCO AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 002I 38 20-117-23 310062 CITY OF ORONO DANIEL D ERICKSON P O BOX 66 KRISTA M ERICKSON CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 2740 CAROLINE AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 310022 CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 20-117-23 310026 STEVEN G SIGAFOOS 2900 CASCO PT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 310071 MART1 LYNN 3750 CASCO AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 31 0073 KIREN MARIA SCHULTE 2918 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 T wiA96S T ,a86P3 do-dod asadxa .,, waded pBad ®4945 a%eldulai ®►[Jan+d as I cn Gull 6uole puss V ; stage -1 ®lead 1[stE Hennepin Counter Locate & Notify Map Provided by Resident anO Real Estate Services Date: 8/16/2016 f75R '.moi. /f ra � (te) � E54k Cir {Si1 Buffer Size. 350 feet Map Comments: 2732 Caroline Avonue Criario, MN 55391 20-117-23-24-0041 i4+r aI 60 120 240 ft IL 1 i i 1 1 1 11 For more information contact: Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South Minneapolis, MN 55487 g[s.info@hennepin.us # 3862 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: November 14, 2016 Item No.: 14 Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Jeremy Barnhart Y"_4 Planning Dept. Title: Community Development Director Item Description: #16-3868, Charles Cudd, LLC o/b/o DDK, LLC, 2525, 2535, and 2545 Shadywood Road - Final Plat On September 12, 2016 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6668 granting preliminary approval for a 7 -lot residential plat of the properties at 2525, 2535, and 2545 Shadywood Road, to be known as Shadywood Villas. The developer, Charles Cudd, LLC, is nearing approval of the final plat. The remaining item on the final plat is the vacation of drainage and utility easements held over from the original Plat of the property, Leach Addition. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on November 21, and the Council will see the vacation request at its meeting on November 28th. Staff views the vacation request as a housekeeping item. The final plat is consistent with the approved preliminary plat. The developer seeks Council direction on three questions associated with the Development Agreement, draft attached. Question 1. Upon closer inspection of the proposed homes, the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for two lots exceeds limits previously imposed. The floor area of the homes is 4893 sq feet, and includes the entire basement, main floor, sun porch, and garage. The resulting floor area for Lot 3 is 0.55 and for lot 4 is 0.63. The homes have not changed from the original submitted. The development agreement establishes the appropriate limits for these lots to permit the home proposed. Question 2. The developer desires to start construction on the homes before the 1 st lift of asphalt is applied to the new internal street. The internal street is a public street. Allowing home construction before the 1St lift gives the builder a 7 month head start, as the 1St lift likely won't be applied until next May, with a foundation potentially being dug in June -July. Historically, Orono has required at least the 1St lift for many reasons, including emergency access and engineering/ construction management: Engineering • Fall conditions are typically wet and soils have no chance to dry up because of the cool weather and short days. Because of this, it is very common that the subgrade cannot pass a roll test in the last fall. The proposed solution is typically to increase the depth of the pavement structure (i.e. add sand) to bridge over the soft wet soils but it does not address the issue completely and drainage of the pavement section can be an issue. • When the aggregate base is proposed for a traveled surface to allow home construction to begin there are several issues. For one thing, all components of the pavement structure are needed to provide the intended strength for the road. A gravel base does not provide the same strength as a complete road, therefore, it more likely that heavy construction vehicles will rut the pavement section all the way into the subgrade. This can create thin spots in the sections that are hard to identify. Also, it is very likely that the aggregate base will become contaminated with clay and/or organic materials because of the construction equipment tracking from the lot onto the road. Identifying the needed corrections in the spring will be very difficult because the extent of the damage will be hard to determine. • Drainage is also a concern with a road that is not up to the final grade. Areas that trap water remain soft and are more susceptible to damage. • Typically, construction proceeds to the 75%-80% complete range very quickly. After that, we have had a very hard time getting developers to complete the final portions of the project in a timely manner. Waiting until all of the improvements are substantially completed seems to be the best way to ensure that projects are completed. Too often final restoration and punch list items hang out there for a very long time (years) because the incentive to complete the work is reduced once home construction is allowed to begin. Emergency access. Access in emergency situations, ambulance and fire can be compromised with a road under construction. Question 3. The developer also desires to begin grading before the final plat is approved, expected November 28th. Historically, the Council has required that the plat be recorded before work begins. This encourages the developer to address all the small details that permit a successful project and reduces the likelihood of prior liens and interest being established that would interfere with the city filing. Staff does not support this request for an early start, however, if the Council supports the request, staff suggests that at minimum, all fees paid, the letter of credit be provided, and the grading and erosion control plan be formally approved by the City Engineer prior to work. With direction, staff will prepare final drafts of the resolution and the development agreement for formal approval at the November 28th meeting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Provide direction on the Development Agreement issues as outlined. List of Exhibits A — Draft Development Agreement B. — Council memo and minutes 9-12-16, Preliminary Plat approval C. — Developers request to start Council Exhibit A 16-3868 DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (Developer Installed Improvements) SHADYWOOD VILLAS PROJECT NO. (Final Plat File #16-3868) AGREEMENT dated , 2016, by and between the CITY OF ORONO, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"); and Casco Ventures, LLC (hereinafter referred to as the "Developer"). 1. REQUEST FOR PLAT APPROVAL. The Developer has asked the City to approve a plat for "SHADYWOOD VILLAS" (referred to in this Contract as the "Plat"). The land to be subdivided by the Plat (the "Land") is situated in the City of Orono, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, and is legally described on the attached Exhibit A. 2. CONDITIONS OF PLAT APPROVAL. The Plat adheres to the purpose and intent of the Orono Community Management Plan, as amended. The City has approved the Plat on condition that the Developer enter into this Contract and furnish the security required by it. The City will cause the Plat to be duly recorded in the office of the Registrar of Titles/County Recorder 189563v1 in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota, promptly after compliance by the Developer with all conditions precedent to such recording pursuant to this Contract, which conditions precedent the Developer shall cause to be satisfied within 180 days after the City Council approves the final Plat. 3. RIGHT TO PROCEED. Within the Land, the Developer may not grade or otherwise disturb the earth, remove trees, construct sewer lines, water lines, streets, utilities, public or private improvements, or any buildings until all the following conditions have been satisfied: 1) this Contract has been fully executed by both parties and filed with the City Clerk, 2) the necessary "security" (defined below) has been received by the City,- and 3) forty-eight (48) hours after the Plat has been duly recorded in the office of said Registrar of Titles/County Recorder. 4. PHASED DEVELOPMENT. N/A 5. PRELIMINARY PLAT STATUS. N/A 6. CHANGES IN OFFICIAL CONTROLS. For two (2) years from the date of this Contract, no amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, or official controls shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout or dedications of the Project unless required by state or federal law or agreed to in writing by the City and the Developer. Thereafter, notwithstanding anything in this Contract to the contrary, to the full extent permitted by state law, the City may require compliance with any amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan, official controls, platting or dedication requirements enacted after the date of this Contract with respect to property which did not receive final plat approval prior to any such amendment. 7. DEVELOPMENT PLANS. The Project shall be developed in accordance with the following plans (collectively, the "Plans"). as they hereafter may be amended with the written consent of the Developer and the City Engineer (collectively, as so amended, the "Plans"). The Plans shall not be attached to this Contract but shall remain on file with the City at least so long as 2 189563v1 any of the Project remains subject to the terms of this Contract. The erosion control plan may also be approved by Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). If the Plans vary from the terms of this Contract, the terms of this Contract shall control. The Plans are: Plan A — Title Sheet Plan B — Plat of Shadywood Villas Plan C — Grading and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Plan D — Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan E — Street and Utility Plan Plan F — Landscaping Plan 8. IMPROVEMENTS. The Developer shall install and pay for the following as required to be built in accordance with the approved Plans (the "Improvements"): A. Site Grading, Ponding, and Erosion Control B. Setting of Iron Monuments C. Surveying and Staking D. Public Street E. Public Sanitary Sewer System E. Traffic Control Signs, Street Signs and Development Identification Signs F. Underground Utilities G. Stormwater Management Facilities The Improvements shall be installed in accordance with the Plans; the City subdivision ordinance; City standard specifications for utilities and street construction; and any other ordinances including those concerning erosion and drainage and any prohibiting grading, construction activity, and the use of power equipment. The Developer shall submit plans and specifications which have been prepared by a competent registered professional engineer to the City for approval by the City Engineer. The Developer shall instruct its engineer to provide adequate field inspection personnel to assure an acceptable level of quality control. In addition, the City may, at the City's discretion and at the Developer's expense, have one or more City inspectors and a soil engineer inspect the 3 189563v1 work as the City may reasonably determine. The Developer, its contractors and subcontractors, shall follow all instructions received from the City's inspectors. The Developer's engineer shall provide for on-site project management. The Developer's engineer is responsible for design changes and contract administration between the Developer and the Developer's contractor. The Developer or its engineer shall schedule a pre -construction meeting at a mutually agreeable time at the City Council chambers with all parties concerned, including the City staff, to review the program for the construction work. Within thirty (30) days after the completion of the Improvements and before the "security" is released, the Developer shall supply the City with a complete set of reproducible "as constructed" Plans, and an electronic file of the "as constructed" Plans in an auto CAD file based upon the Hennepin County coordinate system, all prepared in accordance with City standards. 9. IRON MONUMENTS. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 505.02 and the Orono City Code, the final placement of iron monuments for all lot corners must be completed before the "security" is released. The Developer's surveyor shall submit a written notice to the City certifying that the monuments have been installed. 10. PERMITS. The Developer shall obtain or require its contractors and subcontractors to obtain all necessary permits, including but not limited to the following to the extent required: MnDNR for Dewatering • City of Orono for Building Permits MCWD for erosion control permit and storm water management permit • NPDES Permit (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) from MPCA • MCWD for wetland mitigation permit 4 189563v1 11. DEWATERING. Due to the variable nature of groundwater levels and stormwater flows, it will be the Developer's and the Developer's contractors' and subcontractors' responsibility to satisfy themselves with regard to the elevation of groundwater in the area and the level of effort needed to perform dewatering and storm flow routing operations. All dewatering shall be in accordance with all applicable county, state, and federal rules and regulations. DNR regulations regarding appropriations permits shall also be strictly followed. 12. TIME OF PERFORMANCE. The Developer shall install all Improvements as contemplated by Section 8 and the approved Plans by December 31, 2017, with the exception of the final wear course of asphalt on the public roadway extension. The final wear course on streets shall be installed between August 15th and September 15th the first summer after the base layer of asphalt has been in place one freeze thaw cycle. The Developer may, however, request an extension of time from the City. If an extension is granted, it shall be conditioned upon updating the "security" to reflect cost increases and the extended completion date. Final wear course placement must have the written approval of the City Engineer, and may be delayed or scheduled at any time of the year based upon existing site conditions at the discretion of the City Engineer. 13. LICENSE. The Developer hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors a license to enter the Land to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the City in conjunction with development of the Project. 14. EROSION CONTROL. Prior to initiating site grading, the Grading and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan including all required erosion controls, Plan C, shall be implemented by the Developer and inspected and approved by the City. The City may impose additional erosion control requirements if reasonably required. All areas disturbed by excavation and backfilling operations shall be reseeded within five (5) days after the completion of the work, 5 189563v1 weather permitting, or in an area that is inactive for more than ten (10) days unless authorized and approved by the City Engineer. Except as otherwise provided in the erosion control plan, seed shall be in accordance with the City's current seeding specification which may include certified oat seed to provide a temporary ground cover as rapidly as possible. All seeded areas shall be fertilized, mulched, and disc anchored as necessary for seed retention. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling erosion. If the Developer does not comply with the erosion control plan and schedule or supplementary instructions received from the City, the City may take such action as it deems appropriate to control erosion. The City will endeavor to notify the Developer in advance of any proposed action, but failure of the City to do so will not affect the Developer's and City's rights or obligations hereunder. If the Developer does not reimburse the City for any cost the City incurred for such work within ten (10) days, the City may draw down the "security" to pay any costs. No development, utility or street construction will be allowed and no building permits will be issued unless the Project is in full compliance with the approved erosion control plan. 15. GRADING PLAN. The Project shall be graded in accordance with the approved grading development and erosion control plan, Plan C. The plan shall conform to City of Orono specifications. Within thirty (30) days after completion of the grading and before the City approves individual building permits the Developer shall provide the City with an "as constructed" grading plan certified by a registered land surveyor or engineer that all ponds, swales, and ditches for public drainage have been constructed on public easements or land owned by the City. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City may issue building permits to the Developer, prior to completion of all grading, provided the City Engineer has determined that adequate erosion control measures are in place, and the City has received a final grading and road plan, SWPPP, and plans for all improvements. The "as constructed" plan shall include field verified elevations of the following: 6 189563v1 a) cross sections of ponds; b) location and elevations along all swales, wetlands, wetland mitigation areas if any, and ditches, locations and dimensions of borrow areas/stockpiles, and installed "conservation area" posts; and c) lot corner elevations, and house pads. The City will withhold issuance of building permits until the approved certified grading plan is on file with the City and all erosion control measures are in place as determined by the City Engineer. The Developer certifies to the City that all lots with house footings placed on fill will have been monitored and constructed to meet or exceed FHA/HUD 79G specifications. 16. CLEAN UP. The Developer shall clean dirt and debris from streets that has resulted from construction work by the Developer, builders, subcontractors, their agents or assigns. Prior to any construction on the Land, the Developer shall identify in writing a responsible party and schedule for erosion control, street cleaning, and street sweeping. 17. CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS. Developer shall construct the public and private Improvements as enumerated in Section 8 above. Developer shall enter into, execute, and cause to be duly recorded in the office of said County Recorder, a declaration of covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements (the "Declaration") , the form and substance of which shall be subject to City approval, regarding the private stormwater management facilities and maintenance of said facilities. Upon completion of the Improvements, the City shall inspect the Improvements and notify Developer if any of the Improvements do not conform to the requirements of this Contract. Upon satisfactory completion of the public street and public sanitary sewer system, the City Council shall formally accept said street and sewer as public and will thenceforth own and maintain said street and sewer system. At the request of the Developer, upon expiration of all warranties and completion of the Improvements in conformance to the requirements of the Contract, as determined by the City, the City will execute 7 189563v1 a recordable certificate of completion confirming such completion and release of the Land from provisions of this Contract relating thereto. 18. CITY ENGINEERING ADMINISTRATION AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION. The Developer shall pay a fee for engineering administration. City engineering administration will include monitoring of construction observation, consultation with Developer and its engineer on status or problems regarding the project, coordination for final inspection and acceptance, project monitoring during the warranty period, and processing of requests for reduction in the "security." Fees for this service shall be at standard hourly rates. These fees shall be billed monthly. Contemporaneously with the execution of this Agreement, the Developer shall deposit $10,000.00 cash with the City ("Escrow"). All accrued interest, if any, shall be paid to the City to reimburse the City for its cost in administering the escrow account. The purpose of the Escrow is to guarantee reimbursement to the City for all out-of-pocket costs (including, but not limited to, planning, engineering oversight, or legal consultant review) the City has incurred or will incur related to the Development and for all out-of-pocket costs the City has incurred or will incur to assure that the work is completed in accordance with the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and the provisions of Orono City Code Chapter 79. The Escrow may also be used by the City to eliminate any hazardous conditions associated with the work and to repair any damage to public property or infrastructure that is caused by the work associated with this Agreement, if compliance with the terms of this Agreement are not accomplished. The Developer shall be responsible for payment to the City within 30 days of the Developer's receipt of bill. In the event that the Developer does not make payment to the City within the timeframe outlined in this sction, the City may immediately draw from the escrow account without further approval of the 8 189563v1 Developer to reimburse the City for eligible expenses the City has incurred. If the balance of the escrow account is insufficient to reimburse the City its costs under this Section, the Developer will promptly reimburse the City any additional costs. If the eligible expenses incurred by the City exceed the amount in escrow and are not promptly reimbursed by the Developer, the City shall have the right to certify the unpaid balance to the subject property pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 415.01 and 366.012. The Balance on deposit in the escrow, if any, shall be returned to the Developer when the Development has been completed and written notification is received from the Developer requesting the funds. 19. CLAIMS. In the event that the City receives claims from laborers, material suppliers, or others that work required by this Contract has been performed, the sums due them have not been paid, and the laborers, material suppliers, or others are seeking payment from the City, the Developer hereby authorizes the City to commence an interpleader action pursuant to Rule 22, Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure for the District Courts, to draw upon the "security" in an amount up to 125 percent of the claim(s) and deposit the funds in compliance with the Rule, and upon such deposit, the City shall be released, discharged, and dismissed from any further proceedings as it pertains to the funds deposited with the District Court, except that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to determine attorneys' fees pursuant to this Contract. 20. STORM WATER AND DRAINAGE TRUNK FEE. The Land is subject to the standard Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee of $8,490 per acre calculated as follows: $8,490.00 per acre x 2.07 acres = $17,574.00 21. PARK DEDICATION FEE. The City Code requires dedication of 8% of the land as public park, or payment of the equivalent value in cash. The City Council has determined there is no need for dedication of land from the proposed development. Because of the vastly differing 9 189563v1 land values in the city, the eight percent park dedication requirement could result in park dedication requirements that are either significantly greater than or significantly less than the amount which is roughly proportional to the impact of the proposed development on the city's park system. Periodically, therefore, the city will establish both a maximum and minimum park dedication amount per dwelling unit based on an updated projection of the cost of the city's park system and the proportionate share of this projected cost to be borne by new dwelling units in the city. 8% of the value of the land is lower than the minimum, so $3,250 per residential unit will be used. Therefore the park dedication due at the time of Final Plat is $22,750.00. However, as part of the original plat for the subject property, Leach Addition, (1978), three lots were platted, and park dedication paid. Park dedication for four lots are due with the Project. The adjusted park dedication is $3,250.00 per lot x 4 lots = $13,000.00 22. SEWER AND WATER CONNECTION CHARGE. Water connection charges paid as part of the 1970 LW -1 project were 7.5 residential equivalent units. No additional water connection charges have been identified. Assessed charges as part of the 1984 Lift Station 7 and forcemain upgrade are owed as part of this project and amount to $2,550.00 per unit ($610.00 + $1940.00). Based on 2016 fee schedule, the fees are: $0.00 for municipal water and $2,550.00 per lot x 7 lots = $17,850.00 23. LANDSCAPING. All landscaping shall be installed in accordance with Plan F. 24. SPECIAL PROVISIONS. The following special provisions shall apply to development of the Land: 10 1895630 A. Implementation of and adherence to the findings and conditions listed in: (1) Resolution No. 6668 Granting Preliminary Plat Approval for Shadywood Villas - File No. 16-3847, adopted by the Orono City Council on September 12, 2016; (2) City Engineer comment letters dated August 11, 2016, July 21, 2016 and October 28, 2016 (3) Resolution No. approving the Final Plat for , adopted by the Orono City Council on B. Before the City signs the Plat, the Developer shall provide the City with an appropriately executed declaration of covenants for the permanent flowage and preservation of wetlands, in recordable form, specifying the proposed conditions and limitations to be placed on the wetlands within the Plat, in a form acceptable to the City. The Wetland Easement shall incorporate as a minimum the following elements: no structures allowed, no fences, no domestic animals (i.e. no horses, sheep, chickens, etc.), no tree or vegetation removal except by special permit for maintenance or as part of an approved vegetation management plan, no excavating or earth movement. Permanent markers of a design and material acceptable to the City Planning Director shall be placed at all points where the conservation easement intersects a lot boundary or where the easement boundary line changes direction. The recording of the Plat and the Conservation Easement shall be conclusive evidence of the satisfaction of this special provision. The Developer is advised that the City -required minimum setbacks of from the delineated wetland boundaries and from MCWD-imposed wetland buffers shall be adhered to. C. Before the City signs the Plat, the Developer shall provide the City with an appropriately executed Public Trail Easement, in recordable form, identifying the proposed future trail location within the Plat, in a form acceptable to the City. D. Final Plat approval is subject to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District ("MCWD") approval and permits as required. The City will not release the Plat for recording 11 189563v1 until the MCWD has approved the stormwater management plans and the Developer has provided evidence that all required MCWD permits have been obtained. E. The Developer shall submit the final Plat in electronic format. The Plat shall be created using Hennepin County Coordinates. The electronic format shall be Auto CAD file. The Developer shall also submit two complete sets of the Plat on Mylar (one copy for the City's records and one copy for recording with Hennepin County). The Developer shall also provide one copy reduced to F'= 200'. F. Retaining walls that require a building permit shall be constructed in accordance with plans and specifications prepared by a structural or geotechnical engineer licensed by the State of Minnesota. Following construction, a certification signed by the design engineer shall be filed with the City Engineer evidencing that the retaining wall was constructed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. All retaining walls required to be constructed by the Plans, or special conditions referred to in this Contract, shall be constructed before any Certificate of Occupancy is issued for a lot on which a retaining wall is required to be built. G. The following provisions shall guide the development of lots 1-7 within the development. Minimum setbacks for all lots within the Development shall be as follows: Street 20 feet Street side 25 feet Side 7 feet Rear Lesser of 25 feet or 20% lot depth Floor area ratio 0.5. Lot 3, Block 1 may have a FAR upto 0.55. Lot 4, Block 1 12 189563v1 may have a FAR upto 0.65. FAR shall include all floor area, excluding porches and decks/ divided by the total lot area. All other provisions shall be as regulated by the City Code. 25. SUMMARY OF SECURITY REQUIREMENTS. To guarantee compliance with the terms of this Contract, payment of the costs of all Improvements and construction of all Improvements, the Developer shall furnish the City with a letter of credit, in the form attached hereto (the "security"), from a bank for 150% of the cost of the Improvements, including any required landscaping. The amount of the security shall be $386,877. The bank shall be subject to the approval of the City Administrator. The City may draw down the security, upon five (5) business days' prior written notice to Developer, for any violation of the terms of this Contract. Amounts drawn shall not exceed the amounts necessary to cure the default. If the Improvements are not completed at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the security, the City may also draw it down. If the security is drawn down, the proceeds shall be used to cure the default. Upon receipt of proof satisfactory to the City that work has been completed and financial obligations to the City have been satisfied, with City approval the security may be reduced from time to time by ninety percent (90%) of the financial obligations that have been satisfied. Ten percent (10%) of the amounts certified by the Developer's engineer, and approved by City's Engineer, shall be retained as security until all Improvements have been completed, all financial obligations to the City satisfied, the required "as constructed" Plans have been received by the City, a warranty security is provided, and the public Improvements are accepted by the City Council. The City standard specifications for utilities and street construction outline procedures for security reductions. 13 189563v1 26. SUMMARY OF CASH REQUIREMENTS. The following is a summary of the cash requirements and fees due under this Contract, which must be paid in cash at the time of final plat approval: Park Dedication Fee $ 13,000.00 Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee 17,574.00 Sewer Connection Charges (4 lots) 17,850.00 Engineering, Oversight and Erosion Control Escrow 10,000.00 Final Plat Fee 700.00 Total Cash Requirements & Fees $ 59,124.00 27. WARRANTY. The Developer warrants all Improvements against poor material and faulty workmanship. The warranty period for streets is one year. The warranty period for underground utilities is two years and shall commence following completion and acceptance by the City Council. The one year warranty period on streets shall commence after the final wear course has been installed and accepted by the City Council as documented in official City minutes. The Developer shall post a maintenance bond, letter of credit or cash deposit (the "Maintenance Security") in an amount reasonably determined by the City Engineer. The City Engineer shall examine the condition of the Improvements when determining the amount of the Maintenance Security. The City shall retain ten percent (10%) of the security until the Maintenance Security is furnished the City or until the warranty period expires, whichever first occurs. The retainage may be used to pay for warranty work. The City standard specifications for utilities and street construction identify the procedures for final acceptance of streets and utilities. 28. RESPONSIBILITY FOR COSTS. A. Except as otherwise specified herein, the Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in conjunction with the development of the Land, including but not limited to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District charges, legal, planning, engineering and inspection expenses incurred in connection with approval and acceptance of the Plat, the preparation of this 14 189563v1 Contract, review of construction plans and documents, and all costs and expenses incurred by the City in monitoring and inspecting development of the Project. B. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers, employees, and agents harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages sustained or costs incurred resulting from Plat approval and development of the Project. The Developer shall defend and indemnify the City and its officers, employees, and agents against any claims arising out of or related to the Plat, including all approvals and permits issued as a result of the Plat, and for all costs, damages, or expenses which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including attorneys' fees. C. The Developer shall reimburse the City for reasonable costs incurred in the enforcement of this Contract, including engineering and attorneys' fees. D. The Developer shall pay, or cause to be paid when due, and in any event before any penalty is attached, all special assessments referred to in this Contract. This is an obligation of the Developer and shall continue in full force and effect even if the Developer sells one or more lots, the Land, or any part of it. E. The Developer shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by the City for obligations incurred under this Contract within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the bills are not paid on time, the City may halt development and construction of the Project until the bills are paid in full. Bills not paid within thirty (30) days shall accrue interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) per year. F. In addition to the charges and special assessments referred to herein, other charges as required by City ordinance or via other agencies for which City acts as agent may be imposed such as, but not limited to, connection charges and building permit fees. 15 189563v1 29. DEVELOPER'S DEFAULT. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the work to be performed by it hereunder, the City may, at its option, perform the work and the Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City, provided the Developer, except in an emergency as determined by the City, is first given notice of the work in default, not less than forty-eight (48) hours in advance. This Contract is a license for the City to act, and it shall not be necessary for the City to seek a Court order for permission to enter the Project. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part against any portion of the Land owned by the Developer or any successor in interest to the Developer. 30. MISCELLANEOUS. A. The Developer represents to the City that the Plat complies with all city, county, state, and federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to: subdivision ordinances, zoning ordinances, and environmental regulations. If the City determines that the Plat does not comply, the City may, at its option, refuse to allow construction or development work on the Project until the Developer does comply. Upon the City's demand, the Developer shall cease work until there is compliance. Contract. B. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City or Developer under this C. Breach of the terms of this Contract by the Developer shall be grounds for denial of building permits, including those for lots sold to third parties. D. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or phrase of this Contract is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Contract. 16 189563v1 E. Grading and one lift of asphalt shall be installed on all streets prior to issuance of any building permits for homes accessing via said streets. F. If building permits are issued prior to the completion of all Improvements, the Developer assumes all liability and costs resulting in delays in completion of Improvements and damage to Improvements caused by the City, Developer, its contractors, subcontractors, material men, employees, agents, or third parties. No sewer and water connection permits may be issued and no one may occupy a building for which a building permit is issued on either a temporary or permanent basis until the streets needed for access have been paved with at least one lift of bituminous surface and the utilities are accepted by the City Engineer in writing. G. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment to the provisions of this Contract. To be binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce this Contract shall not be a waiver or release. H. This Contract shall run with the Land and may be recorded against the Land. The Developer covenants with the City, its successors and assigns, that the Developer is well seized in fee title of the Land and/or has obtained consents to this Contract, in the form attached hereto, from all parties who have an interest in the Land; that there are no unrecorded interests in the Land; and that the Developer will indemnify and hold the City harmless for any breach of the foregoing covenants. I. Each right, power or remedy herein conferred upon the City is cumulative and in addition to every other right, power or remedy, express or implied, now or hereafter arising, available to the City, at law or in equity, or under any other agreement, and each and every right, power and remedy herein set forth or otherwise so existing may be exercised from time to time as 17 189563v1 often and in such order as may be deemed expedient by the City and shall not be a waiver of the right to exercise at any time thereafter any other right, power or remedy. J. The Developer may not assign this Contract without the written permission of the City Council. The Developer's obligations hereunder shall continue in full force and effect even if the Developer sells one or more lots in the Plat, the Land, or any part of it. Upon request, the City shall provide, in recordable form, a release of any lot in the Plat from this Development Contract if the City determines that the terms and conditions of this Contract have been satisfied. K. Developer shall be responsible for all snow removal from vacant lots to the extent that City Ordinance requires snow removal. Developer shall be responsible for ensuring that all vacant lots comply with the City's Code regarding nuisances. 31. NOTICES. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing, and shall be either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to the Developer by certified mail at the following address: Charles Cudd, LLC, 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, MN 55447-4710. Notices to the City shall be in writing and shall be either hand delivered to the City Administrator, or mailed to the City by certified mail in care of the City Administrator at the following address: Orono City Hall, 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, Minnesota 55356. Either party may change the address to which notices to such party thereafter shall be given, by providing to the other party notice of such change. 32. At the request of the Developer, upon expiration of warranties, completion and satisfaction of requirements of the Contract, as determined by the City, the City will execute a recordable certificate of completion confirming such completion and release of the Land from provisions of this Contract relating thereto. The Developer may request partial release of the Contract. The City, when the Developer requests such a release, may require as a condition thereof 18 189563v1 that the Developer memorialize any remaining unsatisfied obligations hereunder pursuant to a recorded declaration or an amendment to a previously recorded declaration. [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank.] 19 189563v1 (SEAL) CITY: CITY OF ORONO 1.2 Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor Jessica Loftus, City Administrator DEVELOPER: By [print name] Its By [print name] Its 20 189563v1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (Ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2016 by Lili Tod McMillan and by Jessica Loftus, respectively the Mayor and City Administrator of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (Ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2016, by and , respectively the and of a , on behalf of the Notary Public DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association Grand Oak Office Center I 860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290 Eagan, MN 55121 Telephone: (651) 452-5000 21 189563v1 MORTGAGE CONSENT TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT , which holds a mortgage on the subject property, the development of which is governed by the foregoing Development Contract, agrees that the Development Contract shall remain in full force and effect even if it forecloses on its mortgage. Dated this day of , 2016. Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day by of , on its behalf. Notary Public DRAFTED BY: Telephone: O - 22 189563v1 of the Exhibit A Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, Leach Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota 23 189563v1 IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT No. _ Date: TO: City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, Minnesota 55356 Dear Sir or Madam: We hereby issue, for the account of and in your favor, our Irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of $ available to you by your draft drawn on sight on the undersigned bank. The draft must: a) Bear the clause, "Drawn under Letter of Credit No. , dated , 2 , of(Name of Bankes b) Be accompanied by an affidavit signed by the Mayor or City Administrator of the City of Orono certifying that is in default of the Development Contract with the City of Orono and that five (5) business days prior written notice has been given by the City to the Developer with respect to the existence of such default, and such default has not been cured. c) Be presented for payment at (Address of Bank) , on or before 4:00 p.m. on November 30, 2 This Letter of Credit shall automatically renew for successive one-year terms unless, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date (which shall be November 30 of each year), the Bank delivers written notice to the Orono City Administrator that it intends to modify the terms of, or cancel, this Letter of Credit. Written notice is effective if sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, and deposited in the U.S. Mail, at least forty-five (45) days prior to the next annual renewal date addressed as follows: Orono City Administrator, Orono City Hall, 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, Minnesota 55356, and is actually received by the City Administrator at least thirty (30) days prior to the renewal date. This Letter of Credit sets forth in full our understanding which shall not in any way be modified, amended, amplified, or limited by reference to any document, instrument, or agreement, whether or not referred to herein. This Letter of Credit is not assignable. This is not a Notation Letter of Credit. More than one draw may be made under this Letter of Credit. This Letter of Credit shall be governed by the most recent revision of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, International Chamber of Commerce Publication No. 600. This agreement shall be construed and interpreted under Minnesota Law. We hereby agree that a draft drawn under and in compliance with this Letter of Credit shall be duly honored upon presentation. mm Its 24 189563vt CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE LIABILITY & WORKERS' COMPENSATION This certificate is issued as a matter of information only and confers no rights upon the certificate holder. This certificate does not amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policies listed below. PROJECT: CERTIFICATE HOLDER & ADDITIONAL INSURED: City of Orono ADDRESS: ARCH/ENGR: INSURED: ADDRESS: AGENT: ADDRESS: WORKERS' COMPENSATION COVERAGE POLICY # EFFECTIVE DATE / / EXPIRATION DATE INSURANCE COMPANY: COVERAGE -Workers' Compensation, Statutory. Employers' Liability Limit $ Each Accident $ Disease Policy Limit $ Disease Employee Limit ($500,000 Policy limit applies to both accident and disease) GENERAL LIABILITY POLICY # EFFECTIVE DATE / / EXPIRATION DATE INSURANCE COMPANY: ( )Claims Made ( )Occurrence ( )Owner's & Contractors Protective LIMITS: General Aggregate Limit (Other Than Products -Completed Operations) $ Products -Completed Operations Aggregate Limit $ Personal & Advertising Injury Limit $ Each Occurrence $ 25 189563v1 ( ) Other COVERAGE PROVIDED Operations of Contractor: Yes Operations of Sub -Contractor (Contingent): Yes Does Personal Injury Include Property Damage Liability Includes Claims Related to Employment: Yes Completed Operations/Products: Yes Contractual Liability (Broad Form): Yes EXCEPTIONS: Damage Due to Collapse AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY POLICY # No Government Immunity is Waived Yes No, No Property Damage Liability Includes Damage Due to Blasting Yes No No Damage Due to Collapse Yes No No Damage To Underground Facilities Yes No No Broad Form Property Damage Yes No. EFFECTIVE DATE: / / EXPIRATION DATE: INSURANCE COMPANY: ( )Any Auto ( )All Owned Autos ( )Scheduled Autos ( )Hired Autos ( )Non -Owned Autos LIMITS: Bodily Injury $ Each Person / $ Each Occurrence OR Combined Single Limit Property Damage $ Each Occurrence UMBRELLA EXCESS LIABILITY POLICY # EFFECTIVE DATE:—/—/ EXPIRATION DATE: INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITS: Single Limit Bodily Injury and Property Damage $ Each Occurrence $ Aggregate COVERAGE PROVIDED: Applies in excess of the coverages listed above for Employers' Liability, General Liability, and Automobile Liability: Yes No Are any deductibles applicable to bodily injury or property damage on any of the above coverages? Yes No If So, List Amount $ AGENT CARRIES ERRORS AND OMISSIONS INSURANCE: Yes No Should any of the above described policies be cancelled before the expiration date thereof, the issuing company will mail 30 days notice to the parties to whom this certificate is issued. Dated at: MN License # Authorized Insurance Representative On: 26 189563v1 M- Council Exhibit A 16-3869 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-305 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 290 CRESTVIEW AVENUE - FILE NO. 16-3869. WHEREAS, Scott D. Hochstedler, individual person, (hereinafter the "Owner") own the property located at 290 Crestview Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as follows: Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Bayside Addition to Lake Minnetonka, Henniepin County, Minnesota, and WHEREAS, the Owner on September 21, 2016 made a complete application to the City for variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-305 in order to allow the construction of an addition to the front of an existing single family addition, reducing the setback from 50 feet to 41.7 feet; from section 78-305 to allow improvements to a lot that is substandard due to width and size; and WHEREAS, on October 17, 2016 after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on October 17, 2016, the Planning Commission on a vote of 5-0 recommended approval of the variances as presented; and WHEREAS, on November 14, 2016, the Orono City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested variances as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning this property: FINDINGS OF FACT: Page 1 of 6 Al. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. A2. The Property is located within the LR -IA Single Family Rural Residential District which requires a minimum lot area of 2.0 acres and a minimum lot width of 200' for construction of a single family residence. A3. The Property is 0.35 acres in area, being 120 feet in width. The Property is considered as legally nonconforming with regard to lot area and lot width. A4. The Property is located within Storm Water Overlay District Tier 1 which allows 25% hardcover. The proposed residence construction will result in hardcover on the Property of approximately 24.88%, below the maximum hardcover allowance. A5. In considering this application for variances, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. VARIANCE ANALYSIS: According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The variance would allow the addition to be located 41.7 feet from the street. The intent of the ordinance is to create large separation between the homes and the street. This intent would still be met. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The setback as proposed would continue to be consistent with the large open spaces suggested by the comprehensive plan for this type of development. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The lot size and current configuration of the home do not permit a modest improvement of the home without some encroachment into the setbacks. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The homeowner did not create the uniqueness himself. The lot was created and principally improved prior to his ownership. Improvements made by the applicant have been made to blend the home into the neighborhood. Page 2 of 6 c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed improvement and resulting setbacks appears to be consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Homes on the west side of Crestview are setback 25-32 feet, homes on the east side are setback 20-50 feet from Crestview, with the subject parcel currently 57 feet, and proposed to be 41 feet. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The existing home impacts the location of future additions. The home is currently set back further than most other homes on the street. 5. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The applicant suggests that the regulations, intended for 2 acre lots, imposed on his lot create a practical difficulty. 6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The proposed improvement for bedrooms and a bathroom are reasonable in nature, and placement elsewhere on the lot does not avoid a variance. 7. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. There is no evidence to suggest the variance, if granted, would negatively impact the intent of the zoning ordinances. 8. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The owner has been in the home for 9 years, suggesting that the applicant has attempted to make do with the home in its current state, and did not enter into the need for a variance frivolously or out of convenience. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-305 and 78-1403 in order to allow the construction of a new single family residence, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the survey/site plan and building plans submitted by the Owners and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A and B. Page 3 of 6 Any amendments to the approved survey/site plan and building plans which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. Owners shall comply with the permitting requirements of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 3. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Owners, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the project and commencing construction of said project within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variances will expire on that date (November 14, 2017). 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned Owners have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the Owners and the Owners' heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the Property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 14th day of November, 2016. ATTEST: Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor Page 4 of 6 Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2016, by Gregory Blasko. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2016, by Whitney Windmiller. Page 5 of 6 Notary Public Page 6 of 6 Date Application Received: 6/22/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 09/4/16 60 -Day Review Period Expires: 10/4/16 120 -Day review Period Expires 12/4/16 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Council Exhibit B DATE: September 12, 2016 ITEM NO: 10 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Jeremy Barnhart -4 Planning Title Community Development Director Item Description: #16-3847, Charles Cudd, LLC on behalf of DDK, LLC, 2525, 2535 & 2545 Shadywood Road, Preliminary Plat and Rezoning Application Summary On August 8', the Council directed staff to prepare resolutions formally approving the preliminary plat, comprehensive plan amendment, and conditionally approving the rezoning of three parcels constituting Shadywood Villas, 2525, 2535, and 2545 Shadywood Road. The Council approved the resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan on August 22, 2016, the formal application has been submitted to the Met Council. The preliminary plat resolution, attached as Exhibit A, follows the standard city template for approval of a preliminary plat, and includes fees and submittal requirements for final plat, which is expected in the near term. In developing the resolution, staff has identified two areas were further clarification is necessary: Trail location. No trail is proposed within the development. The developers propose a trail to be located within the Shadywood Road right of way. The past two developments (Orono Preserve and Eisinger Meadows), the developers provided easements for trail purposes within the development. The Council should direct staff to make appropriate changes to the resolution. Buckhorn. It was noted during the council meeting that the removal of buckthorn, an invasive species, would have a drastic visual impact on the adjacent parcels, and the Council suggested that the buckthorn could remain, which is inconsistent with past practice and the recommendations of the environmental analysis, Staff and the developer seek clarification. Action Requested: Approve by resolution the preliminary plat and zone change, subject to the approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment by the Met Council. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Draft Resolution Exhibit B. Revised Drawings: 1. Revised Preliminary Plat 2. Revised Grading and Utility 3. Revised Grading and SWPPP 4. Revised Tree Preservation Exhibit C. Council staff report and exhibits dated August 8, 2016 Exhibit D. Council minutes August 8, 2016 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12, 2016 7:00 o'clock p.m. 10. #16-3847 CHARLES CUDD, LLC, ON BEHALF OF DDK, LLC, 2525, 2535, AND 2545 SHADYWOOD ROAD, PRELIMINARY PLAT AND REZONING — RESOLUTION NO. 6668 Community Development Director Barnhart stated at last month's meeting, the City Council directed Staff to draft an approval resolution for this application. This is a 7 -lot single-family development located on the south side of Shadywood Road and east of Kelly Avenue. In drafting the resolution, Staff identified two key issues and one relatively minor issue. During the review of the preliminary plat, there was a discussion regarding the buckthorn and the natural area that separates the developed area on the outside of the wetland. At that time there was some thought that the existing vegetation provides a screen between the development and the adjacent residential properties. The discussion revolved around whether the buckthorn should be removed as part of the City's normal practice or whether it should be maintained. Barnhart stated he heard conflicting direction from the Council over the last couple of months regarding the buckthorn. The direction heard last time was to keep the buckthorn in that area. Barnhart noted buckthorn is an invasive species and will spread to the adjacent neighborhood area. At this time Staff is looking for clarification on whether the buckthorn should be removed. The other issue identified by Staff is the trail location. Historically the City has a trail along the county road to accommodate bike and pedestrian movement. Hennepin County has identified the need for an additional right-of-way, which Staff does not support since it will remove some additional lots. The developer is proposing a trail within the Hennepin County right-of-way along County Road 19. As a result, Staff is looking for direction on the trail. The third issue relates to Lot 4 and the floor area ratio. Barnhart noted the floor area ratio for that lot will be above 0.5. The maximum allowed under the ordinance is 0.5 and the applicant is asking for some flexibility on that lot. Barnhart stated Staff is asking for Council approval of the resolution subject to any changes. McMillan asked whether the proposed trail would be inside the Hennepin County right-of-way. Barnhart stated the developer is proposing it be outside the property area and inside the county right-of- way. Historically the County has requested that trails be located outside of the right-of-way and within the developed area. Relocating the trail would impact the proposed berm and landscaping for this development. Barnhart indicated he spoke with the applicant and in their view they can provide pedestrian and bicycle movement as well as buffering. McMillan asked if approval from Hennepin County would be required if the trail is within the right-of- way. Barnhart stated based on the developer's proposal, they would have to. Council Member Walsh stated his understanding from the meeting was that Staff was going to obtain some feedback from Hennepin County on this issue. Walsh stated there should be plenty of room if there is only going to be a two-lane road but that it will probably be an issue if they decide to construct a four - lane road. Page 1 of 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12, 2016 7:00 o'clock p.m. Barnhart stated Hennepin County is looking at options to improve that intersection and that at least a three -lane roadway will be created at some point in the future. Hennepin County has requested additional right-of-way above and beyond what already exists, which is why Staff is supporting the trail be located within the development. Council Member Levang asked how wide the trail would be. Barnhart stated Staff is requesting a 10 -foot easement. Walsh stated if it is only a three -lane road, there would be plenty of room, but that it makes sense to have the additional right-of-way just in case a four -lane road is constructed. McMillan noted the right-of-way within the development would be bermed and would require extensive retaining walls if a trail is located there. Barnhart stated Staff would work closely with the developer to provide grading plans that best accommodate a trail. Barnhart stated at this stage Staff believes they can accommodate future planning improvements without retaining walls. McMillan asked whether any large trees will be planted in that area. Barnhart stated the plan would show the trail and any landscaping. Walsh stated anyone can plant stuff without the right-of-way but that there is a potential risk it might need to be removed at some point. Barnhart indicated Staff would use similar type of language in the resolution that was used in the Eisinger resolution. McMillan noted Hennepin County is looking at possibly redoing the 19115 intersection sometime in 2020. Hennepin County is looking at realigning the intersection and possibly adding some improvements, such as a trail. Barnhart stated the direction he has heard is to provide the easement within the development. Walsh noted the developer also wanted some flexibility on the FAR. Walsh stated if everything is factored in, such as the outlot square footage and road square footage, it would not be over the 0.5, and so he is willing to give them some flexibility on that. Levang and Printup indicated they are fine with that. McMillan asked whether there is enough landscaping being proposed to protect those homes if the buckthorn is removed. Barnhart stated Staff can ensure that the landscaping plan reflects that if the buckthorn is removed. Page 2 of 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12, 2016 7:00 o'clock p.m. McMillan noted she has not seen a landscaping plan and that this is a sensitive area. McMillan noted the wetland buffer should not be disturbed even though there is buckthorn in there. Walsh stated his recollection is that the residents were fine with leaving the buckthorn since it provides a lot of screening. Walsh stated from his perspective, the neighbors' desires outweigh the need to get rid of the buckthorn. Levang noted the revised plan preserves 14 more trees and that the developer has been sensitive to the desires of the residents. Council Member Printup stated he would caution against leaving the buckthorn in this development since the City would be opening itself up to having to allow buckthorn to remain on other properties. Levang noted this is an RPUD and the City is allowed some flexibility. John Stein, Charles Cudd Company, commented that there is currently a preserved buckthorn area in Creekside that was done years ago. Walsh stated when it comes to the issues of the residents, the Council needs to weigh which ones have more weight. Walsh noted visibility is a big concern for the residents. Printup stated he just wants the Council to be prepared to tell other people that they can leave the buckthorn. Printup stated in his mind the Council is sending a mixed message by allowing the buckthorn here to remain. Levang commented since this is an RPUD, the City has a leg to stand on. McMillan stated she is sensitive to the land clearing of this area since this lot was clear cut once in the past. McMillan stated it is best over time that the buckthorn is removed and other vegetation planted and that it will now be the homeowners who have to take that on. McMillan stated she does not want another round of extensive clear cutting given the impacts on the area. Printup stated it is setting the City up for other requests in the future. Rick Denman, Charles Cudd, stated they have done a lot to keep the neighbors happy and that they have taken steps to preserve as many trees as possible. Denman noted the neighbors are okay with leaving the buckthorn but that he will leave the issue up to the City Council. McMillan asked whether this is something that the homeowners association could address Iong-term. Denman stated it would be hard for Charles Cudd to monitor it over time, but if the Council is open to allowing the residents who move in here having an organized way to buffer the area, that could be an option. Printup stated the comment that the neighbors are okay with it implies that they do not care that it is in the code. Printup questioned whether the City should eliminate it from the code and leave it up to individual property owners. Printup stated he does not want to put a future Council in the position where this situation is brought up. Page 3 of 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 12, 2016 7:00 o'clock p.m. McMillan stated that might be a good topic of discussion when the City Council discusses code issues in November. John Stein stated the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will be adverse to removing any buckthorn in the wetland or wetland buffer areas. Stein stated the buckthorn will go into the wetland area a lot further than what everyone believes. Denman stated as it relates to the trail, they want to be careful to retain the buffer and that they are debating possibly planting a couple rows of arborvitae or whether there will be fence. Denman indicated they will work with Staff to figure out the grading for a possible future trail. Denman noted that ten feet on this particular site will have an impact. Denman stated since there are only seven lots, he wants to be careful on what they are spending on landscaping but that he wants to have a nice buffer from Shadywood. McMillan asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this application. There were no public comments. Levang moved, Walsh seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6668, a resolution Granting Preliminary Plat and Rezoning Approval for Property Located at 2525, 2535, and 2545 Shadywood Road, File No. 16-3847, subject to approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment by the Metropolitan Council, and to allow some flexibility on the FAR for Lot 4, to require a 10 -foot trail easement, and that buckthorn removal will not be required. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Page 4 of 4 To; Orono City Council and Staff, Due to winter weather conditions, we are asking that the City Council approve 2 building permits with the subdivision graded, the sewer and water pipes installed and class 5 gravel down on the road. This is a short Cul de sac and is less than 220' long. We understand that no certificate of occupancy can be granted and no homeowners can move in until all the other improvements have been completed and approved by the city. Thanks for your consideration: Rick Denman Charles Cudd Co LLC At acz 0�511 15�4-4y U)000 el" 3868 NOV 0 82016 CITY OF ORONO Date Application Received: 09/21/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 09/21/16 60 -Day Review Period Expires: 11/21/16 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: November 14, 2016 Item No. 15 Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Jeremy Barnhart Ym-4 Planning items Title: Community Development Director Item Description: #16-3869 — Scott D. Hochstedler — 290 Crestview Ave — Variances Application Summary: Scott Hochstedler is requesting a variance from the front yard setback to permit the construction of a 359 sq ft addition onto the front of the house. The addition will be 41.7 feet from Crestview; 50 feet setback is required. The variance as presented supposes Council approval of the vacation of Hill Street (case number 16- 3870) which reduces the side street setback to a standard setback, and increases the lot size, eliminating the need of a structural coverage variance. A lot size and width variance is needed because the lot is substandard due to size and width. Planning Commission Action: On October 17th the Planning Commission held a public hearing; there were no comments from the public. The Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 in favor of the variance, noting the proposed improvements is in character with the neighborhood. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Council should adopt or amend the attached resolution approving the variances for 290 Crestview Avenue as indicated. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Draft Resolution Exhibit B. Plans and Survey Exhibit C. Draft PC Minutes — 10/17/16 Exhibit D. PC SR 16-3869 and exhibits Council Exhibit A 16-3869 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-305 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 290 CRESTVIEW AVENUE - FILE NO. 16-3869. WHEREAS, Scott D. Hochstedler, individual person, (hereinafter the "Owner") own the property located at 290 Crestview Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as follows: Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, Bayside Addition to Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and WHEREAS, the Owner on September 21, 2016 made a complete application to the City for variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-305 in order to allow the construction of an addition to the front of an existing single family addition, reducing the setback from 50 feet to 41.7 feet; from section 78-305 to allow improvements to a lot that is substandard due to width and size; and WHEREAS, on October 17, 2016 after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on October 17, 2016, the Planning Commission on a vote of 5-0 recommended approval of the variances as presented; and WHEREAS, on November 14, 2016, the Orono City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested variances as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning this property: FINDINGS OF FACT: Page 1 of 6 Al. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. A2. The Property is located within the LR-lA Single Family Rural Residential District which requires a minimum lot area of 2.0 acres and a minimum lot width of 200' for construction of a single family residence. A3. The Property is 0.35 acres in area, being 120 feet in width. The Property is considered as legally nonconforming with regard to lot area and lot width. A4. The Property is located within Storm Water Overlay District Tier 1 which allows 25% hardcover. The proposed residence construction will result in hardcover on the Property of approximately 24.88%, below the maximum hardcover allowance. A5. In considering this application for variances, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. VARIANCE ANALYSIS: According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The variance would allow the addition to be located 41.7 feet from the street. The intent of the ordinance is to create large separation between the homes and the street. This intent would still be met. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The setback as proposed would continue to be consistent with the large open spaces suggested by the comprehensive plan for this type of development. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The lot size and current configuration of the home do not permit a modest improvement of the home without some encroachment into the setbacks. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The homeowner did not create the uniqueness himself. The lot was created and principally improved prior to his ownership. Improvements made by the applicant have been made to blend the home into the neighborhood. Page 2 of 6 c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed improvement and resulting setbacks appears to be consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Homes on the west side of Crestview are setback 25-32 feet, homes on the east side are setback 20-50 feet from Crestview, with the subject parcel currently 57 feet, and proposed to be 41 feet. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The existing home impacts the location of future additions. The home is currently set back further than most other homes on the street. 5. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The applicant suggests that the regulations, intended for 2 acre lots, imposed on his lot create a practical difficulty. 6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The proposed improvement for bedrooms and a bathroom are reasonable in nature, and placement elsewhere on the lot does not avoid a variance. 7. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. There is no evidence to suggest the variance, if granted, would negatively impact the intent of the zoning ordinances. 8. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The owner has been in the home for 9 years, suggesting that the applicant has attempted to make do with the home in its current state, and did not enter into the need for a variance frivolously or out of convenience. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-305 and 78-1403 in order to allow the construction of a new single family residence, subject to the following conditions: Council approval is based on the survey/site plan and building plans submitted by the Owners and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A and B. Any amendments to the approved survey/site plan and building plans which are not in Page 3 of 6 conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. Owners shall comply with the permitting requirements of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 3. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Owners, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the project and commencing construction of said project within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variances will expire on that date (November 14, 2017). 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned Owners have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the Owners and the Owners' heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the Property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 14th day of November, 2016. ATTEST: Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lilt Tod McMillan, Mayor Page 4 of 6 Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2016, by Gregory Blasko. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2016, by Whitney Windmiller. Page 5 of 6 Notary Public Page 6 of 6 Council CERTIFICATE OF' SURVEY FOR Exhibit B SCOTT D HOCHSTEDLEn OF LOTS i & 8; BLOCK 1$ BAYSIDE ADDITION TO LAKE MINNETONK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA I A I ,�toass� (" IA LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, "Bayside Addition to Lake Minnetonka" a : denotes iron marker found (go8.3): denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum, taken from field survey on 8-4-08, and 8-4-16 --917---: denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datum 930 denotes proposed contour line, mean sea level datum Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, the location of an existing house and garage, spot elevations, topography: the location of all visible "hardcover" and the proposed location of a proposed addition thereon. It does not purport to shoe any other Improvements or encroachments. 1 1 hereby certi7 that this survey was prepared by ma, WALE GR O 1.'��7 or under mydirect supervision, end that I am a duly 1"=20' =" the Civil Engineer cid Land Surveyor under the ,�qj, C�t �7 NmQ of the State of Miinnecoto. DATE 1'l.v0.�.1�a��� J. �e.J � �e a-+-�a C-01;SJbTHW E.746BN Ei3?a', LAND Wis SURVEifORS, & SITE i"UllldERS AC® W. 445 NORTH WILLOW DRIVE LOMG LAXE, MH. 55356 952-473-4141 Mark S. Grohberg +Minnesota License der 13755 16-297A 15-297A }Im FIm PC Erhibh D PROPOSED ADDITION AND REMODEL FOR THENg� ? ��P E°g�+d i Hp__ OCHSTEDT ER R.ESIDENC uOTi 4� __ N N asocRESTv1EwAVENUE �'�@; A;� � €� p ORONO, MINNESOTA ( i 12.! i„_� #� PROPOSED ADDInON AND REMODEL FOR THfi: I€j �£ �6 $ d aeg 11 -.v � o ply Y @fi a AC+[ CHSTE.DLER RFSMPNCL Il �3�� 4� g I - W s 9C y 290 CRESTVIM AVENUE u ORONO,MINNESOTA] 'A ��g} a°'g I. Council MINUTES OF THE Exhibit C ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 16-3870 Monday, October 17, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 4. #16-3869 SCOTT HOCHSTEDLER, 290 CRESTVIEW AVENUE, VARIANCE, 6:36 P.M. — 6:44 P.M. Scott Hochstedler, Applicant, was present. Barnhart stated the applicant is requesting a variance from the front yard setback requirements that would permit a front setback of 41.7 feet where 50 feet is required. The applicant is proposing a 359 square foot addition onto the front of his home. The addition would be located 41.7 feet from Crestview Avenue and 33.9 feet from the existing property line to the south given the recent recommended approval of the vacation. Without the vacation the addition would be located 13.9 feet from the south property line. Barnhart displayed a survey of the property and pointed out the location of the addition. The proposed addition is to the right of the front door. Barnhart pointed out the location of the new property lines with the vacation of Hill Street and noted that the lot is now large enough to accommodate the proposed single - level addition to the house. Barnhart displayed a sketch of the proposed house. Barnhart stated based upon their analysis, Staff found that a majority of the standards have been met. The proposed improvement requires a 9 -foot reduction in the front yard setback, which leaves 41.7 feet of separation between the house and the street. With this reduction, the large yards envisioned by the ordinance and Comprehensive Plan are maintained and preserved. Most of the other homes in the neighborhood are similar in size, with setbacks from Crestview a shorter distance than proposed by the applicant. Further, alternative locations for the expansion would require other variances, which may result in greater impact to adjacent properties or require an upward addition, which may have a greater massing impact on the neighborhood over what is proposed. Staff supports the front yard setback variance request as proposed. Barnhart noted without the vacation of Hill Street, additional variances for hardcover and structure would be required. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Page 1 of 2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 17, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Scott Hochstedler, Applicant, thanked the Planning Commission for consideration of their application. Hochstedler stated they have been working on this project for over a year and that the information before the Planning Commission has been the result of a lot of give and take on both sides. Hochstedler stated in their view careful consideration has been given to the issues. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:43 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:43 p.m. Thiesse asked whether the Planning Commission feels this meets the standards for a variance. Lemke stated in his view the addition works well, is within the parameters of the neighborhood with regards to setbacks, and would be an improvement to the house. Schoenzeit stated he agrees with Staff's report that this is the best location for an addition. Leskinen indicated she is in agreement with Staff's recommendation. Lemke moved, Schoenzeit seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3869, Scott Hochstedler, 290 Crestview Avenue, granting of a front yard setback variance. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Page 2 of 2 Date Application Received: September 21, 2016 Date Application Considered as Complete: September 21, 2016 60 -Day Review Period Expires: November 21, 2016 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Jessica Loftus, City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: October 17, 2016 Subject: #16-3869, Scott Hochstedler, 290 Crestview Avenue, Front Yard Setback Variance Public Hearing Council Exhibit D 16-3869 Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a variance from the front yard setback requirements that would permit a front setback of 41.7 feet where 50 feet is required. If the street vacation is not approved, the applicant will also require structural and hardcover variances. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the variance as proposed. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Existing & Proposed Survey Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit F. Plat Map Exhibit G. Property Owners List Background The applicant is proposing a 359 square foot addition onto the front of his home. The addition would be located 41.7 feet from Crestview Avenue and 13.9 feet from the existing property line to the south. If a proposed street vacation (Case Number 16-3870) is approved, the proposed addition would be 33.9 feet from the southern property line. The existing home is non -conforming with respect to setbacks to the rear and the south side. The applicant feels the addition could not be located in a way to avoid a variance; the home is 23 feet from the rear property line (30 required) and 15.3 feet from the south side property line (50 required). The north half of the lot includes the detached garage. The addition would provide interior space for a bedroom, closet, and a bathroom. There is no basement in the home. The addition would be single story, matching the existing structure. The lot is substandard with respect to area and width. Because the proposed addition will not meet the front yard setback, a variance is required. FILE # 16-3870 October 17, 2016 Page 2 of 4 LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET The applicant is party to a request (case number 16-3870) to vacate Hill Street. The vacation, if approved, would increase the lot size and width, and impact the setback requirements, and the coverage calculations below. Staff supports the street vacation. Section 78-305 - Setbacks: LR -1A DISTRICT Required (feet) Proposed (feet) Front 50 41.7 Rear 30 23 (no change) Side Street* 50 13.9 (15.3 currently) Side* (south side) 30 33.9 Side (north side) 30 41.5 * With the vacation, the side street is removed, reducing the setback requirement to the south from 50 to 30 feet. Section 78-350- Lot Area/Width: LR -1A DISTRICT Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres) 200' Actual without vacation 12,252 s.f. (0.28 acre) 100' Actual with vacated Hill Street 15,030 s.f. (0.35 acre) 120' Section 78-1403- Structural Cover Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage Without vacation, 12,252 s.f. (0.28 acre) Allowed: 1,838 s.f. (15%) Proposed Proposed: 2,150 s.f. (17.5%) With vacation, 15,030 s.f. (0.35 acre) Allowed: 2,255 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 2,150 s.f. (14.3%) Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Total Area in Allowed Existing Proposed Overlay District Zone Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover Tier 1 Without 3,063 s.f. 3,380 s.f. 3,739 s.f. vacation 12,252 s.f. (25%) (27.6%) (30.52%) 3,757.5 s.f. 3739 s.f With vacation 15,030 s.f. (25%) (24.88%) FILE # 16-3870 October 17, 2016 Page 3 of 4 Applicable Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The variance would allow the addition to be located 41.7 feet from the street. The intent of the ordinance is to create large separation between the homes and the street. This intent would still be met. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The setback as proposed would continue to be consistent with the large open spaces suggested by the comprehensive plan for this type of development. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The lot size and current configuration of the home do not permit a modest improvement of the home without some encroachment into the setbacks. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The homeowner did not create the uniqueness himself. The lot was created and principally improved prior to his ownership. Improvements made by the applicant have been made to blend the home into the neighborhood. c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed improvement and resulting setbacks appears to be consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Homes on the west side of Crestview are setback 25-32 feet, homes on the east side are setback 20-50 feet from Crestview, with the subject parcel currently 57 feet, and proposed to be 41 feet. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The existing home impacts the location of future additions. The home is currently set back further than most other homes on the street. 5. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The applicant suggests that the regulations, intended for 2 acre lots, imposed on his lot create a practical difficulty. FILE # 16-3870 October 17, 2016 Page 4 of 4 6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The proposed improvement for bedrooms and a bathroom are reasonable in nature, and placement elsewhere on the lot does not avoid a variance. 7. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. There is no evidence to suggest the variance, if granted, would negatively impact the intent of the zoning ordinances. 8. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The owner has been in the home for 9 years, suggesting that the applicant has attempted to make do with the home in its current state, and did not enter into the need for a variance frivolously or out of convenience. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Analysis The proposed improvement requires a 9 foot reduction in the front yard setback, 41.7 feet of separation between the house and the street. With this reduction, the large yards envisioned by the ordinance and comprehensive plan are maintained and preserved. Looking at the neighborhood, most of the homes are similar sized, and setback from Crestview a shorter distance than proposed by the applicant. Further, alternative locations for the expansion would require other variances, which may result in greater impact to adjacent properties, or require an upward addition, which may have a greater massing impact on the neighborhood over what is proposed. Public Comments To date, no comments have been received in support or opposition to the request. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? PC Exhibit A City of Orono Variance Application Street Address: Application # Orono, Kelley Parkway t] A rO Orono, MN 55356 Date Received: Main: 952-249-4600 Staff : m e,i fax: 952-249-4616 Fee. -d, Mailing Address: Escrow # & $ j 4 P.O. Box 66 G� Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Permit Fee gkES H O�� Notes Please complete. Applicant will be Notified within 15 days as to the status of the application. Incomplete appplliications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agenda. r7 SITE LOCATION: d � �re�yl.e i,) i� /Y�}�I] M,41 ��E 5o DESCRPTION OF REQUEST: fijw 'ti a rd Se:f- �a Vaar I a, h e -t re.ge6 (attached additional sheets as necessary) APPLICANT / AGENT INF RMATI N: Applicant Name: L -O Phone (Primary): — f 7-9 21 Applicant Email: p� cWT?ln Address: f rf4=L&,) ec__1 City: ZIP: Applicant is: Contractor Homeowne ' (Circle One) PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATIO check here if property owner is same as applicant Name: Phone (Primary): Mailing Address: City: ZIP: Email: — APPLICANTIAGENT AND/OR OWNER: • Agree to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, • Agree to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and • Certify that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant and owner recognize that they are solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reject it until it is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of its potential merit. • Acknowledge the Escrow Agreement is completed and signed. • The Owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents, Commission and Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. • Owner and/or Applicant acknowledge they must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant and/or owner is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative a nd in place of the applicant/owner and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. Applicant/Agent Signature: i' Date: Applicant/Agent Signature: Date: Property Owner Signature: Date: Property Owner Signature: tf-fcj4 Date: f Variance Application — May 2016 Page SEP 2 ? 20ir^F # 3869 CITY OF ORONO City of Orono Variance Pre -Application Meeting Form (This form is to be completed by a City Planner during your pre -application meeting.) For Office Use Only City Planner Meeting Date/Time � PC Date _ Met with What is the purpose of a pre -application meeting? Pre -application meetings aid the applicant in preparing a complete proposal, inform them of the procedures and requirements of the city code, and identify policies or regulations that create opportunities or problems for the proposal. PROPERTY INFORMATION- Site 1J �� - M,® Site Address: f'[ A& Property Identification � umber (PIN): ` Zoning District: �f�, W Size of Property: DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUEST: ❑ Average Setback ❑ Side Yard Setback ❑ Rear Yard Setback ,�LakFront Yard Setback ❑ Hardcover Tier 1 ❑ Hardcover Tier 2 11 Hardcover Tier 3 ❑ Hardcover ler ❑ Lot Coverage ❑ Lot Area ❑ Lot Width 'V'f11 rl�her• Applicant's PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES: Owner and/or Applicant has received the Practical Initials: Difficulties Documentation Form, understands it as it has been explained to them, and is aware that it must be completed and submitted in conjunction with their Owner's Initials: formal variance application. Applicant's BILLS AND ESCROW: Owner and/or Applicant shall pay for consultant expenses Initials: I incurred in review of this application and/or additional staff time not covered in initial application fee, as well as provide an escrow in the amount of $ to Owner's Initials: guarantee payment of the above. OTHER INFORMATION: *Please note: Your variance application will NOT be accepted without a pre -application meeting during which this form will be cam le by City staff. Applicant Signature: Gid Date: Owner Signature: y �1'`' Date: � f � ��' RECEIVED Variance Appllcatfon — May 2016 Page 3 SEP 21, ?W 3869 UTY OF ORONO PC Exhibit B PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An application will not be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the City. Minnesota State Statutes Section 462.357, Subdivision 6(2) requires that practical difficulties be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. The difficulties must be unique to the property as variances run with the land and not the land owner. Personal and economic situations are not considered valid practical difficulties. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council practical difficulties having merit must be demonstrated. HOW DO I PROVE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if practical difficulties exist and how the variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove practical difficulties, address all the relevant points listed below and answer them as clearly as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is justified. The information the City receives is what is used in determining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave something out it will not be considered. Please address each of the twelve practical difficulties criteria as they relate to the request if they do not apply, write N/A in the space provided: 1. "The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter." 2. "The plight of the landowner is due to Circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner."ty?t J f. i l va7 Prap�? ��5 �9y' +d�lccfc (. f�o`d,nQv�cJ ru.(AS C'�c,r.� 3. "The va lance, if grated will'fiot alter, the essential character of the localit .' %c� rrP; ( ' 0 e C �4 ^ �a,o a a t" Ca 57`t � � L(/t B� �'� d u �e�1C� aA.Oft . T ( M&d J J f I'll 4. "Economic considerations al a do nit constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists S; zz� under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." " Ved, 5. "Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116.1.46, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter." 6. "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located." RECEIVED Variance Application - May 2016 SEP 2 1?016 Page 4 3869 CITY OF ORONO 7. "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." 8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." , , 9. 10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." / Cl tdw-4-i t` c rrd �j b7 M e let h P p o ' �p hhr.,e ef-r; , ' 4 FA 6 s � �,± � 1¢ irk ars fd7 11. "The granting of the pro sed v iance will not frf any way impair heath, safety, comfort, morals, or in any o1fier ebw, respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code." 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficultv." f , , l JlYltr G i - S %/i4fef e roe-tcil OUB 151kAA !!hf a&L.- ,6,rC& Au 6� /7 b icJ . .� CL -W Practical Difficulties Statement cc ,r 0 ,.I 16� C# ,n-ph'a r2" sl Should you feel the practical difficulties cannot fully be described in the above criteria, describe the practical difficulties preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary): RECEIVED Variance Application — May 2016 SEP 2 17019 Page 5 cl•nr OF oRalvo II 0 N L6 N W O 0 to 00 W V) 00*00L NOadd 313kiONOO ro m e: N [V 40 I Hln ' W '. a n � MY 2 X 9'B V9 I Y � _ H n NltlM 31321�k0� Q qi �N 00`� NI LO N LO N LW1 6TL Z `•. 0'OZ 1 T Ln z � -000- vI w0 _z T� Y L a— o ...LLJ F- > ui ix vpo W n 0 V o a Ua ' W '. a n � MY 2 X 9'B V9 I Y � _ H n NltlM 31321�k0� Q qi �N 00`� NI LO N LO N LW1 6TL Z `•. 0'OZ 1 T 0,00L HAON V HfINHAV �inzs�x� ��ot O tt T, .... Ln z S -000- eq w0 _z T� Y L a— o CD > oqt W n 0 V r)za3� J 4! fE >0�.>ca �;)W 3 v Q L) W C� � U•�Q 1x �fl -°> in E un, U L •�1 CE ,ia G1 0 l C Ij W 0 < �! L 1-4 Y `a ED ft U LLI m ! �0-0 0 i La zn pp cn 4 o µ a w li I+i O Z 0,00L HAON V HfINHAV �inzs�x� ��ot O tt T, .... ii C O 2.2 v -C U L 0 N O O -v in � cL O)o 0 000.0 0 O OL U -0�, d� p0 0 -0.20 + O fn C 0) � O N —Q) 1;-, 00 O 0 to co E Cn v O w L OM 0 Mo -0 a mvv OD v O 0�.-C U7 t 0 cn 0 .�,C> -0X O CL v v N�� O > O C fn O.>cn— N :n 0 U BOO±' Q O �mi° o n N `times r L1 Q1 Ln z C -000- eq w0 _z T� Y L a— o CD m oqt W i� 0 V r)za3� Dc fE >0�.>ca �;)W 3 v w L) W LO lqr � U•�Q LJ a -°> in E un, U L •�1 CE ,ia G1 0 S/f N Y `a Ld3 O v D � -Y v� o J �0 v ave Uy O O 0-0 C o Eo a E E 0 O � O Q C C p - -v— 00 N N a) D v 0 o A cn j wm aW 0 O � 0 . c.a i > U Li E C o O +, � v cn- w a O O .O.N d M U) m w m ao 4-4 -W' o 4-d -§' V) W C N N 0) _0 41 n D -D .�. a 0 n co ii C O 2.2 v -C U L 0 N O O -v in � cL O)o 0 000.0 0 O OL U -0�, d� p0 0 -0.20 + O fn C 0) � O N —Q) 1;-, 00 O 0 to co E Cn v O w L OM 0 Mo -0 a mvv OD v O 0�.-C U7 t 0 cn 0 .�,C> -0X O CL v v N�� O > O C fn O.>cn— N :n 0 U BOO±' Q O �mi° o n N `times r L1 Q1 Ln z LO -000- eq w0 _z T� Y L a— o WWF E m oqt W i� 0 V r)za3� Dc fE >0�.>ca �;)W 3 U�o]F- w L) W LO lqr � U•�Q LJ v, -°> in o un, U L •�1 ,ia G1 0 S/f N Y `a Ld3 N a N I co z z�r) zZ L Z _z T� Y WWF E oqt W i� r)za3� 0 �., O ' am mj 0 �;)W 3 U�o]F- L) W LO lqr N a N I co v a- s k /w V 1L n WEST ELEVATION - EXISTING C2 1/4' = P- 0 - WEST ELEVATION - PROPOSED 1/4' = I'-®' DESGN COMPANY P: 952.250.4215 8421 EAMIEW AVENUE MiNNETRISTA, MN 55304 IMPORTANT NOTE FOR CONTRACTORS & SUR -CONTRACTORS v mu enw�.n engn 0r,e11¢ llw fierwrtl 0onhn[IR w. �.ialaam nePenaminm re„re r�6wn{nnr,na analr aeadra:, ak o��.ro 0eq{n 0rwen{s,a required w prnpnl{rwnln�la n�nNdk —d "I, �.mescner.l canna=m.m,onry e.. ona6ier.nM aeemn{ can en 0npimomc 3 Th 6enenl [mtraemris nrpnwhM Inrvearylnl n0 ,mNnyhaaln{ n..n..urc.Aenel��a eleeMalsndnrwninmme. ISSUE COMM Mewing 2016,6,10 REVISIONS Clem Ro m 2016.9.80 C,. ReNew 2016.0.8 VeslerceM i-2016.6.6 JOB #30214 SHEET # A2 OF3 NORTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED A9 1/4' - 1'-0' - SOUTH ELEVATION PROPOSED 1/4' - P-®' DEEM oonnPAW P: 552.250.4215 5421 EASTVIEW AVENUE MINNETRISTA MN 9999V IMPORTANT NOTE FOR CONTRACTORS& SUB -CONTRACTORS e. novae arawmpaw o 'm hrewlryr. The ft—1 rnnma[er< hwftftimarapar llrym —I. wnhluratbma�aelalh ftpkm In Cw OeslmeYn m fm orawlrye.anquhna. m raid prolM`cmnu[ea w[hNrJly x. ihe6erwwl mnnmwr m merry nw Onellrwr wh.n aMn9ry ham qw Or3ha� me.,,[ 3 TM 6mnr[I Conha[mrh ,espo, ,fma&hwigal fiweerwas, mnil, hdldry re, bery, dumh:gana Naarlral mh rcquhemeMe. ISSUE C113ra R"m 2018.880 REVISIONS L3i.R R"— 7019.6.3 vmja R•alww 2919,6,9 JOB #30214 SHEET # AND OF "I City of Orono �oNQ Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Address: 2 ? o CAt" _ 7-L1 .4i16. C-PC0 '7' s� e� `9kfsK�°` Prepared by: Date: Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) l ier 9 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Step 2: PROP6SED' HARDCOVER In the following table, idenff a1T'items of proposed hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to Certificate of Survey (survey must accompany this form). Include all existing hardcover items that are intended to remain, as well as all proposed hardcover items that will be added. Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict proposed hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter which are split at the 75' setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. Key to Hardcover Item (Describe) Survey Length x Width Total (Square Feet) (Example) (Garage) 24' x 30' 720 S.F. A Leh I1 ,rte hivGt,F /19 S.F. B '0* /{ S.F. C a: A A G 47 -5.3 2 S.F. D to { .Vt S.F. E r/ 69 X u./.d X /Oco S.F. F as C,04/CAVV7F OR041 S.F. G .r P/ lir S.F. H RG 'v Av/ r'"f C4 C. d i S.F. l S.F. J S.F. K S.F. L S.F. M S.F. N S.F. O S.F. P S.F. Q S.F. R S.F. S S.F. T S.F. U S.F V S.F. W S.F. X S.F. Y S.F. Z S.F. 1 Total Proposed Hardcover S.F. Excludable Hardcover See City Code Sec 78-1684): All ,.. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 2 Total Excludable Hardcover 6 S.F. 3 Net Proposed Hardcover Subtract line 2 from line 1)) 7739, S.F. 4 Total Lot Area / , .j.z -A - -5 lv; o 5.7-1 't' ,e°5, 030 S.F. Proposed Hardcover Percentage [(3)+(4)] V. O % Subdivision Application - January 2016 This is an information packet regarding Hardcover. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained herein; however, if any information is not consistent with provisions of the City Code, the Code provisions will prevail. Page 19 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO, 4'06 A RESOLUTION VACATING A PORTION OF AN UNIMPROVED STREET WITHIN THE PLAT OF 13AYSIDE ADDITIION TO LADE MINNETONKA, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA FILE NO. 01-2707 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, on September 22, 2001 Robert A. Eddington and Mark R. Larson (hereinafter "the applicants") filed a petition with the City of Orono requesting the vacation of a portion of an unimproved public right-of-way originally dedicated in the plat of Bayside Addition to Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying between Lot 8 Block 2 and Lot 1 Block 5 thereof, and legally described as follows: That part of Hill Street which lies between the northerly extensions of the east and ,vest lines of Lot 1, Block 5, `Bayside Addition to Lake Minnetonka", Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, after due published and posted notice, a public hearing was held by the City's Planning Commission on October 15, 2001 regarding said vacation and all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, after due standing and consideration, the Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the proposed vacation; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono finds that said vacation as proposed is in keeping with the public interest and in consideration of the following findings; 1. The unimproved right-of-way contains no municipal sewer or other utilities. 2. The 40 foot right-of-way has never been developed as a public street. 3. The unimproved 40 foot right of way has been found to serve no future public purpose. Metro Legal Services Inc. Page 1 of 3 Box 491 w nl v b �7 � L3? cn J r I 6 cin — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1 �'r I Co I 1 j 1 I N ---------- 273.9 ----- 1-� VAC 4058530 I I K 50 50 50 = - 50 5 3 r co Q I - -� - - - - - Arr ` 50 50 50 50 5© T-GWA -AVE- - _ - r 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 00 n c a a Co o� cn � `-' c y '~� c 50 50 50 0 50 5C 5D 50 50 0 50 50 ivcI r, � 11Q,_ _ N CT,, o' u. N - . N 0 (.0 cn )EW---AV � x'50 50 50 1 �r 50 i -- F — — ] 50 5G _ 50 -J0 0 Nr CF) r -n --- 1. / Cry ci} K i, iv Co CIl N 50 50 50 "a 40 50 50 9� ,r — 3"W or 07 W co '961 ICO, �. Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map PCExhibit D Provided By: Resident and Real Estate Services Date: 8/16/2016 05-117-23-12 05-117 3-13 fik, Z05-117-23-11 Q, 05-117 23-13 05 frla qP N s Street (CID) 05-117.23.13 05-117-23-14 :K 05-117-23-42 05-117-23=41 Buffer Size: 300 feet Map Comments: SCOTT D HOCHSTEDLER 290 Crestview Avenue Orono, MN 55356 zz I" 0 60 120 240 ft L -a r r I+ I I I RECEIVED For more information contact: Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South SEP 2 Minneapolis, MN 55487 9is.info@hennepin.us # 3869 C]TY OF ORONO PC Exhibit E Hennepin County Locate & Notify Receipt Provided By: Resident and Real Estate Services Print Date Tue Aug 16 15:56:13 2016 This is a receipt only with 'paid' stamp or cash register receipt attached TOTAL COST: $45.00 Company or Homeowner Name: Scott Hochstedler Contact Person: 952-449-1933 Subject Property Address: 290 Crestview Ave., Orono Comments: 05-117-23-14-0018 Buffer Distance: 350 feet Mail Label Count: 36 38 05-117-23 12 0015 38 05-117-23 13 0053 38 05-117-23 14 0020 38 05-117-23 14 0025 38 05-117-23 14 0033 38 05-117-2314 0052 38 05-117-23 14 0059 38 05-117-23 14 0068 38 05-117-23 13 0028 38 05-117-23 14 0008 38 05-117-23 14 0021 38 05-117-23 14 0028 38 05-117-2314 0039 38 05-117-23 14 0055 38 05-117-23 14 0061 38 05-117-2313 0029 38 05-117-2314 0012 38 05-117-23 14 0022 38 05-117-23 14 0029 38 05-117-23 14 0043 38 05-117-23 14 0056 38 05-117-23 14 0062 38 05-117-23 13 0030 38 05-117-23 14 0018 38 05-117-23 14 0023 38 05-117-23 14 0030 38 05-117-23 14 0049 38 05-117-23 14 0057 38 05-117-23 14 0063 38 05-117-23 13 0050 38 05-117-23 14 0019 38 05-117-23 14 0024 38 05-117-23 14 0031 38 05-117-23 14 0050 38 05-117-23 14 0058 38 05-117-23 14 0067 RECEIVED SEP 21 7n vQ CITY OF ORONO RUN DATE: 0811612016 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM (PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PAGE: 1 38 05-117-23 12 0015 38 05-1I7-23 14 0020 38 05-117-23 140U33 STATE OF MINN JOHN D TIES BARBARA J HUBER 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 245 CRESTVIEW AVE 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 00000 DNR REAL ESTATE MGMT JOHN D TIES BARBARA J HUBER ATTN DEBBIE GURTIN 245 CRESTVIEW AVE 3390 BAYSIDE RD 500 LAFAYETTE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 ST PAUL MN 55155 38 05-117-23 13 0028 38 05-117-23 14 0021 38 05-117-23 14 0039 ANGIE PAMELA QUIROZ STEPHANIE REIMAN PATRICK J SKEIE 295 TONKA AVE 255 CRESTVIEW AVE 340 TONKA AVE ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 ANGIE PAMELA QUIROZ STEPHANIE REIMAN PATRICK J SKEIE 295 TONKA AVE 255 CRESTVIEW AVE 1325 ARCHER LAN LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 PLYMOUTH MN 55447 38 05-117-23 13 0029 38 05-117-23 14 0022 38 05-117-23 14 0043 BARBARA J HUBER ROBIN GRISRSON THOMAS R BETZ 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 265 CRESTVIEW AVE 300 CRESTVIEW AVE ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 BARBARA J HUBER ROBIN GRIERSON THOMAS R BETZ 3390 BAYSIDE RD 270 CRESTVIEW AVE 300 CRESTVIEW AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 13 0030 38 05-117-23 14 0023 38 05-117-23 14 0049 DANA S BRUMITT MARIE A HEDTKE SUBJ/L E STATE OF MINN 3400 BAYSIDE RD 275 CRESTVIEW AVE 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 00000 DANA S BRUMITT HAROLD & DELORES HANSON DNR REAL ESTATE MGMT 3400 BAYSIDE RD 275 CRESTVIEW AVE ATTN: DEBBIE GURT N LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST. PAUL MN 55155 38 05-117-23 13 0050 38 05-117-2314 0024 38 05-117-23 14 0050 B W HENNING & R L HENNING SANDRA J NICCUM STATE OF MINN 245 TONKA AVE 285 CRESTVIEW AVE 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 00000 BRIAN W HENNING SANDRA J NICCUM DNR REAL ESTATE MGMT REBECCA L HENNING 285 CRESTVIEW AVE ATTN DEBBIE GURTIN 245 TONKA AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 500 LAFAYETTE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 ST PAUL MN 55155 38 05-117-23 13 0053 38 05-117-23 14 0025 38 05-117-23 14 0052 T G VAUGHAN & N P VAUGHAN SANDRA I NICCUM BARBARA JOANNE HUBER 205 TONKA AVE 285 CRESTVIEW AVE 3390 BAYSIDE RD ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 TIMOTHY & NATALIE VAUGHAN SANDRA J NICCUM BARBARA JOANNE HUBER 205 TONKA AVE 285 CRESTVIEW AVE 3390 BAYSIDE RD ORONO MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 14 0008 38 05-117-23 14 0028 38 05-117-23 14 0055 J W WOJCIK & K L WOJCIK P O SKOOG & S L SKOOG JEFFREY S MELBY 3310 BAYSIDE RD 250 TONKA AVE 240 CRESTVIEW AVE ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 JOHN W WOJCIK & KIT L WOJCIK PAUL O & SHERRY L SKOOG JEFFREY S MELBY 3310 BAYSIDE RD 735 DICKEY LKE DR 240 CRESTVIEW AVE LAKE LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 14 0012 38 05-117-23 14 0029 38 05-117-23 14 0056 STATE OF MINN CHRIS J BUTTERFIELD J F LEHMEYER & T L LEHMEYER 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 230 TONKA AVE 320 CRESTVIEW AVE ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 DNR REAL ESTATE MGMT CHRIS J BUTTERFIELD JOHN & TRUDY LEHMEYER ATTN DEBBIE GURTIN 230 TONKA AVE 320 CRESTVIEW AVE 500 LAFAYETTE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 ST PAUL MN 55155 38 05-117-23 14 0018 38 05-117-23 14 0030 38 05-117-23 14 0057 SCOTT D HOCHSTEDLER REGINA ENGEBRITSON W R STEPHENS IA ET AL 290 CRESTVIEW AVE 315 CRESTVIEW AVE 350 CRESTVIEW AVE ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 SCOTT D HOCHSTEDLER REGINA BNGEBRITSON WINFIELD R STEPHENS III 290 CRESTVIEW AVE 1250 ARBOR ST 3770 BAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 WAYZATA MN 55391 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 14 0019 38 05-117-23 14 0031 38 05-117-23 14 0058 BRYAN QUADERER WENDY SULLIVAN DENNIS I.APPEN/DEANNA LAPPEN 235 CRESTVIEW AVE 325 CRESTVIEW AVE 3300 BAYSIDE RD ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 BRYAN QUADERER WENDY SULLIVAN DENNIS LAPPEN 235 CRESTVIEW AVE 325 CRESTVIEW AVE 3300 BAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 RUN DATE: 081164016 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM (PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PAGE: 2 38 05-117-23 14 0059 MICHAEL R GILBERTSON ET AL 375 LEAF ST ORONO MN 55356 MICHAELIGRETCHEN GILBERTSON 375 LEAF ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 14 0061 P A & K S SKOOG 280 TONKA AVE ORONO MN 55356 PHILIP & KAREN SKOOG 280 TONKA AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 14 0062 SUSAN AM GOHMAN TRUSTEE 330 TONKA AVE ORONO MN 55356 SUSAN A M GOHMAN 330 TONKA AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 14 0063 ROBIN WEISS GRIERSON 270 CRESTVIEW AVE ORONO MN 55356 ROBIN WEISS GRIERSON 270 CRESTVIEW AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 14 0067 SCOTT NAISBITT/NANCY FAHIM 3225 GRAHAM HILL RD ORONO MN 55356 SCOTTNAISBITT NANCY FAHIM 3225 GRAHAM HILL RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 14 0068 COURTNEY R KILL TRUSTEE 3235 GRAHAM HILL RD ORONO MN 55356 ROBERT C & COURTNEY R KILL 3235 GRAHAM HILL RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 Hennepin County has developed electronic forms of certain property information databases. Hennepin County makes reasonable efforts to produce and publish the most current property information available. The viewer should understand, however, that Hennepin County makes no representation or warranties, either express or implied, or as to merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose regarding the accuracy and/or completeness of the information contained herein. RECEIVE® SEP ? ? ?016 � CiTY OF ORONO Date Application Received: 09/21/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 09/21/16 60 -Day Review Period Expires: 11/21/16 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: November 14, 2016 Item No. 16 Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Jeremy Barnhart YmJ_ Title: Community Development Director Item Description: #16-3870 — Scott D. Hochstedler — 290 Crestview Ave—Right of Way Vacation Application Summary: The two property owners adjacent to a 130 foot long segment of unimproved Hill Street are requesting formal vacation of this roadway. The adjoining parcels use Crestview Avenue for access and legal frontage. The segment to be vacated does touch an improved lot to the east, 270 Crestview, though this lot has direct frontage on Crestview Avenue, further to the north. The only improvements within the right of way to be vacated are private, a drive serving 300 Crestview Avenue. The City Engineer recommends that an easement for drainage purposes be acquired, which is a common easement acquired as part of platting. Hill Street, west of Crestview Avenue, was vacated in 2001. Planning Commission Action: On October 17th the Planning Commission held a public hearing; no comments were received. The Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 in favor of the vacation as proposed conditioned upon provision of a drainage and utility easement along the new shared property line. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Council should adopt or amend the attached resolution vacating the portion of Hill Street adjacent to 300 and 290 Crestview Avenue as indicated. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Draft Resolution Exhibit B. Map of area Exhibit C. Draft PC Minutes — 10/17/16 Exhibit D. PC SR and Exhibits Hill street Vacation Council Exhibit A 16-3870 A RESOLUTION VACATING A DEDICATED RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN THE PLAT OF BAYSIDE ADDITION TO LAKE MINNETONKA, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA FILE NO. 16-3870 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Scott D. Hochstedler, a single person, (hereinafter the "Applicant") owns the property located at 290 Crestview Avenue, within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as: Lots 7 & 8, Block 1, Bayside Addition to Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the Property"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied for vacation of a dedicated public right- of-way abutting the above mentioned property; and as follows: WHEREAS, the portion of the right-of-way to be vacated is legally described That part of Hill Street as dedicated in the plat of "Bayside Addition to Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota" immediately adjacent to property described as Lots 7 and 8, all of Block 1 of said plat; and WHEREAS, after due published mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the Orono, Minnesota, City Code, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 17, 2016 regarding said vacation and all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, on October 17, 2016 the Orono Planning Commission reviewed the application and on a vote of 5-0 recommended approval of said vacation; and WHEREAS, the Orono Council finds the vacation as proposed is in keeping with the public interest and in consideration of the following findings: 1. The parcels adjacent to the proposed vacation have developed, additional rights of way for access are not necessary Page 1 of 3 2. Other nearby segments of Hill Street have been vacated by the City, including that portion west of Crestview in 2001; This right-of-way discontinuity is an additional factor that supports the currently requested vacation. 3. Hill Street ROW does not continue East. 4. The City of Orono has no municipal sewer, water, or storm sewer facilities within the portion of right-of-way to be vacated. 5. Electric, gas, telephone and cable utilities have been notified of the proposed vacation and none have objected to the vacation nor indicated they have existing facilities within the easement area. 6. The City Council finds that this particular right-of-way has no apparent present or future benefit to the public because of the topography of the site. The City, the County and the State are not likely to spend tax dollars maintaining this shoreline. 7. The City Council finds that: a) The vacation does not affect access to or use of any adjoining property. The property owner's legal access to the property will not be affected by the vacation of Hill Street and no adjacent or nearby properties will have their access limited by it. b) The City has not and does not intend to develop, improve, or use the dedicated right-of-way as a road or for utilities or access purposes. c) The unimproved dedicated right-of-way as it exists serves no public purpose. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the vacation of the portion of Lake Street right-of-way as described above, and as shown on the Certificate of Survey attached as Exhibit A, is hereby granted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this 14th day of November, 2016. Page 2 of 3 ATTEST: Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor Page 3 of 3 Council CERTIFICATE OF' SURVEY FOR Exhibit B SCOTT D. HOCHSTEDLER OF 1-01"S 7 & 8; BLOCK , BAYSIDE ADDITION TO LAKE MINNE:T(7NKA HENNEPIN COUIITY, MINNESOTA O d- 40 C f•, i:D; S 89°4.5' 00" E 125.25 GRAVEL DRIVEW�y R GARAGE (E) 1 fymtm (C) (9e4.q �"� U 273 I Ii Taes I I EXI: T�rtiF FL E (991.4) j ) sTafr (934.9) _ { a� Iaiita. 10"a1s"a 16" e.a Tff-U mxrr L 2a:o —` X290 I t r, (A) N Im ptOPOSED i1a............4a --xeZ I ,95i ,2 _ — — _` 9 N 8904-6' 00" _ i r9v -0) a� \TO�PJGHdOR C (W.» e,�cx¢tFpur (aRss) (E) fees+) Q(D) (t ,a4) ---004 — 12 5. 2 (964,3) \ so CPSOPOSED TO BE VACATED) GRAVEL DRIVEWAY (NO UTILITIES SHOh1M ,. M ) 40 ---- 4' VF.CA ED STREET PARCEL = GNIIRt'AY E LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Lots 7 and 8, Block 1, "Bayside Addition to Lake Minnetonka" s : denotes iron marker found (908.3): denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum, taken frorn field survey on 8-4-08, and 8-4-16 —917---: denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datum zr: denotes proposed contour line, mean sea level datum Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, the location of an existing house and garage, spot elevations, topography, the location of oil visible "hardcover", and the proposed location ol a proposed addition thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. -- PLO G�''� �,q '[,ti, y R B E R G AND I h+xeby certify that this survey was prepared by me, direct that I duly N, 1� or widw my supervision, and am a registered Civil Engineer cid Land Surveyor under the j ASSOCIATES. INC. laws of the State of f(innesota. C®IvSULTI1_ ID ZKOINEER6, LAND 5up.V YDRS, A- SITE I's.#e1nmmsi^ � "' . J013 Na. 45 NORTH WILLOW DRIVE LONG LAKE, N.N. 55356 952-473-4141 ABerH S. Grenhere mesoto License ,a her 12755 18--297A 16-2137x. Council MINUTES OF THE Exhibit C ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 16-3870 Monday, October 17, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 3. #16-3870 SCOTT HOCHSTEDLER, VACATION OF HILL STREET, 6:32 P.M. — 6:36 P.M. Scott Hochstedler, Applicant, was present. Barnhart stated the two property owners adjacent to a 130 -foot lot segment of unimproved Hill Street are requesting formal vacation of this roadway. The adjoining parcels use Crestview Avenue for access and legal frontage. The segment to be vacated does touch an improved lot to the east, 270 Crestview, though this lot has direct frontage on Crestview Avenue, which is further to the north. The only improvements within the right-of-way to be vacated are private, which is a drive serving 300 Crestview Avenue. The City Engineer recommends that an easement for drainage purposes be acquired, which is a common easement acquired as part of platting. Hill Street, west of Crestview Avenue, was vacated in 2001. There are no known utilities in the street that need to be vacated. Whenever a public street is vacated, the vacated portion is split down the middle, with each abutting parcel receiving half. The northern half would go to 290 Crestview and would increase this lot size, removing the need for certain variances associated with a planned expansion of his home. The southern half would go to 300 Crestview. The property owners plan an easement to protect the existing driveway. Staff is recommending approval of the vacation as proposed subject to an easement being executed for drainage and utility purposes similar to what the City requires on newly platted properties. Thiesse asked is there is five feet on either side. Barnhart indicated side property lines are generally five feet on either side. Thiesse asked if there would be five feet to the side of the driveway. Barnhart stated the driveway would be covered by a separate easement between the two property owners and not the City. Scott Hochstedler, Applicant, was present but did not address the Planning Commission. Page 1 of 2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 17, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:35 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:35 p.m. Schwingler commented the application is fairly straight forward. Schoenzeit asked whether any of the pavement will be removed. Thiesse stated there will just be a standard easement in the event the City has to work within the right-of- way. Barnhart stated through the easement the City can require that and that they are not proposing any work within the proposed vacation area. Leskinen moved, Schwingler seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3870, Scott Hochstedler, vacation of Hill Street per Staff recommendation. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Page 2 of 2 Date Application Received: 09/22/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 10/03/16 60 -Day Review Period Expires: 12/01/16 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Jessica Loftus, City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: October 17, 2016 Subject: #16-3870, Scott D. Hochstedler, 290 Crestview Ave Vacation of Hill Street Public Hearing List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Proposed Survey/Site Plan Exhibit C. Area Map Exhibit D. Plat Map Exhibit E. Property Owners List Council Exhibit D 16-3870 Background The two property owners adjacent to a 130 foot lot segment of unimproved Hill Street are requesting formal vacation of this roadway. The adjoining parcels use Crestview Avenue for access and legal frontage. The segment to be vacated does touch an improved lot to the east, 270 Crestview, though this lot has direct frontage on Crestview Avenue, further to the north. The only improvements within the right of way to be vacated are private, a drive serving 300 Crestview Avenue. The City Engineer recommends that an easement for drainage purposes be acquired, which is a common easement acquired as part of platting. Hill Street, west of Crestview Avenue, was vacated in 2001. There are no known utilities in the street to be vacated. When a public street is vacated, the vacated portion is split down the middle, with each abutting parcel receiving half. The northern half would go the 290 Crestview, and would increase his lot size, removing the need for certain variances associated with a planned expansion of his home. The southern half would go to 300 Crestview. The property owners plan an easement to protect the existing driveway. Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Commission should open the public hearing, consider comments from the public and, if comfortable, make a recommendation for approval vacating the portion of Hill Street as indicated. City of Orono Land Use Permit Application Application # / Date Received: Staff : Fee: Escrow # & $ Permit Fee Notes: PC Exhibit A Please complete. Applicant will be notified within 15 days as to the status of the application. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Pllaanjn�ing Commission Agendas/cSf. 5?/ SITE LOCATION: 90 {. re sJk1 ek1 I fV4 i : V Q � dZ ��U !�t ��� df6/ et 1W&)0t-/APPLICANT 1 AGENT INFORMATION Applicant Name: t� -11�) - _ri�)_ Phone (Primary): a — ' L — I Applicant Email: -Hect-- Address: Agent Name: Agent Email: ILW O ZIP: 5S -SS -to Agent's phone number Applicant is: Contractor omeown (Circle One) PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION: Xcheck here if property owner is same as applicant Name: Phone (Primary):�, Mailing Address: Lac �A-jeqyyl+U Email: ' APPLICANTIAGENT AND/OR OWNER: • Agree to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, ZIP: • Agree to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and • Certify that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant and owner recognize that they are solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reject it until it is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of its potential merit. • Acknowledge the Escrow Agreement is completed and signed. • The Owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents, Commission and Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. * Owner and/or Applicant acknowledge they must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant and/or owner is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authori d representative attend in place of the applicant/owner and advise the City Planner assigned to your protect. 7 Applicant/Agent Signature: �JCu I dl%�t�L Date: Applicant/Agent Signature: , ` J r Date: Property Owner Signature:[ ��t�jyt4 Date: Property Owner Signature: Date: Land Use Application — May 2016 Page 2 • SEP 2 E 701r CITY OF ORONO Street Address: t1 a /i rO 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Main: 952-249-4600 fax: 952-249-4616 .1 �5 Mailing Address: 'S + P.O. Box 66 \F G Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Application # / Date Received: Staff : Fee: Escrow # & $ Permit Fee Notes: PC Exhibit A Please complete. Applicant will be notified within 15 days as to the status of the application. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Pllaanjn�ing Commission Agendas/cSf. 5?/ SITE LOCATION: 90 {. re sJk1 ek1 I fV4 i : V Q � dZ ��U !�t ��� df6/ et 1W&)0t-/APPLICANT 1 AGENT INFORMATION Applicant Name: t� -11�) - _ri�)_ Phone (Primary): a — ' L — I Applicant Email: -Hect-- Address: Agent Name: Agent Email: ILW O ZIP: 5S -SS -to Agent's phone number Applicant is: Contractor omeown (Circle One) PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION: Xcheck here if property owner is same as applicant Name: Phone (Primary):�, Mailing Address: Lac �A-jeqyyl+U Email: ' APPLICANTIAGENT AND/OR OWNER: • Agree to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, ZIP: • Agree to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and • Certify that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant and owner recognize that they are solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reject it until it is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of its potential merit. • Acknowledge the Escrow Agreement is completed and signed. • The Owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents, Commission and Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. * Owner and/or Applicant acknowledge they must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant and/or owner is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authori d representative attend in place of the applicant/owner and advise the City Planner assigned to your protect. 7 Applicant/Agent Signature: �JCu I dl%�t�L Date: Applicant/Agent Signature: , ` J r Date: Property Owner Signature:[ ��t�jyt4 Date: Property Owner Signature: Date: Land Use Application — May 2016 Page 2 • SEP 2 E 701r CITY OF ORONO 9/14/2016 To whom it may concern at Orono City Hall, I wish to combine my current property legally defined below (also known as: PID # 05-117-23-14- 0043/300 Crestview Ave) to a portion of the proposed vacated Hill Street property. The adjacent property currently owned by Scott Hochstedler at 290 Crestview Ave/PID # 05-117-23-14- 0018 (also known as: Lots 7 & 8, Block 1, Bayside Addition to Lake Minnetonka) and I wish to request vacation of the Hill Street property and each combine/take an equal half with 20ft by 125.25ft going to each of us. Note that Oft is already vacated and adjoins my property so i would combine to the remaining 16ft totaling 20ft. Additionally, Scott and I will have a private easement drawn up giving me access use of an additional 8ft in width over from the new shared lot line. See attached survey copy. No alterations such as hard cover, structures or future improvements will be made to this area. Addition Name: Lot: Block: First Line Metes & Bounds: Sincerely, 4/9�lI ?& - p -4� Thomas R. Betz "BAYSIDE ADDITION TO LAKE MINNETONKA" 001 M INCL ADJ S 4 FT OF ST VAC RECEIVED SEP 21 ?n'q 3870 CITY OF ORONO Mit of Survey for Albert T. !•:ern of Trot 1, Plock b, Pnysi,'n Addition to �,ake Minnetonka. Fierncn.n Co,lntp, Minnesnte Sa�•Fii �nI a{ Mill S/^101••1 ? s :.A'ali/, lint Air" ir iii. '�.r• .. �. a{ Lef / ,• i r haasr. ~ a` a x 3 ,V '1. K L 125.85' i Cert.Mcatp or Survey. I herab?, cortif•r that this is n t? -;i and ^nrrert re'renen,:-1ttnn of a curve (if the Mvndnr:i,. of (;s) Lot 1, Rlnck 6, "P yalde addition to ;,fake litmntonka", ane! (r) The Snuth. 4 fent of that pert of Hill Street 33tng v-s-st or the Northerly extensior, o'' the ierat lire of '-At 1. Block -S, "Bayside Addition to LRke Mnnn'onk ", i-enrlin; to thA romrdec plat thereof, ^.nd of thea lnasltinn of all buil;?in_a thureon, and all visibIA- wccro4nb-nnt4, if any, fr<,ff or on se id land. Scale: 1" 30' Gordon it, Coffin Rod: FI). 5 -4 lute+ s 2-2-77 land surveyor and Planner a s Iron corker long I�s'ae,. Minnesota C4 k,-� mrtECEIVED SEP 2'MR CITY OF ORONO 0 -ooL H1�JON Ak R I A I S 9 u(a J-) t N m v 0 0 e • z TO_OZ Ln 00'401 LO m cm Hino$-A ....... W j v 0.- p .b ; 0_ � 1 d fl VI C J w v �a 0 3 N C d O J Q 0 y:v7-0 Uf p > C N N�dC 4Y a g ll a Ww � I(nV)�wQ � w `-' w - to H� 0Lj M: Q z �P d Z 10 -9G cc N 1 w (n a o Q". Lri z z L Z S L'FZ (sus U CL w N r L 6 zz . • si --- -- a �.. Ul N d/ IZ �N /\ V I Ir/� mwLLJ � JIB = mw v LU W cc R NOHdd 313MONOD W It,: £ c� O'9 V91 r 3 1Il'dht 31351�IV0� v " 1 V) O IC! O -.-. 0 I� C) Z5 dw I I�... 694 ......... 0 00 ! -- i;Ze w cc �. U) I �� -ooL H1�JON Ak R I A I S 9 u(a J-) t N m v 0 0 e • z TO_OZ I o- s9 A Iz0 C O N C (] v J 0 O V) a� W -O V] U) 0 cr m L.L � 0 O O F- m co C) U -0 V) C W v O J n Q U � w O J J N Lo 0 yI V v � Nco C vv N O E00 0 0 v� 0) � C O 4-0 O >, Q_ 0 U) > rn V •x 4-a� E 00 04- O 00 0 cn v M m cn I w -H0 O co U7 v C O CL 3 Q� 07 v a� L v C 0 co N C .L v N m C 0 N O L +� +� v +, U O C O L � � QT0 �o(� L-cpo-0o N O_0 U -0O�C 0 CO O 2 O N O OC O 11 v E U N 00-0 _vU)Q)CL N E L O ._ 0 ED CL -0 O O L L OMo a -D o a) 03C� F � v_ O O Z O 0 0 L 0 CD W 0 O X O U 00 O- �D > O C L • Z3C> V) _—_ N U) v O-0 U oo:t-- d cl) N:ooram0 N r M 0 fp r v Ln z LO W j L 0.- p .b > N 0_ � 1 d fl VI C J w v �a 0 3 N C d O J Q 0 y:v7-0 Uf p > C N N�dC 4Y a g ll a Ww � I(nV)�wQ ++ o wp �� 50o H� 0Lj M: Q z �P d Z 10 QQ o ixE ad 1 1 w (n - O L..2 l� If z z L I o- s9 A Iz0 C O N C (] v J 0 O V) a� W -O V] U) 0 cr m L.L � 0 O O F- m co C) U -0 V) C W v O J n Q U � w O J J N Lo 0 yI V v � Nco C vv N O E00 0 0 v� 0) � C O 4-0 O >, Q_ 0 U) > rn V •x 4-a� E 00 04- O 00 0 cn v M m cn I w -H0 O co U7 v C O CL 3 Q� 07 v a� L v C 0 co N C .L v N m C 0 N O L +� +� v +, U O C O L � � QT0 �o(� L-cpo-0o N O_0 U -0O�C 0 CO O 2 O N O OC O 11 v E U N 00-0 _vU)Q)CL N E L O ._ 0 ED CL -0 O O L L OMo a -D o a) 03C� F � v_ O O Z O 0 0 L 0 CD W 0 O X O U 00 O- �D > O C L • Z3C> V) _—_ N U) v O-0 U oo:t-- d cl) N:ooram0 N r M 0 fp r v Ln z LO �a x v a 3 L 0.- p .b > N �E o� ��~J^ CL d a) 41L �wWl w� >W) W4 d fl VI C v �a 0 3 N C d O J >OJp 0 y:v7-0 Uf p > C N N�dC 4Y a g N C ,r _c F2 ++ o U•� 0 La > vE0 �`uEm 0 U 0 5 Ci 40) -03 'd U p (n - O L..2 1 u7 z z 02 �a x aw g Y J V Wzwz.- �E o� ��~J^ W �wWl w� >W) W4 r)xa3: E., O o rn O.1W 0 3 � �o�o LJ �1 U Lf) qd Zl� Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map PCExhibit D Provided By: Resident and Real Estate Services Date: 8/16/2016 05-117-23-12 05-117 3-13 fik, Z05-117-23-11 Q, 05-117 23-13 05 frla qP N s Street (CID) 05-117.23.13 05-117-23-14 :K 05-117-23-42 05-117-23=41 Buffer Size: 300 feet Map Comments: SCOTT D HOCHSTEDLER 290 Crestview Avenue Orono, MN 55356 zz I" 0 60 120 240 ft L -a r r I+ I I I RECEIVED For more information contact: Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South SEP 2 Minneapolis, MN 55487 9is.info@hennepin.us # 3869 C]TY OF ORONO PC Exhibit E Hennepin County Locate & Notify Receipt Provided By: Resident and Real Estate Services Print Date Tue Aug 16 15:56:13 2016 This is a receipt only with 'paid' stamp or cash register receipt attached TOTAL COST: $45.00 Company or Homeowner Name: Scott Hochstedler Contact Person: 952-449-1933 Subject Property Address: 290 Crestview Ave., Orono Comments: 05-117-23-14-0018 Buffer Distance: 350 feet Mail Label Count: 36 38 05-117-23 12 0015 38 05-117-23 13 0053 38 05-117-23 14 0020 38 05-117-23 14 0025 38 05-117-23 14 0033 38 05-117-2314 0052 38 05-117-23 14 0059 38 05-117-23 14 0068 38 05-117-23 13 0028 38 05-117-23 14 0008 38 05-117-23 14 0021 38 05-117-23 14 0028 38 05-117-2314 0039 38 05-117-23 14 0055 38 05-117-23 14 0061 38 05-117-2313 0029 38 05-117-2314 0012 38 05-117-23 14 0022 38 05-117-23 14 0029 38 05-117-23 14 0043 38 05-117-23 14 0056 38 05-117-23 14 0062 38 05-117-23 13 0030 38 05-117-23 14 0018 38 05-117-23 14 0023 38 05-117-23 14 0030 38 05-117-23 14 0049 38 05-117-23 14 0057 38 05-117-23 14 0063 38 05-117-23 13 0050 38 05-117-23 14 0019 38 05-117-23 14 0024 38 05-117-23 14 0031 38 05-117-23 14 0050 38 05-117-23 14 0058 38 05-117-23 14 0067 RECEIVED SEP 21 7n vQ CITY OF ORONO RUN DATE: 0811612016 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM (PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PAGE: 1 38 05-117-23 12 0015 38 05-1I7-23 14 0020 38 05-117-23 140U33 STATE OF MINN JOHN D TIES BARBARA J HUBER 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 245 CRESTVIEW AVE 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 00000 DNR REAL ESTATE MGMT JOHN D TIES BARBARA J HUBER ATTN DEBBIE GURTIN 245 CRESTVIEW AVE 3390 BAYSIDE RD 500 LAFAYETTE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 ST PAUL MN 55155 38 05-117-23 13 0028 38 05-117-23 14 0021 38 05-117-23 14 0039 ANGIE PAMELA QUIROZ STEPHANIE REIMAN PATRICK J SKEIE 295 TONKA AVE 255 CRESTVIEW AVE 340 TONKA AVE ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 ANGIE PAMELA QUIROZ STEPHANIE REIMAN PATRICK J SKEIE 295 TONKA AVE 255 CRESTVIEW AVE 1325 ARCHER LAN LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 PLYMOUTH MN 55447 38 05-117-23 13 0029 38 05-117-23 14 0022 38 05-117-23 14 0043 BARBARA J HUBER ROBIN GRISRSON THOMAS R BETZ 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 265 CRESTVIEW AVE 300 CRESTVIEW AVE ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 BARBARA J HUBER ROBIN GRIERSON THOMAS R BETZ 3390 BAYSIDE RD 270 CRESTVIEW AVE 300 CRESTVIEW AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 13 0030 38 05-117-23 14 0023 38 05-117-23 14 0049 DANA S BRUMITT MARIE A HEDTKE SUBJ/L E STATE OF MINN 3400 BAYSIDE RD 275 CRESTVIEW AVE 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 00000 DANA S BRUMITT HAROLD & DELORES HANSON DNR REAL ESTATE MGMT 3400 BAYSIDE RD 275 CRESTVIEW AVE ATTN: DEBBIE GURT N LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST. PAUL MN 55155 38 05-117-23 13 0050 38 05-117-2314 0024 38 05-117-23 14 0050 B W HENNING & R L HENNING SANDRA J NICCUM STATE OF MINN 245 TONKA AVE 285 CRESTVIEW AVE 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 00000 BRIAN W HENNING SANDRA J NICCUM DNR REAL ESTATE MGMT REBECCA L HENNING 285 CRESTVIEW AVE ATTN DEBBIE GURTIN 245 TONKA AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 500 LAFAYETTE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 ST PAUL MN 55155 38 05-117-23 13 0053 38 05-117-23 14 0025 38 05-117-23 14 0052 T G VAUGHAN & N P VAUGHAN SANDRA I NICCUM BARBARA JOANNE HUBER 205 TONKA AVE 285 CRESTVIEW AVE 3390 BAYSIDE RD ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 TIMOTHY & NATALIE VAUGHAN SANDRA J NICCUM BARBARA JOANNE HUBER 205 TONKA AVE 285 CRESTVIEW AVE 3390 BAYSIDE RD ORONO MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 14 0008 38 05-117-23 14 0028 38 05-117-23 14 0055 J W WOJCIK & K L WOJCIK P O SKOOG & S L SKOOG JEFFREY S MELBY 3310 BAYSIDE RD 250 TONKA AVE 240 CRESTVIEW AVE ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 JOHN W WOJCIK & KIT L WOJCIK PAUL O & SHERRY L SKOOG JEFFREY S MELBY 3310 BAYSIDE RD 735 DICKEY LKE DR 240 CRESTVIEW AVE LAKE LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 14 0012 38 05-117-23 14 0029 38 05-117-23 14 0056 STATE OF MINN CHRIS J BUTTERFIELD J F LEHMEYER & T L LEHMEYER 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 230 TONKA AVE 320 CRESTVIEW AVE ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 DNR REAL ESTATE MGMT CHRIS J BUTTERFIELD JOHN & TRUDY LEHMEYER ATTN DEBBIE GURTIN 230 TONKA AVE 320 CRESTVIEW AVE 500 LAFAYETTE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 ST PAUL MN 55155 38 05-117-23 14 0018 38 05-117-23 14 0030 38 05-117-23 14 0057 SCOTT D HOCHSTEDLER REGINA ENGEBRITSON W R STEPHENS IA ET AL 290 CRESTVIEW AVE 315 CRESTVIEW AVE 350 CRESTVIEW AVE ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 SCOTT D HOCHSTEDLER REGINA BNGEBRITSON WINFIELD R STEPHENS III 290 CRESTVIEW AVE 1250 ARBOR ST 3770 BAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 WAYZATA MN 55391 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 14 0019 38 05-117-23 14 0031 38 05-117-23 14 0058 BRYAN QUADERER WENDY SULLIVAN DENNIS I.APPEN/DEANNA LAPPEN 235 CRESTVIEW AVE 325 CRESTVIEW AVE 3300 BAYSIDE RD ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 BRYAN QUADERER WENDY SULLIVAN DENNIS LAPPEN 235 CRESTVIEW AVE 325 CRESTVIEW AVE 3300 BAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 RUN DATE: 081164016 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM (PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PAGE: 2 38 05-117-23 14 0059 MICHAEL R GILBERTSON ET AL 375 LEAF ST ORONO MN 55356 MICHAELIGRETCHEN GILBERTSON 375 LEAF ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 14 0061 P A & K S SKOOG 280 TONKA AVE ORONO MN 55356 PHILIP & KAREN SKOOG 280 TONKA AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 14 0062 SUSAN AM GOHMAN TRUSTEE 330 TONKA AVE ORONO MN 55356 SUSAN A M GOHMAN 330 TONKA AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 14 0063 ROBIN WEISS GRIERSON 270 CRESTVIEW AVE ORONO MN 55356 ROBIN WEISS GRIERSON 270 CRESTVIEW AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 14 0067 SCOTT NAISBITT/NANCY FAHIM 3225 GRAHAM HILL RD ORONO MN 55356 SCOTTNAISBITT NANCY FAHIM 3225 GRAHAM HILL RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 14 0068 COURTNEY R KILL TRUSTEE 3235 GRAHAM HILL RD ORONO MN 55356 ROBERT C & COURTNEY R KILL 3235 GRAHAM HILL RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 Hennepin County has developed electronic forms of certain property information databases. Hennepin County makes reasonable efforts to produce and publish the most current property information available. The viewer should understand, however, that Hennepin County makes no representation or warranties, either express or implied, or as to merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose regarding the accuracy and/or completeness of the information contained herein. RECEIVE® SEP ? ? ?016 � CiTY OF ORONO Date Application Received: 09/21/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 09/21/16 60 -Day Review Period Expires: 11/20/16 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 7 November 2016 Item No. 17 Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Melanie Curtis YY1GG Y"-4 Planning Title: Planner Item Description: #16-3871, Pivec Construction o/b/o Mike Setnicker, 1175 Willowbrook Dr, Variance Application Summary: The applicant is proposing to construct a 1,408 square foot detached accessory building on the property to accommodate residential storage. The garage is proposed to be set back 50 feet from the front lot line; the home is set back approximately 82 feet. Because an accessory building must not be located closer to the street than the principal building, a variance is necessary. All other setbacks and zoning requirements will be met. Planning Commission Recommendation On October 17th, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the application. Following the public hearing the Commission voted 5 to 0 on a motion to approve the variance with the following conditions: 1. The property owner must sign the OAS covenant; and 2. The septic system must be shown to meet Code prior to issuance of the building permit for the garage. Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation. A draft approval resolution has been provided for Council's consideration. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Council should consider adopting or amending the approval resolution. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Exhibit B. Exhibit C. Exhibit D. Exhibit E. Exhibit F. Plans & Survey Draft Resolution PC Action Notice Draft PC Minutes PC Staff Report PC Exhibits - --D1 izf-ke 5vBFi4 "Ilk p&vn. �7 51 %-v,mv Come, bR- Ir, CQW-. Z%:Vl 150- 7,-1V%,94!Y— T7 4agi TO ?Q.-bVIOV ;LUPIZ�,tEkiE L Emil R-lzr-& "rw or z D FH ID EL a f u- 4 z SITE PLAN FOR Mike and Molly Setnicker At 6e---44 44154-7 IN FEET x N—, VG V ra 7, e— SL Vil -R � - 1 9I 1- - r N, IMF c; Ns It Willis L. Gilhard Registered CA'd Fngiepeer w)d Lund ,%rve.jar P0 Box 17; 405 Central Avenue Fast SairriMchael. AM -55376 hereby -difv Itra this is . um and-,, L'1 mptcsentaow of svy.f the bwWwa o(, OT 2. BLOCK I, IIENN"IN CTJUNTY, MINNESOTA i •Id ofthe I -W-- of all 1,04np Ilremm,. -d .11 —Mc 0eraochme f,— . uu mid pwaqcrty wW t1w I .. . disk ltkgiste" land Swrvcymunder the lam of khc!4aic ofmimse", —uncs by me this M dny *fAugt. 2016 IAM. L-Ilwd. k L I M— NIL N. 6587 r 9L fSS /VN `lavVIN Turns =3 anuaAV jn.alua7 SOY `L I xog pd -'Odacuns pub7 pun iaaut8u_V lratD pada)sz8ay � � 1 Oo/ �\ 4 a r ��cail 4b N' p Q O T�( �� 2 .. CS INr ���.� •? � � .l -ter-- `gin 1 rP 'yry? �\` �' \ �� C� �y4. a NI ! _ �� . 'NN X 4. \ M1ld \ \ CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-1434 & 78-1435 FILE NO. 16-3871 WHEREAS, Michael J. Setnicker and Molly Setnicker, a married couple (hereinafter the "Applicants"), are the owners of the property located at 1175 Willowbrook Drive and legally described as: Lot 2, Block 1, Willowbrook, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "Property"); WHEREAS, on September 21, 2016, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for variances from Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-1434 and 78-1435 in order to allow construction of a 1,408 square foot detached garage closer to the street than the principal structure; and WHEREAS, on October 17, 2016, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on October 17, 2016, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance; and WHEREAS, on November 14, 2016, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested variances as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #16-3871. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2. The Property is located in the RR -113 One Family Rural Residential Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 5.4 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 290 feet. 4. Applicant has applied for the following variance[s]: a. Setback Variances 5. In considering this application for variances, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. ANALYSIS: 1. "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance ...." The proposed variances will be in harmony with the intent of the Zoning Code as the proposed structure will be partially screened from view from the street by the topography and vegetation that exists between the proposed structure and the street. 2. "Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan." The accessory building is residential in nature; and the variances would allow for the accessory building to be located in a partially screened portion of the Property. 3. "Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. `Practical difficulties,' as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that: a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls. The Property is sloped toward the rear and heavily treed. The septic system mound areas prohibit moving the proposed garage further toward the rear. The applicants propose to utilize the existing driveway and remove only a limited number of trees to maintain the screening. Construction of an accessory building in the proposed location is consistent with the other OAS setbacks and is reasonable on this rural 5.4 acre residential property. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. The location and side load garage configuration of the existing home; the location of the septic system mounds; and the topography prevent the garage from being located further back on the Property. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. " The accessory building will not be visually obtrusive when viewed from off of the Property. It will appear as a garage with residential aesthetics viewed off site. This condition is met. 4. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties." The Applicants have not requested consideration based on economics. 5. "Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78." This criterion is not applicable. 6. "The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located." A detached garage is a permitted accessory use in the residential district. 7. "The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." This criterion is not applicable. 8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." The topography, and wooded nature of the Property create logistical challenges for construct an accessory garage in a conforming location. Additionally, the location of the septic sites and wetland on the Property further restrict options. The building may only be partially visible from the street and the neighbor to the south. 9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located." The location of the home; septic sites; and topography create a unique situation on the Property. 10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." The Property is permitted accessory structures. The proposed structure meets all but the front setback due to the home location. This criterion is met. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 11. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter." The accessory building in the proposed location will not impair the health, safety, comfort or morals of the public. 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty." There are limited conforming locations to construct an accessory garage on the Property; this criterion is met. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances from Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-1434 and 78-1435 in order to allow construction of a 1,408 square foot detached garage closer to the street than the principal structure, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the survey dated August 17, 2016 and building plans submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A & B (hereinafter the "Plans"). Any amendments to the Plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. The Applicants agree to and covenant the following regarding the oversize accessory structure; such covenant shall be binding on current and future property owners and shall be filed in the chain of title of the Property. a) No future subdivision will be approved that places the structure within a lot that has no principal structure, except that the city in its subdivision approval may grant a finite time period in which the oversized accessory structure may remain without a principal structure, in order that a principal structure may be constructed. At the end of this time period, the oversized accessory structure must be removed if no principal structure has been constructed. b) If the Property is subdivided, the oversize accessory structure and principal structure will be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size of accessory building. c) In subdivision approval, the setback required for the oversize accessory structure shall remain. 3. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction and commencing construction of said project. A framing inspection must be CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. completed within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (November 14, 2017). 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned Applicants have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the Applicants and the Applicants' heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the Property. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 14th day of November, 2016. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: Diane Tiegs, City Clerk ® "% Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor Property Owner STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. Property Owner This instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20, by Michael J. Setnicker, husband of Molly Setnicker. blic STATE OF MINNE" COUNTY OF HENN This instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20, by Molly Setnicker, wife of Michael J. Setnicker. Notary Public C SITE PLAN FOR Mike and Molly Setnicker At 6e---44 44154-7 IN FEET x N—, VG V ra 7, e— SL Vil -R � - 1 9I 1- - r N, IMF c; Ns It Willis L. Gilhard Registered CA'd Fngiepeer w)d Lund ,%rve.jar P0 Box 17; 405 Central Avenue Fast SairriMchael. AM -55376 hereby -difv Itra this is . um and-,, L'1 mptcsentaow of svy.f the bwWwa o(, OT 2. BLOCK I, IIENN"IN CTJUNTY, MINNESOTA i •Id ofthe I -W-- of all 1,04np Ilremm,. -d .11 —Mc 0eraochme f,— . uu mid pwaqcrty wW t1w I .. . disk ltkgiste" land Swrvcymunder the lam of khc!4aic ofmimse", —uncs by me this M dny *fAugt. 2016 IAM. L-Ilwd. k L I M— NIL N. 6587 r 9L fSS /VN `lavVIN Turns =3 anuaAV jn.alua7 SOY `L I xog pd -'Odacuns pub7 pun iaaut8u_V lratD pada)sz8ay � � 1 Oo/ �\ 4 a r ��cail 4b N' p Q O T�( �� 2 .. CS INr ���.� •? � � .l -ter-- `gin 1 r° 'yry? �\` �' \ �� C� �y4. a NI ! _ �� . 'NN X 4. \ M1ld \ \ I _ 44 7 'A T ')LLE}\ *" -wAp }� � � §� � Aƒ \ . . �!� i \) / f. -- ;mz � ° ��� � q7 — � - �\ 44 7 'A T ')LLE}\ *" -wAp }� � � §� � Aƒ \ . . �!� i \) / 9 19 d �i W A N s I 'r r 4 i W i ffacm9Mrt�rta� -_ — — El El i NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4620 TO: Jacob Pivec Pivec Construction LLC 510 Bridge Ave E Delano, MN 55328 TYPE OF REQUEST: Variance DATE OF MEETING: 17 October 2106 ZONING FILE: #16-3871 DATE OF NOTICE: 18 Oct 2016 COPIES Jacob Pivec Via Mike Setnicker email: The Orono Planning Commission voted on a motion to recommend approval consistent with the staff recommendation requiring OAS covenants. Please note: Resolution of the outstanding septic questions/issues will be requiredrip or to issuance of a building permit for the garage. VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next meeting is tentatively scheduled as: Monday, November 14, 2016 This is a City Council meeting. The meeting begins at 7 PM If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please contact Melanie Curtis at mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us or 952.249.4627. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 17, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 5. #16-3871 JACOB PIVEC ON BEHALF OF MIKE SETNICKER, 1175 WILLOWBROOK DRIVE, VARIANCE, 6:44 P.M. — 6:50 P.M. Jacob Pivec, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is proposing to construct a 1,400 detached garage on their property for storage. The garage is proposed to be set back 50 feet from the front lot line. The home is set back 82 feet. Because an accessory building must not be located closer to the street than the principal building, a variance is necessary. All other setbacks and zoning requirements are met. The property is approximately 5.5 acres in area. Given the size of the lot, a single oversized accessory structure with a maximum of 2,200 square feet is permitted. The applicants are proposing a 1,400 square foot garage. Curtis noted Staff's report inadvertently omitted the hardcover calculations for this property. The hardcover for the garage is proposed to be at 3.7 percent. The building official has conducted a preliminary septic analysis for the project and he has requested additional information from the applicant to ensure that the project will not impact the existing or future sites. The building official's comments are included in the Planning Commission packet. Staff would require that information be confirmed prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Planning Commission may wish to discuss the practical difficulty analysis contained in Staff's report. The applicant should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application as well. Staff finds the location and orientation of the existing home, the septic sites, and topography of the property make locating a conforming accessory structure difficult. It appears the impact of the 1,400 square foot garage would be mitigated by both the existing wooded areas and the separation between the building and the homes on adjacent properties. Neighbor comments were received and are included in the Planning Commission's packet. Staff recommends approval of the variance in conjunction with the property owners agreeing to the oversized accessory structure covenants to be recorded against the property. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 17, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Jacob Pivec, Builder, stated he would be able to answer any questions the Planning Commissioners may have. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:47 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:47 p.m. Schwingler commented in his view it is the right location for the building given the lot configuration. Thiesse stated it is probably the only location given the septic, the force main, and the topography. Thiesse stated his concern is with the four trees that are being removed. Pivec stated there are a number of trees in that area. Thiesse noted there appears to only be a couple of scrub trees between the road and the accessory building but that everywhere else there appears to be a number of trees. Pivec pointed out on the overhead the location of the mature trees to the side of the house. Pivec stated their idea is to plant some birch or maple trees to try to continue to keep the canopy for privacy purposes. Thiesse asked if the temporary building in the back yard will be removed. Pivec indicated it will be. Schwingler moved, Leskinen seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3871, Jacob Pivec on Behalf of Mike Setnicker,1175 Willowbrook Drive, granting of a variance subject to the property owners agreeing to the oversized accessory structure covenants that will be contained within the approval resolution and submittal of additional information regarding the septic system. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Date Application Received: 09/21/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 09/21/16 60 -Day Review Period Expires: 11/20/16 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Jessica Loftus, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner h'1GG Date: 12 October 2016 Subject: #16-3871, Jacob Pivec o/b/o Mike Setnicker, 1175 Willowbrook Dr, Variance Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a variance to permit construction of a 1,408 square foot accessory building/garage (OAS) closer to the street than the principal structure. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval subject to the OAS covenant. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Proposed Survey/Site Plan Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. City Code Excerpts Exhibit F. Aerial Photos — by staff Exhibit G. Wetland NOD Exhibit H. Neighbor Comments Received Exhibit 1. Property Owners List Exhibit J. Plat Map Exhibit K. Building Official Memo RE: Septic System Exhibit L. Hardcover Calculations Background The applicants are proposing to construct a 1,408 square foot detached accessory building on their property for their residential storage. The garage is proposed to be set back 50 feet from the front lot line; the home is set back approximately 82 feet. All other setbacks and zoning requirements will be met. Because an accessory building must not be located closer to the street than the principal building a variance is necessary. FILE #16-3871 12 Oct 16 Page 2 of 5 LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Sections 58-50, 78-420, 78-1434, 78-1435, 78-1438, 78-1605 - Setbacks: RR -1B Required Existing Proposed Front/Street 50' Home 82' ' 2' Home 82 201,347 s.f. (4.6 acres dry) Garage Rear 50' Home ±290 Home ±290 Garage ±390' 59,033 s.f. Home 75' North Side 30' Home 75' Garage 225' (25 %) (2.9%) (3.7%) Home ±210' South Side 30' Home ±210' Garage 70' Home 160' Wetland 35' Home 160' Garage ±220' Separation between 10' n/a House to Garage = ±87' buildings Separation from Home 60' 20 Home 60 Septic Mound Sites Garage 27' Section 78-420 - Lot Area/Width: RR -16 Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres) 200' Proposed 236,135 s.f. (5.4 acres total) Actual ±290 , 201,347 s.f. (4.6 acres dry) Section 78-1403- Structural Coverage: The property exceeds 1.99 acres in area therefore structural coverage limits do not apply. Section 78-1434 — OAS (Area Restrictions): The property is 5.4 acres in area. A single oversized accessory structure (OAS) up to a 2,200 square foot footprint is permitted. The applicants proposed to construct a 1,408 square foot garage. Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Total Area in Allowed Existing Proposed Overlay District Zone Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover Tier 59,033 s.f. 6,971 s.f. 8,775 s.f. Tier 1 236,135 s.f. (25 %) (2.9%) (3.7%) Applicable Regulations: Setback Variance (Sections 78-1434 & 78-1435) The applicants are proposing to construct an OAS closer to the street than the principal structure. A variance is required. FILE #16-3871 12 Oct 16 Page 3 of 5 Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The proposed variance will be in harmony with the intent of the Zoning Code as the proposed structure will be partially screened from view from the street by the topography and vegetation that exists between the proposed structure and the street. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The accessory building is residential in nature; and the variance would allow for the accessory building to be located in a partially screened portion of the property. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The property is sloped toward the rear and heavily treed. The septic system mound areas prohibit moving the proposed garage further toward the rear. The applicants proposed to utilize the existing driveway and remove only a limited number of trees to maintain the screening. Construction of an accessory building in the proposed location is consistent with the other OAS setbacks and is reasonable on this rural 5.4 acre residential property. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The location and side load garage configuration of the existing home; the location of the septic system mounds; and the topography of the property prevent the garage from being located further back; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The accessory building will not be visually obtrusive when viewed from off of the property. It will appear as a garage with residential aesthetics viewed off site. This condition is met. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The challenge of the septic system locations, the topography, and wooded nature of the property create logistical FILE #16-3871 12 Oct 16 Page 4 of 5 challenges for construct an accessory garage in a conforming location. Additionally, the location of the septic sites and wetland on the property further restrict options. The building may only be partially visible from the street and the neighbor to the south. 5. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The location of the home; septic sites; and topography create a unique situation on the property. 6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The property is permitted accessory structures. The proposed structure meets all but the front setback due to the home location. This criterion is met. 7. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. The accessory building in the proposed location will not impair the health, safety, comfort or morals of the public. 8. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. There are limited conforming locations to construct an accessory garage on the property; this criterion is met. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Septic System Status Staff has completed a preliminary review of the project for compatibility with the septic system, and requested additional information to determine that the project will not impact the existing or future septic sites. The attached letter from the Building Official provides additional information. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis Staff finds that the location and orientation of the existing home, septic sites, and topography on the property make locating a conforming accessory structure, particularly an OAS in the size as permitted, difficult. The impact of a 1,408 square foot garage will be mitigated by both the existing wooded areas and the distance between the building and the homes on adjacent properties. Public Comments No public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the FILE #16-3871 12 Oct 16 Page 5 of 5 impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning staff recommends approval of the variance in conjunction with the property owners agreeing to the OAS covenants in the approval resolution. Pe- 4E?cH air A City of Orono Variance Application Street Address. Application # 2750 Kelley Parkway i Orono, MN 55356 Date Received: Staff : Main: 952-249-4600 fax: 952-249-4616 Fee: Mailing Address: Escrow # & $ P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 I Permit Fee 1 Notes: Please complete. Applicant will be notified within 15 days as to the status of the application. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agenda. SITE LOCATION: I I7 LJI 1192 1 foj r� tom. DESCRPTION OF REQUEST: APPLICANT 1 Applicant Nam Phone (Primar Applicant Ema Address: Applicant is: (attached additional sheets as necerssary) " PROPERTY OWNER IN Name: Phone (Primary): Mailing Address: Email: FQRMAIKON: ❑ check here if property owner is same as applicant APPLICANVAGENT AND/OR OWNER: • Agree to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, • Agree to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and • Certify that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant and owner recognize that they are solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reject it until it is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of its potential merit. V Acknowledge the Escrow Agreement is completed and signed. The Owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents, Commission and Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. • Owner and/or Applicant acknowledge they must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant and/or owner is unable to attend a. scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicantlowner and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. 1i/ Applicant/Agent Signature: Date: Applicant/Agent Signature: a Date: Property Owner Signature: Date: Property Owner Signature: REGEIIIiQ Variance Application — May 2016 SEP 21 1.011 Page 2 CITY OF ORONO Z1114fe # 3871 DATA PRIVACY ADVISORY In accordance with Minnesota State Statute 13.04 Rights of Subjects of Data, Subd. 2, "Tennessee warning", we would like to inform you that your request for a permit or license from the City of Orono or any of its departments may require you to furnish certain private or confidential information. You are notified that: 1. The information you furnish will be used to determine your qualification for the permit or license requested. 2. You may refuse to supply data, but refusal may require that the City deny the permit or license. 3. The information may be shared with other local, state or federal agencies to the extent necessary to process the permit or license. 4. If your requested permit or license requires Council action to approve, some information may become public. 5. You have certain rights under Minnesota State Statute 13.04 (see following page) to review private data on yourself. 6. Your full name is required to process this application or permit. First J01 Middle /?�ll.� Address 0 State I understand my rights as stated above. Signature Variance Application — May 2016 Last �.es Zip Page 10 3871 ,rz ?So Phone RECEIVED SEP 21 2016 CITY OF ORONO Pc. =1rft Fa c r B PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An application will not be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the City. Minnesota State Statutes Section 462.357, Subdivision 6(2) requires that practical difficulties be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. The difficulties must be unique to the property as variances run with the land and not the land owner. Personal and economic situations are not considered valid practical difficulties. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council practical difficulties having merit must be demonstrated. HOW DO I PROVE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if practical difficulties exist and how the variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove practical difficulties, address all the relevant points listed below and answer them as clearly as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is justified. The information the City receives is what is used in determining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave something out it will not be considered. Please address each of the twelve practical difficulfies criteria as they relate to the request, if they do not apply, write N/A in the space provided. 1. "The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter." 2. "The plight of the land wrier is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." n - ,.i 3. "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." 4. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficul#ies if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." 5. "Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116-06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter." 6. "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located." Variance Application — May 2016 "" # 387! RECEIVED SEP 21 201P CITY OF ORONO 4.. i "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." 8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately 9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." �Z7=y 10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right 11. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code." 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty." r" .S^rrf'� —sk - ,� 71t r� chat -'its is $ �E5 A- (r'"a�'` .7-- f�� �fe�w� A—Av l�a.w.ae,l� �� tz�i--�CTrp N�l,�-� a4' fliE— Practical Difficulties Statement� P,ti,,r, Should you feel the practical difflcGlties cannot fully be described in the above criteria, describe the practical difficulties preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary): RECEIVED SEP 21701'.;' Variance Application —May 2016 Page 5 3871 CITY OF ORONO 7. "The Board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling! IA - 8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately 9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located! 12� 9 0. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property riaht 7t w -■ [ Gt +-i f-9 rj 7V v.S t- 7�- F4 CTI //ITi . The granting o the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code." ✓f— 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty! vet *61fa le-01xvlll p � e1 Ik �S �d0 �Sa� *� -A&W 7%(1 C -PC -4--M.S I-9 S -Es rs.IP4 4,5 am2E� -L—.��.p.►.i.v.� �4'k9- !&--rea FA(J-) 1 iPractical DI suit�es�ent _e_ Should you feel the practical diflicGfties cannot fully be described in the above criteria, describe the practical difficulties preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary): RECEIVED SEP 21 ?W 'P, Variance Application - May 2016 Page 5 3871 CITY OF ORONO SITE PLAN FOR Mike and Molly Setnicker At 6e---44 44154-7 IN FEET x N—, VG V ra 7, e— SL Vil -R � - 1 9I 1- - r N, IMF c; Ns It Willis L. Gilhard Registered CA'd Fngiepeer w)d Lund ,%rve.jar P0 Box 17; 405 Central Avenue Fast SairriMchael. AM -55376 hereby -difv Itra this is . um and-,, L'1 mptcsentaow of svy.f the bwWwa o(, OT 2. BLOCK I, IIENN"IN CTJUNTY, MINNESOTA i •Id ofthe I -W-- of all 1,04np Ilremm,. -d .11 —Mc 0eraochme f,— . uu mid pwaqcrty wW t1w I .. . disk ltkgiste" land Swrvcymunder the lam of khc!4aic ofmimse", —uncs by me this M dny *fAugt. 2016 IAM. L-Ilwd. k L I M— NIL N. 6587 .......... �-O 0 \A SCALE IN OU 'rb 6\.A aim V ;rP \ r, Xoff\ ,�, � .� .� ,�. \ •\ 1 4 ^ .+ ."°a �^. Ilk 0 T- Z Iry tot \` '\. YS X 0 4c �\ Willis L. Gillizrd A Registered Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor PO Box 17; 405 Central Avenue East Saint Michael, MN 55376 612-382-0795 W44 4 &Irzn-o4m, c V&.;R.4 'XIII6z, _ �- - 7vra x'Wig ►'lout/ II iEA 4 f� I - ` LLT f i � 1 i C a Q --------------- I r � _ �- - 7vra x'Wig ►'lout/ II o I I 4 f� I - ` f � 1 i C PC Exhibit E City Code Excerpts Sec. 58-50. - More restrictive design and construction standards. All ISTS permit applications, site evaluations, design specifications, construction methods, and material specifications shall meet the parts of Minnesota Rules chapter 7080 adopted by reference in section 58-43 with the following additional minimum standards: (1) Site evaluation. The site evaluation report shall include the following: a. Soil borings. At least three soil borings shall be completed for each new drainfield site designed. Each soil boring must be located within the drainfield site or within close proximity along similar contours such that similar soil conditions are likely. For additions to an ISTS, at least one soil boring shall be made in the expansion area. b. Percolation tests. At least two percolation tests shall be completed for each new drainfield site designed. Each percolation test must be located within the drainfield site or within close proximity along similar contours such that similar soil conditions are likely. For additions to existing ISTS's, at least one percolation test shall be completed in the expansion area. C. Plot plan. A scale drawing of the entire lot showing the following: 1. All property lines and lot dimensions. 2. All existing and proposed structures. 3. All existing or proposed well locations, or water supply piping. 4. Relative elevations of house, lot corners and drainfield areas. 5. Slope of ground at drainfield sites by contour lines or direction arrows and slope percentages. 6. Location of all percolation test holes and soil borings with identifying symbols and relative ground elevations of each. 7. Primary and alternate drainfield areas identified. 8. Distance from primary and alternate drainfield areas to property lines, well locations, and any lake, stream, marsh or drainage channel within 75 feet of any part of the system. (2) ISTS design. ISTS design specifications shall include proposed flows or other sizing information, minimum sewage tank capacity, minimum soil treatment area requirements, a plan of the component layout, and all other information necessary to assure the city that the ISTS is designed and will be constructed to receive, treat and dispose of all of the sewage from the building served. Footing or roof drainage, water softener recharge water, garage floor drainage, toxic chemicals, flammable liquids, animal wastes, commercial process water and commercial kitchen grease shall not enter any portion of the ISTS but shall be separately treated and disposed of according to the applicable regulations of the MPCA, the state board of health and the city. a. Setbacks. The minimum setback distance requirements are as follows: Page 1 Sewage Soil Feature Tank Treatment (feet) Area Water supply well: Deep well Shallow well Wetland Lake: General development Recreational development Natural environment Tributaries, streams Driveways, sidewalks, decks and other hardcover Property lines, buildings and buried pipes Lawn sprinkler systems 75 10 10 10 b. Sewage tanks. The minimum sewage tank size requirements are as follows: Number of Tank's Liquid Capacities Bedrooms (gallons) 4 or less 1,000 + 1,000 regardless of garbage disposal use 5 or 6 1,250 + 1,000 regardless of garbage disposal use 7, 8 or 9 1,500 + 1,500 regardless of garbage disposal use 50 100 50 75 75 150 75 10 20 10 Page 2 10 or more Sewage tanks shall be sized as other establishments per Minnesota Rules chapter 7080. c. Pumping stations. In order to standardize installation and electrical connection methods, the following pumping station requirements must be met in addition to Minnesota Rules chapter 7080: 1. Electrical connection. A watertight, lockable electrical box must be mounted on a four -inch -by -four -inch treated redwood or cedar post. ii. All electrical connections shall be made within the box. Pump connection must not be made using a direct line (plug-in only). Wire entry to the electrical box shall be sealed with a watertight material such as foam or putty. iii. Alarm and pump floats shall be on separate electrical circuits. iv. Electrical wire from the power supply must not run over any tanks but must be laid beside the tanks and placed in conduit along the electrical post. v. Electrical cords from the pump and floats must be run through a two-inch PVC (or equivalent) conduit (schedule 80) with a one -inch gap between the conduit and the electrical box. Electrical cords must not run through or under the manhole cover. Wires must not have ground contact. 2. Pumping chamber. Pressure pipe exiting the pumping chamber must be laid on a uniform slope up to the soil treatment area for proper drain back. The pressure pipe must be sleeved inside a larger diameter pipe for additional support if spanning ground that has been excavated. If the pipe at the tank must be lower than union to get elevation for drain back, a one -quarter -inch weep hole must be used. ii. When the soil depth above the pressure distribution pipe is less than 3% feet, insulation must be added to achieve an insulating factor equal to 3% feet of soil to decrease the potential for freezing (Styrofoam or concentric piping are acceptable methods). Piping under hardcover, such as tennis courts or driveways, shall be insulated pipe or equivalent. iii. A reserve capacity equaling 75 percent of the anticipated daily flow must be allowed in the pumping chamber between the alarm activation level and the pump tank inlet. d. Drainfields. 1. Trenches. Trenches must meet Minnesota Rules chapter 7080. 2. Mounds and at -grades. Mounds and at -grades must meet specifications per Minnesota Rules chapter 7080. (3) Compliance standards. a. A new system shall be located, designed and constructed as a code system. Page 3 b. When an existing code system is repaired or expanded, such ISTS shall remain a code system. Compliant systems, when repaired, shall be upgraded to a code system status whenever such classification is reasonably attainable. (4) Construction procedures. a. Protection of drainfield area. Proposed drainfield areas shall be identified and marked off on the lot at the time of the site evaluation and prior to any construction or grading occurring in the area. The drainfield area shall remain undisturbed until drainfield construction is commenced. No vehicular traffic shall be allowed in the drainfield area either before or after drainfield installation. b. Favorable weather required. Drainfield area or trench construction must not proceed if the area is wet or has had rain within 48 hours. Mound ortrench construction shall not proceed unless the soil moisture content is below the plastic limit. C. Construction inspection required. The contractor issued a permit for ISTS construction shall perform all work according to the design specifications approved by the city for each particular ISTS. All subsurface work, including building sewer, sewage tanks, distribution system and soil treatment area shall be inspected by the city inspector prior to backfilling or covering of any portion thereof. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to notify the city at least 24 hours prior to the time an inspection will be required, and it shall be the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the inspection is accomplished and the construction is approved prior to any backfilling, covering or continuation of the construction. (Code 1984, § 12.30(5); Ord. No. 100 2nd series, § 4, 2-10-1992; Ord. No. 147 2nd series, §§ 11-15, 5- 13-1996; Ord. No. 199 2nd series, § 1(12.30(5)), 5-8-2000; Ord. No. 38 3rd series, § 1, 9-24-2007) Sec. 78-420. - Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in the RR -113 district shall exceed 2% stories and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. (b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Lot Lot Front Area Width Yard (acres) (feet) (feet) 2 200 50 —T Sec. 78-1434. - Area restrictions. Side Yard Side Rear Adjacent Yard Yard to Street (feet) feet (feet) (feet) 30 50 50 In all R districts, no accessory building shall exceed 1,000 square feet of footprint area; except that accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet will be allowed under the following conditions: (1) Not more than one oversized accessory structure (OAS) shall be permitted on any property. An oversized accessory structure is defined as an accessory structure of footprint area in excess of 1,000 square feet, except that the following nonroofed accessory structures which exceed 1,000 Page 4 square feet footprint area are not considered as oversize accessory structures, but are subject to the special setback restrictions of section 78-1404. a. Tennis courts and sport courts. b. Pools, when pool basin structure (excluding nonencroachment-type patios) is greater than 1,000 square feet. C. Paddocks or arenas. (2) Oversized accessory structures are regulated by the following table: * Excluding nonroofed tennis courts, sport courts, pools, paddocks, arenas. Page 5 Maximum Maximum Allowed Total Individual of All Accessory Lot Area Accessory Structure (acres) Structure Footprint Footprint Area Areas* on (square feet) a Property (square feet) 1,000 2,000 0-1.99 2.00-3.00 1,200 2,400 3.01-3.50 1,400 2,800 3.51-4.00 3,200 1,600 4.01-4.50 3,600 1,800 4.51-5.00 2,000 4,000 5.01-6.00 2,200 4,400 6.01-7.00 2,400 4,800 7.01-8.00 2,600 5,200 8.01-9.00 2,800 5,600 9.01 or more 3,000 6,000 * Excluding nonroofed tennis courts, sport courts, pools, paddocks, arenas. Page 5 (3) Any oversize accessory structure shall be subject to the following conditions: No such accessory structure shall be located within a required yard area (principal structure setbacks must be met). Further, no such structure shall be nearer the front lot line than the front line of the principal residence on the property, and no such accessory structure shall be located less than 30 feet from the side or rear lot line regardless whether less strict principal structure setbacks apply. b. The maximum height for such accessory structure shall be 30 feet or the defined height of the principal residence structure on the property, whichever is less. Such structure shall be allowed only when the property owner agrees and covenants in writing with the city as follows: No future subdivision will be approved that places the structure within a lot that has no principal structure, except that the city in its subdivision approval may grant a finite time period in which the oversized accessory structure may remain without a principal structure, in order that a principal structure may be constructed. At the end of this time period, the oversized accessory structure must be removed if no principal structure has been constructed. If the property is subdivided, the oversize accessory structure and principal structure will be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size of accessory building. In subdivision approval, the setback required for the oversize accessory structure shall remain. Such covenant shall be binding on current and future property owners and shall be filed in the chain of title of the property. (Code 1984, § 10.03(9)(C); Ord. No. 106 3rd series, § 24, 6-10-2013) Sec. 78-1435. - Location. Except as may be specifically provided, no detached garage or other accessory building shall be located nearer to the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot. Detached garages or other accessory buildings on lots which have frontage on a lake may be located between the rear yards of such lots and the principal building only if setback requirements of section 78-305(b), section 78-330(b) and section 78-350(b) are met. Exception: Detached garages on lots that have frontage on a lake may be located ten feet from the street or rear lot line when doors face away from the street and an adequate vehicle turnaround is provided on the site. This section shall not apply to lakeshore lots that are divided by streets or private roads or are corner lots. (Code 1984, § 10.03(9)(D); Ord. No. 52 3rd series, § 2, 11-24-2008; Ord. No. 106 3rd series, § 25, 6-10- 2013) Sec. 78-1438. - Crowding principal building. No accessory building, unless an integral part of the principal building, shall be erected, altered or moved within ten feet of the principal building, nor within ten feet of another accessory building. (Code 1984, § 10.03(12); Ord. No. 165 3rd series, § 1, 3-14-2016) Page 6 Sec. 78-1439. - Garages. Accessory buildings which are for the storage of automobiles shall have the doors 30 feet or more from the property line when the doors face on a public alley or street. (Code 1984, § 10.03(13)) Sec. 78-1605. - Wetland buffer areas and setbacks. (a) This subsection establishes authority for wetland buffer areas around protected wetlands. Buffer areas are necessary and beneficial to maintain the health of wetlands. Buffer areas protect the edge of wetlands from erosion while filtering sediment, chemicals and other nutrients from runoff that drains into wetlands. Buffer areas can improve the biological diversity and health of a wetland environment while reducing the adverse impacts of human activities. (b) All wetlands within the City of Orono are within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), which has rules and regulations for the establishment and maintenance of wetland buffers. In an effort to avoid overlapping or conflicting regulations, the city defers jurisdiction for the establishment and maintenance of wetland buffers to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. If application of MCWD buffer regulations is in conflict with city regulations, the more restrictive requirements shall apply. (c) In order to provide for a minimum level of wetland protection where Minnehaha Creek Watershed District buffer rules do not provide for adequate separation between wetlands and buildings or other structures or surfaces, the city shall require setbacks from the delineated edge of a protected wetland as follows: Minimum distance setback from delineated edge of wetland to any building (principal or accessory) or other structure, hardcover, septic systems or wells: Where no formal buffer exists and where MCWD does not require a 35 feet buffer Where a formal buffer exists or 35 feet or established buffer width plus 10 feet, whichever is where MCWD buffer is required greater Areas within the required setback area subject to filling, grading or excavation as part of a construction project shall be revegetated immediately upon completion of such earthwork. Setbacks must be verified with wetland delineation information. The determination of whether a Level 1 delineation or Level 2 delineation is required shall be at the discretion of the planning director. Level 2 delineation information shall be provided on a certified certificate of survey. The requirement for delineation shall be applied in cases where the wetland exists within 150 feet of the proposed project. (d) The City of Orono has established wetland protection strategies in the Orono Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) (January 2011). A protection classification has been assigned to each wetland in Orono based on the stormwater susceptibility and functional assessment for each Page 7 wetland. The city has also established additional protection requirements for each classification. The four protection classifications are described as follows: Protection Susceptibility Classification Rating IIQ "Manage 1" "Manage 2" ;hly �ptible Moderately Susceptible Slightly Susceptible Description Highly susceptible to both quantity and quality impacts from runoff; have the highest degree of protection Moderately susceptible to quantity and quality impacts; protection is less stringent than Preserve, provides protection to maintain their characteristics Less stringent protection than Manage 1 wetlands; maintenance of characteristics is desirable Wetlands are significantly degraded (e.g., Least cultivated or canary grass monotype) or lack "Manage 3" Susceptible of wetland characteristics; not typically impacted by runoff; no quantity and only limited quality treatment of runoff is required Additional Protection Requirements (B = Bounce = Change in water level due to runoff event) (P = Phosphorus) B: Maintain bounce at or below existing conditions P: Limit loadings to predevelopment loading (0.14 Lbs/Ac/Yr) B: Maintain bounce at or below existing conditions plus 0.5 foot P: Limit loadings to predevelopment loadings times 2 (0.28 Lbs/Ac/Yr) B: Maintain bounce at or below existing conditions plus 1.0 foot P: Limit concentration to predevelopment concentrations (200 ppb) B: No quantity requirement P: Limit concentration to 225 ppb The protection classification for each wetland will be found on the "Wetland Management Classification Map & List" which is hereby adopted by reference, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the city clerk and shall be available for public review during all normal office hours. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District required buffer area widths are based on the four protection classifications. Page 8 (Ord. No. 28 3rd series, § 1, 8-22-2005; Ord. No. 103 3rd series, § 2, 5-28-2013) Page 9 1 -, - , .�a.Y �Yy - r � �s •. SII• - r! • .v 1- - - I ! >z f ac V e i ' 1, `- ��'�•gsq��� � I ..� '1 .. e ai NO J �r Jr a + e- _ - � 4 a•r _ a71` - � •. i1 � � .. vim`' �. - _ _ Fj iJ f t F �r 46 E9 f7� Sd'TEfV',p�t A it MIF ✓ i ' r fes.. ..-.,. .... � ..� �.. - .;., . - • Z 2016 alt...fty Facing Southwest Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Decision Local Government Unit (LGU) Address Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 15320 Minnetonka Blvd Minnetonka, MN 55345 1. PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Name Project Name Date of Application Mike and Molly Setnicker 1175 Willowbrook Drive Application Number 6/20/2016 W16-33 ® Attach site locator map Type of Decision: ® Wetland Boundary or Type ❑ No -Loss ❑ Exemption ❑ Sequencing ❑ Replacement Plan ❑ Banking Plan Technical Evaluation Panel Findings and Recommendation (if any): ❑ Approve ❑ Approve with conditions ❑ Deny Summary (or attach): 2. LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT DECISION Date of Decision: 7/18/2016 ® Approved ❑ Approved with conditions (include below) ❑ Denied LGU Findings and Conclusions (attach additional sheets as necessary): Mike and Molly Setnicker applied for a wetland boundary & type confirmation for the wetlands located at 1175 Willowbrook Drive in the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Legal description: Section 26, Township 118N, Range 23W. The boundary & type approval was requested June 20th, 2016. A wetland delineation was conducted by ISG on June 13th, 2016. As requested by the landowner, only a portion of the property was delineated. A complete delineation report and WCA application were submitted to MCWD on June 20th, 2016. A portion of one Type 2 fresh (wet) meadow wetland was identified and delineated within the project area. MCWD visited the site on July 6th. Some flags along the boundary had been removed and needed to be replaced. MCWD approves the wetland boundaries and types as originally delineated in the field and documented in the delineation report and map submitted on June 20th, 2016. This decision is valid for five years. A future project located on this property may require a permit from the MCWD. For Replacement Plans using credits from the State Wetland Bank: BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 1 of 3 Bank Account # Bank Service Area County Credits Approved for Name Title Rachel Workin Withdrawal (sq. ft. or nearest Signatua Date Phone Number and E-mail .01 acre) Replacement Plan Approval Conditions. In addition to any conditions specified by the LGU, the approval of a Wetland Replacement Plan is conditional upon the following: ❑ Financial Assurance: For project -specific replacement that is not in -advance, a financial assurance specified by the LGU must be submitted to the LGU in accordance with MN Rule 8420.0522, Subp. 9 (List amount and type in LGU Findings). ❑ Deed Recording: For project -specific replacement, evidence must be provided to the LGU that the BWSR "Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants" and "Consent to Replacement Wetland" forms have been filed with the county recorder's office in which the replacement wetland is located. ❑ Credit Withdrawal: For replacement consisting of wetland bank credits, confirmation that BWSR has withdrawn the credits from the state wetland bank as specified in the approved replacement plan. Wetlands may not be impacted until all applicable conditions have been met! LGU Authorized Signature: Signing and mailing of this completed form to the appropriate recipients in accordance with 8420.0255, Subp. 5 provides notice that a decision was made by the LGU under the Wetland Conservation Act as specified above. If additional details on the decision exist, they have been provided to the landowner and are available from the LGU upon request. Name Title Rachel Workin Permitting Technician Signatua Date Phone Number and E-mail JO7/18/2016 (952) 641-4518 rworkin@minnehahacreek.org THIS DECISION ONLY APPLIES TO THE MINNESOTA WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT. Additional approvals or permits from local, state, and federal agencies may be required. Check with all appropriate authorities before commencing work in or near wetlands. Applicants proceed at their own risk if work authorized by this decision is started before the time period for appeal (30 days) has expired. If this decision is reversed or revised under appeal, the applicant may be responsible for restoring or replacing all wetland impacts. This decision is valid for three years from the date of decision unless a longer period is advised by the TEP and specified in this notice of decision. 3. APPEAL OF THIS DECISION Pursuant to MN Rule 8420.0905, any appeal of this decision can only be commenced by mailing a petition for appeal, including applicable fee, within thirty (3 0) calendar days of the date of the mailing of this Notice to the following as indicated: Check one: ® Appeal of an LGU staff decision. Send petition and $0 fee (if applicable) to: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 15320 Minnetonka Blvd Minnetonka, MN 55345 ❑ Appeal of LGU governing body decision. Send petition and $500 filing fee to: Executive Director Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 2 of 3 4. LIST OF ADDRESSEES ® SWCD TEP member: Stacey Lijewski — stacey.lijewski@hennepin.us ® BWSR TEP member: Ben Meyer — ben.meyer@state.mn.us ❑ LGU TEP member (if different than LGU Contact): ® DNR TEP Becky Horton- becky.horton@state.mn.us ® DNR Regional Office (if different than DNR TEP member): Leslie Parris - leslie.parris@state.mn.us ❑ WD or WMO (if applicable): ® Applicant (notice only) and Landowner (if different): murph096*yahoo.com ® Members of the public who requested notice (notice only): ISG (Lucas Mueller)- lucas.mueller@is-grp.com; Christine Mattson- cmattson@ci.orono.mn.us ® Corps of Engineers Project Manager (notice only): Melissa Jenny — melissa.m.j enny@usace.army.mil ❑ BWSR Wetland Bank Coordinator (wetland bank plan applications only 5. MAILING INFORMATION ➢For a list of BWSR TEP representatives: www.bwsr.state.nm.us/aboutbwsr/workareas/WCA_areas.pdf ➢For a list of DNR TEP representatives: www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/wca/DNR TEP_contacts.pdf ➢Department of Natural Resources Regional Offices: NW Region: NE Region: Central Region: Southern Region: Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Reg. Env. Assess. Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Div. Ecol. Resources Div. Ecol. Resources Ecol. Div. Ecol. Resources 2115 Birchmont Beach Rd. 1201 E. Hwy. 2 Div. Ecol. Resources 261 Hwy. 15 South NE Grand Rapids, MN 1200 Warner Road New Ulm, MN 56073 Bemidji, MN 56601 55744 St. Paul, MN 55106 For a map of DNR Administrative Regions, see: http://files.dnr.state.nm.us/aboutdnr/dnr regions.pdf ➢For a list of Corps of Project Managers: www.Myp.usace.Lgny.mil/re ug latory/default.asp?pageid=687 or send to: US Army Corps of Engineers St. Paul District, ATTN: OP -R 180 Fifth St. East, Suite 700 St. Paul, MN 55101-1678 ➢For Wetland Bank Plan applications, also send a copy of the application to: Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Wetland Bank Coordinator 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 6. ATTACHMENTS In addition to the site locator map, list any other attachments: ® Approved wetland boundaries El BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 3 of 3 i , a'y r ,�7rrR ' TfA PN: 16-19223 Figure 6 Source(s): Orthophoto (USDA, NAIP, 2015) ° z5 5° 1°eel Wetland Delineation Map Wetland Delineation (ISG, 2016) 1 inch = 100 feet 1175 Willowbrook Drive Thursday, June 16, 2016 Orono, Hennepin, Minnesota '� Lel!end r• Project Area �' • Wetland Flag Photo Location �• -# (,• ` i : ' ' Wetland Delineation Culvert Sample Point Upland Wetland N y Wetland Type ' r + Type 2 -Fresh (wet) Meadow PN: 16-19223 Figure 6 Source(s): Orthophoto (USDA, NAIP, 2015) ° z5 5° 1°eel Wetland Delineation Map Wetland Delineation (ISG, 2016) 1 inch = 100 feet 1175 Willowbrook Drive Thursday, June 16, 2016 Orono, Hennepin, Minnesota Melanie Curtis From: Debra Hughes <z �- Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 5:39 PM To: Melanie Curtis Subject: 1175 Willowbrook Drive project Hi, Melanie. My husband, Jeff, and j live at 1225 Willowbrook which is next door to Mike and Molly 5etnicker. They are applying to build a garage on their property. I'm just writing to let you know that we are happy with their plans and support their application to the city of Orono. Feel free to write if you have any questions. Best regards, Debra Hughes Melanie Curtis From: Dana Barry Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 9:57 PM To: Melanie Curtis Subject: Variance on garage for Setnickers Hello Melanie, My name is Dana Barry and my husband and I live directly across the street from Mike and Molly Setnicker. We are writing to you in support of the requested structure. We have seen plans and discussed the location with them and it is our belief that it will accomplish all it is intended for. It will surely add value, be aesthetically appealing and provide the storage a busy family with only a 2 car garage requires. It is our hope that you will approve the structure for the benefit of the Setnicker family and surrounding neighbors. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any question. Regards, Dana and David Barry 612-963-7500 Melanie Curtis From: ursula leeds <; -- Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 9:09 AM To: Melanie Curtis Subject: Re: 1175 Willowbrook Drive - Plans Melanie, Thank you for the specs on the structure at 1175 Willowbrook dr. we have spoken with Mike Setnicker and he showed us some more drawings, so think it will look fine once built and that way he can store all his toys, trailers, snow mobiles etc, will look better then having everything out in the open. So I am recommending that this structure be built. Thank you for sending me all the info. Best Regards, Ursula & Robert Leeds On Oct 7, 2016, at 1:56 PM, Melanie Curtis <MCurtis@ci.orono.mn.us> wrote: Ursula Thank you for talking to me to today. Iwe attached the proposed surrey and plans for the proposed garage. I encourage you and/or your other neighbors to send your comments to me directly by Wednesday, October 12 to be included in the packet presented to the Planning Commission and City Council. Thanks, Melanie Melanie Curtis, Planner Direct 952.249.4627 Planning & Zoning Office 952.249.4620 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MIS 55356 Email: mcurtisdMci.orona.mn.us Website: www.cl.orono.mn.us <SKM C654e16100612510.pdf5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM I (we) I - I of Iteo [print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at "15 1W j6 tdC 4"Iso referred to as Land Use Application No. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, i (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvemtft"gaQs and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Elsa t Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this. Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. ****!N**********�k!**'!k******!b*******!Y!*******■!*!********N************N.iF!*#*******xl�kNN*******!NN****NN*******N!********!!N***** ADJACENT PROPERTY {OWNERS' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM bGb_ �tiS I (we) j 2r- - �14.•� of d [print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at i(1C&AA;A4V Kalso referred to as Land Use Application No. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of th property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. perty Ownfir Prop Date Date r q — Lc�y L W If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. Variance Application — May 2016 Page 13 RUN DATE: 09121/2016 38 25-118-23 32 0003 DANIEL BOLGAR 700 SIXTH AVE N ORONO MN 55391 DANIEL BOLGAR 700 SIXTH AVE N WAYZATA MN 55391 38 26-118-23 410003 LUCIA P DELANEY 1101 WILLOWBROOK DR ORONO MN 55391 LUCIA P DELANEY 1101 WILLOWBROOK DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 26-;18-23 410004 M J SETNICKER & M SETNICKER 1175 WILLOWBROOK DR ORONO MN 55391 MICHAEL J SETNICKER MOLLY SETNICKER 1175 WILLOWBROOK DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 26-118-23 410005 DAVID BARRY & DANA BARRY 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 00000 DAVID BARRY 1200 WILLOWBROOK DR WAYZATA MN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM (PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) 38 26-'.18-23 410008 YOUNGSUN & YOUNGKI KIM TRSTE 1180 WYNDMERE RD ORONO MN 55391 YOUNGKI KIMIYOUNGSUN LEE KIM 1180 WYNDMERE RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 26-:18-23 410013 J G KRUESEL & S M KRUESEL 1150 WYNDMERE RD ORONO MN 55391 JEFFREY G KRUESEL SHEILA M KRUESEL ' 150 WYNDMERE RD ORONO MN 55391 38 26-118-23410014 KERN M -HOPPE 1140 WYNDMERE RD ORONO MN 55391 KERN M KOPPE 47585 CHAPINWOOD RD CABLE WI 54821-3409 38 26-118-23 44 0006 SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB 725 SIXTH AVE N ORONO MN 55391 SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB 725 CO RD NO 6 WAYZATA MN 5539; 80 25-!18-23230003 S O HERFURTH & F P HERFURTH 15?5 HUNTER DR MEDINA MN 55391 F PETER & SALLY O HERFURTH :515 HUNTER DR WAYZATA MN 55391 80 26-118-23 13 0003 SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB 80 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MEDINA MN 00000 SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB 725 CO RD NO 6 WAYZATA MN 55391 80 26-118-23 14 0001 D HUGHES & J L HUGHES 1225 WILLOWBROOK DR MEDINA MN 55391 DEBRALIN HUGHES JEFFREY L HUGHES 1225 WILLOWBROOK DR WAYZATAMN 55391 80 26-118-2314 0002 ROBERT K LEEDS 1275 WILLOWBROOK DR MEDINA MN 55391 ROBERT K LEEDS 1275 WILLOWBROOKE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 80 26-118-23 14 0005 C A ANDERSON/1". R ANDERSON TR 1270 WILLOWBROOK DR MEDINA MN 55391 ROLLAND & CHARLOTTE ANDERSON 1270 WILLOWBROOK DR WAYZATA MN 55391 80 26-118-23 14 0006 DAVID BARRY & DANA BARRY 1200 WILLOWBROOK DR MEDINA MN 55391 DAVID BARRY 1200 WILLOWBROOK DR WAYZATA MN 55391 # 3871 PAGE:I RECEIVED SEP 2 17-016 CITY OF ORONO Hennepin County has developed electronic fors of certain property information databases. Hennepin County makes reasonable efforts to produce and publish the most current property'.rforation available. The viewer should understand, however, that Hennepin County makes no representation or warranties, either express or implied, or as to merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose regarding the accuracy and/or completeness of the information contained herein. RECEIVED SEP 2 1Z'016 CITY 0F UR# 3871 ONQ C- 0CFt1cT- Hennepin County Locate Notify Map Provided By: Resident and Real Estate Services Date: 9/21/2016 Buffelr Size: 350 feet Map Comments: 1175 Willowbrook Drive Orono RECEIVE® MN 55391 26-118-23-41-0004 SEP 2 12015 3871 CITY OF ORONO 0 120 240 480 ft I 11 1 l I 1 1 I For more information contact: Hennepin County GiS Office 300 6th Street South Minneapolis, MN 55487 gis.info@hennepin.us Pa a4tienr K Melanie Curtis From: Roger Peitso Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 9:37 AM To: Melanie Curtis Subject: RE: 1175 Willowbrook Drive / #16-3871 Melanie, The septic system was replaced in 2010 and is compliant with today's standards. City of Orono Code Sec. 58- 7 requires that an alternate site for the septic system needs to be identified by z: State certified professional and approved by the City. There is a location of an alternate site shown on the current survey. The alternate site shown on the survey rias not reflected on the approved desi;n from 2010 when the system was brought into compliance. We have no dccumentation of this site was located by a Minnesota State certified septic designer. The cont: -actor or the homeowner will need to provide this documentction or have this site verified by a Minnesota State certified septic designer. Any question please tali. Thanks, Roger Peitso Building Official City of Orono Phone: 952-249-4600 Direct: 952-249-4625 Email: rpeitsoigci.orono.mmus Fax: 952-249-4616 From: Melanie Curtis Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 9:39 AM To: Roger Peitso <r eiiso ci.orono.mn.us> Subject: RE: 1175 Willowbrook Drive / #16-3871 Have you had a chance to review this? Melanie Curtis 2952.249.4627 E�mcurHsOd.orono.mn.us Address. Prepared by: 1/ V ■- S [ L?J ,�,�.1+�� PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE (inc#uding existing hardcover to be retained) A. House HARDCO'V'ER CALCULATION WORKSHEET x SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' 250-500' 500-1000' Width `- U �� �� �� ��T � ����� �01 EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE x = A. House x - S.F. = Length Width - x = x = S.F. t [ Q rSr x = S.F. B, Garage llJ� x = ___ _ _ S.F. C. Driveway 1 x - S.F. = S.F. x = S.F. x r S.F. D. Sidewalk x x = S.F. E_ Patio/Deck x - S.F. S.F. i E. Patio/Deck x - S.F. x = x - S.F. F. Weed control x x - S.F. weed barrier x - S.F. of any kind G. Retaining Walls x S.F. G. Retaining Walls S.F. x - _ v S.F. H. Other R x - S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE - S.F. A TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 7 a - S.F. B A S.F. B } I3 x 100 t PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE (inc#uding existing hardcover to be retained) A. House x - S.F. Length Width x = S.F. x = _ S.F. B. Garage - x = S.F. C. Driveway llJ� x - S.F. x = S.F. D. Sidewalk x - S.F. x - S.F. E_ Patio/Deck x - S.F. F. Weed control x = S.F weed barrier x = S.F. of any kind x = S.F. G. Retaining Walls x - S.F. H. Other x R S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE _ S.F A. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - S.F. B A t B 7 x 100 _ % -13- .. Date Application Received: 09/21/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 09/21/16 60 -Day Review Period Expires: 11/20/16 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 7 November 2016 Item No. 18 Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Melanie Curtis i'Y1GG Y"-4 Planning Title: Planner Item Description: #16-3872, Revision LLC, o/b/o Timothy & Amy Sullivan, 440 Brown Road S, Variance Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a variance to permit construction of a 1,200 square foot accessory building closer to the street than the principal structure. The building exceeds 1,000 square feet in footprint and therefore is considered an oversize accessory structure (OAS) requiring a covenant. Planning Commission Recommendation On October 17, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the application including the evidence submitted. Following the public hearing the Commission voted 5 to 0 on a motion to approve conditioned upon the requirement of the OAS covenant. Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval. A draft approval resolution has been provided for Council's consideration. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Council should consider adopting or amending the approval resolution. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Exhibit B. Exhibit C. Exhibit D. Exhibit E. Exhibit F. Survey & Plans Draft Resolution PC Action Notice Draft PC Minutes PC Staff Report PC Exhibits W95 WXWW W302 NW WISIA3Y 'a OV ° "Ali o-r.o 3.ON3GIS38 W1117717S $� ly S OVOY N/ 088 O$k A -7A I?S 11WY3d ONI0779 41 i � l i- n g 4ae EM 8 a x c w S �\ h \N p,L by j Lr1 LLL Ir 4qt �y� O,� Q' S, ` �� t \ f .� 147 00 � _ I 4J r 4 r r �i r y e Q. �z as WONG oilt, z a-Tnr oz aONaClg� NvA-11 I nq L------------------------ J I � I I — — — — — — — — - — — — — — — - L------------------------ J I � I I CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-1434 & 78-1435 FILE NO. 16-3872 WHEREAS, Timothy M. Sullivan and Amy K. Sullivan, a married couple (hereinafter the "Applicants"), are the owners of the property located at 440 Brown Road South and legally described as: Lot 3 Block 1, Stronghold, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "Property"); WHEREAS, on September 21, 2016, the Applicants made application to the City of Orono for variances from Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-1434 and 78-1435 to allow construction of a 1,200 square foot oversize accessory building closer to the street than the principal structure; and WHEREAS, on October 17, 2016, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on October 17, 2016, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variances; and WHEREAS, on November 14, 2016, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested variances as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #16-3872. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2. The Property is located in the RR -113 One Family Rural Residential Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 2.5 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 100' at the cul-de- sac and over 300 feet at the principal structure setback (50 feet). 4. Applicant has applied for the following variance[s]: a. Setback variances 5. In considering this application for variances, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. ANALYSIS: 1. "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance ...." The proposed variances will be in harmony with the intent of the Zoning Code as the proposed structure will be screened from view from off the Property by the topography and vegetation that exists between the proposed structure, the neighbors, and Brown Road. 2. "Variances shall only be permitted ... when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan." The accessory building is residential in nature; and the variances would allow for the accessory building to be located in a screened portion of the Property. 3. "Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. `Practical difficulties,' as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that: a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls. The location of the home is towards the very rear of the Property; an accessory building cannot feasibly be constructed to meet the front setback requirement. Construction of an accessory building in the proposed location is consistent with OAS setbacks and is reasonable on this rural 2.5 acre residential property. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. The existing home on the Property is approximately 220 feet from the front lot line and ±50 feet from the rear lot line. Additionally, the location of the septic sites and wetland on the Property further restrict options. There are no conforming locations to construct the accessory building. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. " The accessory building will not be visually obtrusive when viewed from off of the property. It will appear as a barn, a typical rural residential structure, when viewed off site. This condition is met. 4. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties." The Applicants have not cited economic reasons for their request. 5. "Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78." This criterion is not applicable. 6. "The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located." A detached garage is a permitted accessory use in the residential district. 7. "The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." This criterion is not applicable. 8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." The location of the home on the Property does not leave a conforming space to construct an accessory building. Additionally, the location of the septic sites and wetland on the Property further restrict options. There are no conforming locations to construct the accessory building on the site. The building may only be partially visible from the western neighbor. 9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located." The location of the home, septic sites, and wetland create a unique situation on the Property. 10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." The Property is permitted accessory structures. The proposed structure meets all but the front setback due to the home location. This criterion is met. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 11. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter." The accessory building in the proposed location will not impair the health, safety, comfort or morals of the public. 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty." There are no conforming locations to construct such an accessory building on the Property; this criterion is met. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-1434 and 78-1435 to allow construction of a 1,200 square foot accessory building closer to the street than the principal structure, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the location of "Barn A" on the survey dated September 12, 2016 by Frank Cardarelle Land Surveyor and building plans submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A & B. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. The Applicants agree to and covenant the following regarding the oversize accessory structure; such covenant shall be binding on current and future property owners and shall be filed in the chain of title of the Property. a. No future subdivision will be approved that places the structure within a lot that has no principal structure, except that the city in its subdivision approval may grant a finite time period in which the oversized accessory structure may remain without a principal structure, in order that a principal structure may be constructed. At the end of this time period, the oversized accessory structure must be removed if no principal structure has been constructed. b. If the Property is subdivided, the oversize accessory structure and principal structure will be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size of accessory building. c. In subdivision approval, the setback required for the oversize accessory structure shall remain. 3. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. construction and commencing construction of said project. A framing inspection must be completed within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variances will expire on that date (November 14, 2017). 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned Applicants have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the Applicants and the Applicants' heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the Property. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 14th day of November, 2016. ATTEST: Diane Tiegs, City Clerk CITY OF ORONO: Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor Property Owner STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. Property Owner This instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20, by Timothy M. Sullivan, husband of Amy K. Sullivan. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this Amy K. Sullivan, wife of Timothy M. Sullivan. Notary Public C day of 20_, by W95 WXWW W302 NW WISIA3Y 'a OV ° "Ali o-r.o 3.ON3GIS38 W1117717S $� ly S OVOY N/ 088 O$k A -7A I?S 11WY3d ONI0779 41 i � l i- n g 4ae EM 8 a x c w S �\ h \N p,L by j Lr1 LLL Ir 4qt �y� O,� Q' S, ` �� t \ f .� 147 00 � _ I 4J r 4 r r �i r y e Q. �z as WONG oilt, z a-Tnr oz aONaClg� NvA-11 I nq L------------------------ J I � I I — — — — — — — — - — — — — — — - L------------------------ J I � I I NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4620 TO: Alex Lang, Revision LLC 153 Lake Street E Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF REQUEST: Variance DATE OF MEETING: 17 October 2106 ZONING FILE: #16-3872 DATE OF NOTICE: 18 Oct 2016 COPIES Alex Lang Via John Daly email: Tim & Amy Sullivan The Orono Planning Commission voted on a motion to recommend approval consistent with the staff recommendation requiring OAS covenants. Please note: Resolution of the outstanding septic questions/issues will be requiredrip or to issuance of a building permit for the building. VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next meeting is tentatively scheduled as: Monday, November 14, 2016 This is a City Council meeting. The meeting begins at 7 PM If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please contact Melanie Curtis at mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us or 952.249.4627. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 17, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 6. #16-3872 REVISION, LLC, ON BEHALF OF TIMOTHY AND AMY SULLIVAN, 440 BROWN ROAD SOUTH, VARIANCE, 6:50 P.M. — 6:55 P.M. Alex Lang with Revision, LLC, and Timothy and Amy Sullivan, Applicants, were present. Curtis stated the applicants are the new owners of the property and wish to construct a 1,200 square foot detached accessory building which will resemble a barn in appearance. The building is proposed to be set back approximately 175 feet from the front lot line. The home is set back approximately 220 feet. All other setbacks and zoning requirements will be met. Due to the location of the building to the house, a setback variance is required. The two and a half acre property is allowed to have a maximum accessory structure of 1,200 square feet. Oversized accessory structure covenants would be required. The building official has completed his review of the septic system for this project and has also requested additional information from the applicants to make his final determination. His comments have been included in the Planning Commission packet. Any outstanding septic issues must be resolved prior to issuance of the building permit. Staff has provided an analysis of the practical difficulties within the Staff report. The applicant has completed the practical difficulties analysis form and the Planning Commission may ask for additional testimony regarding this application or discuss the practical difficulty criteria. Staff finds that the location of the existing home, septic sites, and wetland/pond on the property make locating a conforming accessory structure, particularly an OAS in the size as permitted, difficult. The impact of a 1,200 square foot two-story barn will be mitigated by both the existing wooded areas and the separation between the barn building and the homes on adjacent properties. No public comments have been received regarding this application. Planning Staff recommends approval of the variance subject to the property owners agreeing with the oversize accessory covenants. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 17, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Timothy Sullivan, Applicant, stated he could answer any questions. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:53 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:53 p.m. Lemke asked if the applicant has spoken with the neighbors. Amy Sullivan indicated they have and that no one had any objection. Lemke commented the building makes sense. Leskinen stated in her view it meets the practical difficulty criteria as outlined in Staff's report. Leskinen stated given the deep setback of the house, there really is no other place to locate the structure. Thiesse noted all the other zoning requirements are met. Schoenzeit stated the proposal seems reasonable. 1% Schwingler moved, Schoenzeit seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3872, Revision, LLC, on behalf of Timothy and Amy Sullivan, 440 Brown Road South, granting of a variance subject to the property owners agreeing to the oversized accessory structure covenants that will be contained within the approval resolution and septic information being submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Date Application Received: 09/21/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 09/21/16 60 -Day Review Period Expires: 11/20/16 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Jessica Loftus, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner h'1GG Date: 12 October 2016 Subject: #16-3872, Revision LLC, o/b/o Timothy & Amy Sullivan, 440 Brown Road S, Variance Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a variance to permit construction of a 1,200 square foot accessory building (OAS) closer to the street than the principal structure. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval subject to the OAS covenant. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Proposed Survey/Site Plan Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. City Code Excerpts Exhibit F. Property Owners List Exhibit G. Plat Map Exhibit H. Septic preliminary analysis Exhibit /. Aerial Photos - Staff Background The applicants are new owners of the property and wish to construct a 1,200 square foot detached accessory building which will resemble a barn in appearance. The building is proposed to be set back approximately 175 feet from the front lot line; the home is set back approximately 220 feet. All other setbacks and zoning requirements will be met. FILE #16-3872 12 Oct 16 Page 2 of 4 LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-420, 78-1434, 78-1435, 78-1438 - Setbacks: RR -1B Required Existing Proposed Home 220' Front 50' Home 220' Barn 175' Home ±55' Rear 50' Home ±55' Barn ±160' Home 28.6' North Side 30' Home 28.6' Barn 30' Home 40.7' East Side 30' Home 40.7' Barn 170' Home ±220' West Side 30' Home ±220' Barn 132' Home ±340' South Side 30' Home ±340' Barn ±365' Home 34.5' Wetland 35' Home 34.5' Barn 151' Separation between 10' n/a House to Barn = 36' buildings Section 78-420 - Lot Area/Width: RR -1B Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres) 200' Actual 102,550 s.f. (2.5 acres) 100' @ cul-de-sac/+300 @ 50' setback Section 78-1403- Structural Coverage: The property exceeds 1.99 acres in area therefore structural coverage limits do not apply. Section 78-1434 — OAS (Area Restrictions): The property is 2.5 acres in area. A single oversized accessory structure (OAS) up to a 1,200 square foot footprint is permitted. Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations: The property is exempt from the Stormwater Quality Overlay District hardcover limitations. Applicable Regulations: Setback Variance (Sections 78-1434 & 78-1435) The applicants are proposing to construct an OAS closer to the street than the principal structure. A variance is required. Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique FILE #16-3872 12 Oct 16 Page 3 of 4 to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The proposed variance will be in harmony with the intent of the Zoning Code as the proposed structure will be screened from view from off the property by the topography and vegetation that exists between the proposed structure, the neighbors, and Brown Road. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The accessory building is residential in nature; and the variance would allow for the accessory building to be located in a screened portion of the property. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The location of the home is towards the very rear of the property; an accessory building cannot feasibly be constructed to meet the front setback. Construction of an accessory building in the proposed location is consistent with OAS setbacks and is reasonable on this rural 2.5 acre residential property. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The existing home on the property is approximately 220 feet from the front lot line and ±50 feet from the rear lot line. Additionally, the location of the septic sites and wetland on the property further restrict options. There are no conforming locations to construct the accessory building; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The accessory building will not be visually obtrusive when viewed from off of the property. It will appear as a barn, a typical rural residential structure, when viewed off site. This condition is met. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The location of the home on the property does not leave a conforming space to construct an accessory building. Additionally, the location of the septic sites and wetland on the property further restrict options. There are no conforming locations to construct the accessory building on the site. The building may only be partially visible from the western neighbor. 5. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The location of the home, septic sites, and wetland create a unique situation on the property. 6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The property is permitted accessory FILE #16-3872 12 Oct 16 Page 4 of 4 structures. The proposed structure meets all but the front setback due to the home location. This criterion is met. 7. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. The accessory building in the proposed location will not impair the health, safety, comfort or morals of the public. 8. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. There are no conforming locations to construct such an accessory building on the property; this criterion is met. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Septic System Status Staff has completed a preliminary review of the project for compatibility with the septic system, and has requested additional information from the application in order to determine whether the project is likely to impact the existing or future septic sites. The attached letter from the Building Official provides additional information. All outstanding septic issues must be resolved prior to the issuance of a building permit. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis Staff finds that the location of the existing home, septic sites, and wetland/pond on the property make locating a conforming accessory structure, particularly an OAS in the size as permitted, difficult. The impact of a 1,200 square foot "two story" barn will be mitigated by both the existing wooded areas and the distance between the building and the homes on adjacent properties. Public Comments No public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning staff recommends approval of the variance in conjunction with the property owners agreeing to the OAS covenants in the approval resolution. City of Orono Variance Application Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Main: 952-249-4600 fax: 952-2494616 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Application # of Date Received 0 Irl Staff m( - Fee Escrow # & $ Permit Fee Notes to — -5T1 -?— Please complete. Applicant will be notified within 15 days as to the status of the application. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agenda. SITE LOCATION: 440 RA S Otcha S 539) DESCRPTION OF REQUEST: Ate, lmh w t�L Onzigak., {e4 ,ns a�4acl�d] (attached additional sheets as'necessary) APPLICANT / AGENT INFORMATION: Applicant Name: A}. " , 4yv siz Phone (Primary): 9sz-r;0'1-�r-9 Applicant Email. 611UA6D, 14SWIww.-I Address: _ it � t •, - Si L Applicant is: Homeowner (Circle One) PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION: ❑ check here if property owner is same as applicant Name: Ts+r& m Sulk;v&h A X A",, k S�ttt••h Phone (Primary): aramiLlm Mailing Address: *io Email: ` APPLICANT/AGENT AND/OR OWNER: • Agree to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, • Agree to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and 3 Certify that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant and owner recognize that they are solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reject it until it is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of its potential merit. • Acknowledge the Escrow Agreement is completed and signed. • The Owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents, Commission and Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. • Owner and/or Applicant acknowledge they must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant and/or owner is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicantlowner and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. Applicant/Agent Signature: Date: K 2 Ire Applicant/Agent Signature: Date: Property Owner Signature: Date: Property Owner Signature: Date: Variance Application — May 2016 Page 2 38 SEP 21 2016 CITY OF ORONO DATA PRIVACY ADVISORY In accordance with Minnesota State Statute 13.04 Rights of Subjects of Data, Subd. 2, "Tennessen warning", we would like to inform you that your request for a permit or license from the City of Orono or any of its departments may require you to furnish certain private or confidential information. You are notified that: The information you furnish will be used to determine your qualification for the permit or license requested. 2. You may refuse to supply data, but refusal may require that the City deny the permit or license 3. The information may be shared with other local, state or federal agencies to the extent necessary to process the permit or license. 4. If your requested permit or license requires Council action to approve, some information may become public. 5. You have certain rights under Minnesota State Statute 13.04 (see following page) to review private data on yourself. 6. Your full name is required to process this application or permit. l VYl _ First Middle Last fi o Y; OUJ" �d S Address 0Grno AAN SS3. 91 City State Zip Phone understand my rights asptated above. Signature Variance Application — May 2016 Page 10 3872 RECEIVED SEP 2 7 ZOiis CITY OF ORONO rG iIFvtT- i> PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An application will not be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the City. Minnesota State Statutes Section 462.357, Subdivision 6(2) requires that practical difficulties be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. The difficulties must be unique to the property as variances run with the land and not the land owner. Personal and economic situations are not considered valid practical difficulties. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council practical difficulties having merit must be demonstrated. HOW DO I PROVE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if practical difficulties exist and how the variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove practical difficulties, address all the relevant points listed below and answer them as clearly as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is justified. The information the City receives is what is used in determining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave something out it will not be considered. Please address each of the twelve practical difficulties criteria as they relate to the request, if they do not apply, write N/A in the space provided: 1. "The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter." CG .1 nv 2 2. "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." 3. "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." Yes 4. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." kasoy%-1k —k c.x.0 c.. hv4111kc. os p -t2 6.ak bel- 1.o�se, 5. "Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter." 6. "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located." R,i RECEIVED Variance Application - May 2016 SEP 21 2016 Page 4 CITY OF ORONO #3872 7. "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." cis 9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." 10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." )p(ig p y 11. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code." 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate`r demiionstrable difficulty." j l 1 1 Practical Difficulties Statement Should you feel the practical difficulties cannot fully be described in the above criteria, describe the practical difficulties preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary): �S bili. 0Y\ m RECEIVE® SEP C 1 Z016 Variance Application — May 2016 Page 5i 387? ; CITY OF ORONO 1.110 HlIM SXOV813S 11V A31a3A SNVId 03SOdO8d H11M SNOIIVA313 (INV SNOIS143YiI0 11V AA83A NOUM803M 1N3N43SV3 80 31111 aid 30NVHO 01 1031 9f1S SI A3A8IlS 03MO11V OH 3S L£99Z = %SZ X OV S'Z /3S OSSZOI = V3dv 10l ZLOO-Z4-£Z-4'14-£O#OId S OVON NMON8 044 - SS3KOV 'NW `ASWOO NId3NN3H `010HONOa1S 'l. XOTM '£ 101 M11ddOSM 1V931 3'S" I 1 / jS ZeZ1 I - 0350"d G VV NII n-?& Ol .:MWISIX3 7V101 X71/3S 0991= 74'1171 35 009= 3A!2!0 .IS' 091I = N60 VS (V) O3SOd021d %9'5/35 L -000L = 1V101 3S 004 a 5I1VMN AS 0999 - 3A1a0 3S SLZ = XMOIiVd 3S 55Z = X1aMa3 3S 09t = HX030 35 OSZ9XO30 AS L9L4 = 3Sf1OH ONUSIX3 a3AO00aVH S9219Z .7 „Z9,99.69 N e---------------------------- -- - �-� - I / v �LEx I I — ------ 0S• r \, 1 1 GVO,:Y NM 0616 I f /f NOUVA313 800 -IJ 1S3MOl - 391 NOUVA313 N011VONi103 30 d01 = 331 r j NOIIVAI13 X10013 30V8VO - 3AD / 3NI1 Airvin OV3HUAO - -HO ONVHH3AO a383A3111NV3 - HW 39aNlV80 30V32#f15 N01133a10 = ..,.. r N011VA313 10d5 0354dOLd •(0"966)X f - ` %l k - ' / ' l .� _ 'NOI1VA313 lOdS 0NI151X3 = �. 133A NI 3�d�S p _41 1 9'� 1 1 � 1 I i . 'o .IL6� at '\� qty \_ ✓� r or At E L o -L46 -3e1 G Z@ -31- Aci � h; t$ "bLb �` pix L4 7 -7S/70H c L/ �L `SNIJ9X3 b N?JV8 SLS �ti 1 ¢L6 f ab r 'GSxi , I W • "0 � -- ___ _ 1 _----.WELS Af „Z£',9S 69 N e orlap�"" a LLzx e .. .. .. .. . \ LOFT FLOOR GARAGE CEILING .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . hl IB R SHOP CEILING `P a e _ C e m .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . IBR AL: GARAGE BOOR 0 � a3 I m � _ I DBL NUIG GONG 9 10'-8" X Id -B" 9 m� I _ 10'-41'GLG. &ARAW mAm 1 m� 8'-4S'' GLG. WORK 9Nop CGJC. 1 :u mp ro 9 14'-0'X'B'-0" OrERNEpD DOOR m 32%44 DBL W1JG �� 0n e .. .. .. .. . \ LOFT FLOOR GARAGE CEILING .. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . hl IB R SHOP CEILING S a e _ C e m .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . GARAGE BOOR COPYRIGHT 2816, ALEXANDER DESIGN GROUP, INC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L- — — — I GROUND FLOOR PLAN 2 LOFT PLAN SCALE: I/4"•I'-0" �I8O SFQ SCALE: I/4"•I'-0" �("s(c'J 5F 3 FRONT ELEVATION 4 RIGHT ELEVATION 2SCALE: I/4"•I'-0" hl IB R VAIUyL�TEp�D�GLG. pLyB�pp a3 DBL NUIG 20'-0e I GROUND FLOOR PLAN 2 LOFT PLAN SCALE: I/4"•I'-0" �I8O SFQ SCALE: I/4"•I'-0" �("s(c'J 5F 3 FRONT ELEVATION 4 RIGHT ELEVATION 2SCALE: I/4"•I'-0" PC Exhibit E City Code Excerpts Sec. 58-50. - More restrictive design and construction standards. All ISTS permit applications, site evaluations, design specifications, construction methods, and material specifications shall meet the parts of Minnesota Rules chapter 7080 adopted by reference in section 58-43 with the following additional minimum standards: (1) Site evaluation. The site evaluation report shall include the following: a. Soil borings. At least three soil borings shall be completed for each new drainfield site designed. Each soil boring must be located within the drainfield site or within close proximity along similar contours such that similar soil conditions are likely. For additions to an ISTS, at least one soil boring shall be made in the expansion area. b. Percolation tests. At least two percolation tests shall be completed for each new drainfield site designed. Each percolation test must be located within the drainfield site or within close proximity along similar contours such that similar soil conditions are likely. For additions to existing ISTS's, at least one percolation test shall be completed in the expansion area. C. Plot plan. A scale drawing of the entire lot showing the following: 1. All property lines and lot dimensions. 2. All existing and proposed structures. 3. All existing or proposed well locations, or water supply piping. 4. Relative elevations of house, lot corners and drainfield areas. 5. Slope of ground at drainfield sites by contour lines or direction arrows and slope percentages. 6. Location of all percolation test holes and soil borings with identifying symbols and relative ground elevations of each. 7. Primary and alternate drainfield areas identified. 8. Distance from primary and alternate drainfield areas to property lines, well locations, and any lake, stream, marsh or drainage channel within 75 feet of any part of the system. (2) ISTS design. ISTS design specifications shall include proposed flows or other sizing information, minimum sewage tank capacity, minimum soil treatment area requirements, a plan of the component layout, and all other information necessary to assure the city that the ISTS is designed and will be constructed to receive, treat and dispose of all of the sewage from the building served. Footing or roof drainage, water softener recharge water, garage floor drainage, toxic chemicals, flammable liquids, animal wastes, commercial process water and commercial kitchen grease shall not enter any portion of the ISTS but shall be separately treated and disposed of according to the applicable regulations of the MPCA, the state board of health and the city. a. Setbacks. The minimum setback distance requirements are as follows: Page 1 Sewage Soil Feature Tank Treatment (feet) Area Water supply well: Deep well Shallow well Wetland Lake: General development Recreational development Natural environment Tributaries, streams Driveways, sidewalks, decks and other hardcover Property lines, buildings and buried pipes Lawn sprinkler systems 75 10 10 10 b. Sewage tanks. The minimum sewage tank size requirements are as follows: Number of Tank's Liquid Capacities Bedrooms (gallons) 4 or less 1,000 + 1,000 regardless of garbage disposal use 5 or 6 1,250 + 1,000 regardless of garbage disposal use 7, 8 or 9 1,500 + 1,500 regardless of garbage disposal use 50 100 50 75 75 150 75 10 20 10 Page 2 10 or more Sewage tanks shall be sized as other establishments per Minnesota Rules chapter 7080. c. Pumping stations. In order to standardize installation and electrical connection methods, the following pumping station requirements must be met in addition to Minnesota Rules chapter 7080: 1. Electrical connection. A watertight, lockable electrical box must be mounted on a four -inch -by -four -inch treated redwood or cedar post. ii. All electrical connections shall be made within the box. Pump connection must not be made using a direct line (plug-in only). Wire entry to the electrical box shall be sealed with a watertight material such as foam or putty. iii. Alarm and pump floats shall be on separate electrical circuits. iv. Electrical wire from the power supply must not run over any tanks but must be laid beside the tanks and placed in conduit along the electrical post. v. Electrical cords from the pump and floats must be run through a two-inch PVC (or equivalent) conduit (schedule 80) with a one -inch gap between the conduit and the electrical box. Electrical cords must not run through or under the manhole cover. Wires must not have ground contact. 2. Pumping chamber. Pressure pipe exiting the pumping chamber must be laid on a uniform slope up to the soil treatment area for proper drain back. The pressure pipe must be sleeved inside a larger diameter pipe for additional support if spanning ground that has been excavated. If the pipe at the tank must be lower than union to get elevation for drain back, a one -quarter -inch weep hole must be used. ii. When the soil depth above the pressure distribution pipe is less than 3% feet, insulation must be added to achieve an insulating factor equal to 3% feet of soil to decrease the potential for freezing (Styrofoam or concentric piping are acceptable methods). Piping under hardcover, such as tennis courts or driveways, shall be insulated pipe or equivalent. iii. A reserve capacity equaling 75 percent of the anticipated daily flow must be allowed in the pumping chamber between the alarm activation level and the pump tank inlet. d. Drainfields. 1. Trenches. Trenches must meet Minnesota Rules chapter 7080. 2. Mounds and at -grades. Mounds and at -grades must meet specifications per Minnesota Rules chapter 7080. (3) Compliance standards. a. A new system shall be located, designed and constructed as a code system. Page 3 b. When an existing code system is repaired or expanded, such ISTS shall remain a code system. Compliant systems, when repaired, shall be upgraded to a code system status whenever such classification is reasonably attainable. (4) Construction procedures. a. Protection of drainfield area. Proposed drainfield areas shall be identified and marked off on the lot at the time of the site evaluation and prior to any construction or grading occurring in the area. The drainfield area shall remain undisturbed until drainfield construction is commenced. No vehicular traffic shall be allowed in the drainfield area either before or after drainfield installation. b. Favorable weather required. Drainfield area or trench construction must not proceed if the area is wet or has had rain within 48 hours. Mound ortrench construction shall not proceed unless the soil moisture content is below the plastic limit. C. Construction inspection required. The contractor issued a permit for ISTS construction shall perform all work according to the design specifications approved by the city for each particular ISTS. All subsurface work, including building sewer, sewage tanks, distribution system and soil treatment area shall be inspected by the city inspector prior to backfilling or covering of any portion thereof. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to notify the city at least 24 hours prior to the time an inspection will be required, and it shall be the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the inspection is accomplished and the construction is approved prior to any backfilling, covering or continuation of the construction. (Code 1984, § 12.30(5); Ord. No. 100 2nd series, § 4, 2-10-1992; Ord. No. 147 2nd series, §§ 11-15, 5- 13-1996; Ord. No. 199 2nd series, § 1(12.30(5)), 5-8-2000; Ord. No. 38 3rd series, § 1, 9-24-2007) Sec. 78-420. - Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in the RR -113 district shall exceed 2% stories and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. (b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Lot Lot Front Area Width Yard (acres) (feet) (feet) 2 200 50 —T Sec. 78-1434. - Area restrictions. Side Yard Side Rear Adjacent Yard Yard to Street (feet) feet (feet) (feet) 30 50 50 In all R districts, no accessory building shall exceed 1,000 square feet of footprint area; except that accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet will be allowed under the following conditions: (1) Not more than one oversized accessory structure (OAS) shall be permitted on any property. An oversized accessory structure is defined as an accessory structure of footprint area in excess of 1,000 square feet, except that the following nonroofed accessory structures which exceed 1,000 Page 4 square feet footprint area are not considered as oversize accessory structures, but are subject to the special setback restrictions of section 78-1404. a. Tennis courts and sport courts. b. Pools, when pool basin structure (excluding nonencroachment-type patios) is greater than 1,000 square feet. C. Paddocks or arenas. (2) Oversized accessory structures are regulated by the following table: * Excluding nonroofed tennis courts, sport courts, pools, paddocks, arenas. Page 5 Maximum Maximum Allowed Total Individual of All Accessory Lot Area Accessory Structure (acres) Structure Footprint Footprint Area Areas* on (square feet) a Property (square feet) 1,000 2,000 0-1.99 2.00-3.00 1,200 2,400 3.01-3.50 1,400 2,800 3.51-4.00 3,200 1,600 4.01-4.50 3,600 1,800 4.51-5.00 2,000 4,000 5.01-6.00 2,200 4,400 6.01-7.00 2,400 4,800 7.01-8.00 2,600 5,200 8.01-9.00 2,800 5,600 9.01 or more 3,000 6,000 * Excluding nonroofed tennis courts, sport courts, pools, paddocks, arenas. Page 5 (3) Any oversize accessory structure shall be subject to the following conditions: No such accessory structure shall be located within a required yard area (principal structure setbacks must be met). Further, no such structure shall be nearer the front lot line than the front line of the principal residence on the property, and no such accessory structure shall be located less than 30 feet from the side or rear lot line regardless whether less strict principal structure setbacks apply. b. The maximum height for such accessory structure shall be 30 feet or the defined height of the principal residence structure on the property, whichever is less. Such structure shall be allowed only when the property owner agrees and covenants in writing with the city as follows: No future subdivision will be approved that places the structure within a lot that has no principal structure, except that the city in its subdivision approval may grant a finite time period in which the oversized accessory structure may remain without a principal structure, in order that a principal structure may be constructed. At the end of this time period, the oversized accessory structure must be removed if no principal structure has been constructed. If the property is subdivided, the oversize accessory structure and principal structure will be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size of accessory building. In subdivision approval, the setback required for the oversize accessory structure shall remain. Such covenant shall be binding on current and future property owners and shall be filed in the chain of title of the property. (Code 1984, § 10.03(9)(C); Ord. No. 106 3rd series, § 24, 6-10-2013) Sec. 78-1435. - Location. Except as may be specifically provided, no detached garage or other accessory building shall be located nearer to the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot. Detached garages or other accessory buildings on lots which have frontage on a lake may be located between the rear yards of such lots and the principal building only if setback requirements of section 78-305(b), section 78-330(b) and section 78-350(b) are met. Exception: Detached garages on lots that have frontage on a lake may be located ten feet from the street or rear lot line when doors face away from the street and an adequate vehicle turnaround is provided on the site. This section shall not apply to lakeshore lots that are divided by streets or private roads or are corner lots. (Code 1984, § 10.03(9)(D); Ord. No. 52 3rd series, § 2, 11-24-2008; Ord. No. 106 3rd series, § 25, 6-10- 2013) Sec. 78-1438. - Crowding principal building. No accessory building, unless an integral part of the principal building, shall be erected, altered or moved within ten feet of the principal building, nor within ten feet of another accessory building. (Code 1984, § 10.03(12); Ord. No. 165 3rd series, § 1, 3-14-2016) Page 6 Sec. 78-1439. - Garages. Accessory buildings which are for the storage of automobiles shall have the doors 30 feet or more from the property line when the doors face on a public alley or street. (Code 1984, § 10.03(13)) Sec. 78-1605. - Wetland buffer areas and setbacks. (a) This subsection establishes authority for wetland buffer areas around protected wetlands. Buffer areas are necessary and beneficial to maintain the health of wetlands. Buffer areas protect the edge of wetlands from erosion while filtering sediment, chemicals and other nutrients from runoff that drains into wetlands. Buffer areas can improve the biological diversity and health of a wetland environment while reducing the adverse impacts of human activities. (b) All wetlands within the City of Orono are within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), which has rules and regulations for the establishment and maintenance of wetland buffers. In an effort to avoid overlapping or conflicting regulations, the city defers jurisdiction for the establishment and maintenance of wetland buffers to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. If application of MCWD buffer regulations is in conflict with city regulations, the more restrictive requirements shall apply. (c) In order to provide for a minimum level of wetland protection where Minnehaha Creek Watershed District buffer rules do not provide for adequate separation between wetlands and buildings or other structures or surfaces, the city shall require setbacks from the delineated edge of a protected wetland as follows: Minimum distance setback from delineated edge of wetland to any building (principal or accessory) or other structure, hardcover, septic systems or wells: Where no formal buffer exists and where MCWD does not require a 35 feet buffer Where a formal buffer exists or 35 feet or established buffer width plus 10 feet, whichever is where MCWD buffer is required greater Areas within the required setback area subject to filling, grading or excavation as part of a construction project shall be revegetated immediately upon completion of such earthwork. Setbacks must be verified with wetland delineation information. The determination of whether a Level 1 delineation or Level 2 delineation is required shall be at the discretion of the planning director. Level 2 delineation information shall be provided on a certified certificate of survey. The requirement for delineation shall be applied in cases where the wetland exists within 150 feet of the proposed project. (d) The City of Orono has established wetland protection strategies in the Orono Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) (January 2011). A protection classification has been assigned to each wetland in Orono based on the stormwater susceptibility and functional assessment for each Page 7 wetland. The city has also established additional protection requirements for each classification. The four protection classifications are described as follows: Protection Susceptibility Classification Rating IIQ "Manage 1" "Manage 2" ;hly �ptible Moderately Susceptible Slightly Susceptible Description Highly susceptible to both quantity and quality impacts from runoff; have the highest degree of protection Moderately susceptible to quantity and quality impacts; protection is less stringent than Preserve, provides protection to maintain their characteristics Less stringent protection than Manage 1 wetlands; maintenance of characteristics is desirable Wetlands are significantly degraded (e.g., Least cultivated or canary grass monotype) or lack "Manage 3" Susceptible of wetland characteristics; not typically impacted by runoff; no quantity and only limited quality treatment of runoff is required Additional Protection Requirements (B = Bounce = Change in water level due to runoff event) (P = Phosphorus) B: Maintain bounce at or below existing conditions P: Limit loadings to predevelopment loading (0.14 Lbs/Ac/Yr) B: Maintain bounce at or below existing conditions plus 0.5 foot P: Limit loadings to predevelopment loadings times 2 (0.28 Lbs/Ac/Yr) B: Maintain bounce at or below existing conditions plus 1.0 foot P: Limit concentration to predevelopment concentrations (200 ppb) B: No quantity requirement P: Limit concentration to 225 ppb The protection classification for each wetland will be found on the "Wetland Management Classification Map & List" which is hereby adopted by reference, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the city clerk and shall be available for public review during all normal office hours. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District required buffer area widths are based on the four protection classifications. Page 8 (Ord. No. 28 3rd series, § 1, 8-22-2005; Ord. No. 103 3rd series, § 2, 5-28-2013) Page 9 RUN DATE: 04109!2016 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM (PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PAGE: 1 38 03-117-23 13 0003 LONGRIDGE ASSOCIATES 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 00000 LONGRIDGE ASSOCIATES P O BOX 5628 MPLS MN 55440-5628 38 03-117-23 I4 0001 LONGRIDGE ASSOCIATES 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 00000 LONGRIDGE ASSOCIATES P O BOX 5628 MPLS MN 55440-5628 38 03-117-23 41 0006 LONGRIDGE ASSOCIATES 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 00000 LONGRIDGE ASSOCIATES CIO ROBERT J THE.LER PO BOX 5628 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440-5628 38 03-117-23 41 0007 CRAIGBANK HOLDINGS LLC 1700 FOX ST ORONO MN 55391 CRAIGBANK HOLDINGS LLC 15407 MCGINTY RD W WAYZATA MN 5539: 38 03-117-23 42 001 I E W BREHM III & K H BREHM 430 BROWN RD S ORONO MN 55391 KRISTEN & EDWARD W BREHM 430 BROWN RD S WAYZATA MN 5539i 38 03-117-23 42 0012 T M SULLIVANIAMY K SULLIVAN 440 BROWN RD S. ORONO MN 55391 TIMOTHY M SULLIVAN AMY K SULLIVAN 440 BROWN RD S WAYZATA MN 55391 38 03-117-23 42 0013 JOHN B & LINDA F MASSOPUST 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 00000 JOHN B & LINDA F MASSOPUST 500 WASHINGTON AVE SO SUITE 4000 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 38 03-117-23 42 0014 JOHN B & LINDA F MASSOPUST 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 00000 JOHN B & LINDA F MASSOPUST 500 WASHINGTON AVE S SUITE 4000 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 38 03-117-23 420015 STEVEN D & DEBORAH W BLUM 1880 FOX ST ORONO MN 55391 STEVEN D & DEBORAH W SLUM 1880 FOX ST WAYZATA MN 55391 38 03-117-23 42 0016 MICHAEL J & JENNIFER J OLSON 1860 FOX ST ORONO MN 55391 MICHAEL J OLSON JENNIFER J OLSON 1860 FOX ST WAYZATA MN 55391 RECEIVE® SEP 21 2016 t CITY OF ORONO A Hennepin County has developed electronic forms of certain property information databases. Hennepin County makes reasonable efforts to produce and publish the most current property information available. The viewer should understand, however, that Hennepin County makes no representation or warranties, either express or implied, or as to merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose regarding the accuracy and/or completeness of the information contained herein. SEP 2 1 Z016 MY OF ORONO Hennepin County Lacots & Notify Map Provided By. Resident and Real Estate Services Dale 9/9/2016 Buffer Size. 350 feet Map Comments: 0311723420012 T M SULLIVAN/AMY K SULLIVAN 440 Brown Road South Orono, MN 55391 0 120 240 480 ft RECEIVED For more information contact: Hennepin County GIS Office 'C y 300 6th Street South d 2016 Minneapolis, MN 55487 gis.info@hennepin.us C»' OF ORONO # 3872, PC &I -M air t+ From: Roger Peitso Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 8:53 AM To: Melanie Curtis Subject: RE: 440 Brown Road S / #16-3872 Melanie, The septic system is currently compliant to today's standards and was last inspected in 2008. Per City of Orono Code Sec. 58-47 an alternate site shall be identified and approved by the City before a permit for this project can be issued. Also, all of the septic tanks need to be identified and verify the location of the 4" supply line from the septic tanks to the pump tank. Ti hey locations of the tanks should be reflected on the current survey. If the supply line is going to be under the proposed driveway for the accessory structure it will need to be insulated. If the supply line is going to be under the new building it will need to be moved. Whatever the findin-s are any corrections need to be designed by a licensed septic designer and a permit will be required for the alteration of the septic system. Roger Peitso Building Official City of Orono Phone: 952-249-4600 Direct: 952-249-4625 Email: rpeitso@ci.orono.mn.us Fax: 952-249-4616 From: Melanie Curtis Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 9:39 AM To: Roger Peitso <rpeitso@ci.orono.mn.us> Subject: RE: 440 Brown Road S / #16-3872 Have you had a chance to review this?? Melanie Curtis 9952.249.4627 ®mcurtisC@ci.orono.mn.us From: Melanie Curtis Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:00 AM To: Roger Peitso <rpeitso@ci.orono.mn.us> Subject: 440 Brown Road S / #16-3872 -A S P'd u.vo-F.q e IRw t -b h CYS Wiry �i^ P r .. .... ryr um IF Date Application Received: 09/21/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 09/21/16 60 -Day Review Period Expires: 11/20/16 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: 11-14-16 Item No. 19 Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Melanie Curtis i'YGG Y"-4 Planning Title: Planner Item Description: #16-3873, Ryan & Natalie Blackwell, 80 Smith Avenue, Variances Application Summary: The applicants are requesting side yard and front yard setback variances in order to enlarge the attached garage, main floor footprint, and second story area of the existing home; two new decks are also proposed. Nearly the entire home is within the required front yard setback. Planning Commission Recommendation On October 17, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the application including the evidence submitted. Following the public hearing the Commission voted 5 to 0 on a motion to approve the variances as requested. Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval. A draft approval resolution has been provided for Council's consideration. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Council should consider adopting or amending the approval resolution. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Exhibit B. Exhibit C. Exhibit D. Exhibit E. Exhibit F. Draft Resolution Survey & Plans PC Action Notice Draft PC Minutes PC Staff Report PC Exhibits CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-420 FILE NO. 16-3873 WHEREAS, Ryan Scott Blackwell and Natalie Osdoba Blackwell, a married couple (hereinafter the "Applicants"), are the owners of the property located at 80 Smith Avenue and legally described as: Lot 42, Orono Orchards, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "Property"); WHEREAS, on September 21, 2016, the Applicants made application to the City of Orono for variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-420 to allow construction of rear decks, and main floor and second story additions to the existing home 22.3 feet from the front lot line; and 11.8 feet from the north side lot line where 50 foot front and 30 foot side yard setbacks are required; and WHEREAS, on October 17, 2016, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variances; and WHEREAS, on November 14, 2016, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested variances as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property: FINDINGS OF FACT: This application was reviewed as Zoning File #16-3873.The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2. The Property is located in the RR -113 One Family Rural Residential Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 0.87 acres in area and has a defined lot width of approximately 60 feet. 4. Applicant has applied for the following variance[s]: a. Front Setback Variance b. Side Setback Variance 5. In considering this application for variances, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. ANALYSIS: 1. "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance ...." The proposed footprint addition, decks, and second story addition are residential in nature. There is adequate space for light, air and open space between the home and Smith Avenue; the proposed second story addition will not further encroach into the front or side setbacks. The variances are in harmony with the Ordinance. 2. "Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan." The variances for improvements to a single family residence in a residential zone are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as well as the character of the neighborhood. 3. "Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. `Practical difficulties,' as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that: a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls. The request to permit construction of additions to the home, within the 30 foot side and 50 foot front setback areas appears to be reasonable as the adjacent properties do not appear to be adversely impacted; the mature vegetation and topography separate the Property from both roadways as well as adjacent neighbors. The setback encroachments will not create an unreasonable perception of additional massing. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The location, size, and orientation of the home on the Property were not the result of actions by the Applicants. The portion of the neighboring home to the north is a one-story garage set back sufficiently to allow for light, air, and open space between the two homes. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. " The proposed additions to the home will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The existing home garage is set back 36 feet from the paved roadway of Smith Avenue and it does not appear that a second story addition will adversely impact the neighbor to the north. Further, the existing home is lower on the hill than Smith Avenue, and when compared to properties to the north, further reducing the impact. 4. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties." The Applicants have not indicated economic reasons for their variance request. 5. "Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78." This criterion is not applicable. 6. "The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located." The proposed additions are residential in nature and are permitted. This criterion is met. 7. "The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." This criterion is not applicable. 8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." The Property is a corner lot with a defined front yard on Smith Avenue. The home (according to Hennepin County) was constructed in 1947 and is in a nonconforming location on the Property. The proposed improvements will not increase the footprint nonconformity within either setback. 9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located." The topography, which drops off steadily as you move east, the CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. narrowness of the lot, as well as the nonconforming location of the home on the lot make the Property unique. 10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." Options for conforming expansions of living space, including going upward, are severely limited on the Property. Staff finds the variances are necessary to preserve the property right of the Applicants. 11. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter." Granting the requested variances will not adversely impact health, safety, comfort, or morals; nor will it be contrary to the intent of the Code. 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty." The lot width, the location and size of the existing home, as well as site topography, create practical difficulties affecting the Property; the variances are necessary and will not merely serve as a convenience to the Applicants. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-420 to allow for the construction of rear decks, and main floor and second story additions to the existing home within the side and front setbacks. The footprint and second story expansions are permitted 22.3 feet from the front lot line; and 11.8 feet from the north side lot line where 50 foot front and 30 foot side yard setbacks are required, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the survey dated September 16, 2016 and building plans submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A & B (hereinafter the "Plans"). Any amendments to the Plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction and commencing construction of said project. A framing inspection must be completed within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variances will expire on that date (November 14, 2017). CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4. The undersigned Applicants have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the Applicants and the Applicants' heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the Property. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 14th day of November, 2016. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor Property Owner STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. Property Owner This instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20, by Ryan Scott Blackwell, husband of Natalie Osdoba Blackwell. STATE OF MINNE" COUNTY OF HEW This instrument was acknowledged before me this _day of 20_, by Natalie Osdoba Blackwell, wife of Ryan Scott Blackwell. Notary Public C Resolution Exhibit A Jar � xbe � n A YR I ✓ x w ✓��� -- _ e-- ------ - I/I m m=£ o`�"vvomo mo' av ° � j s;.. o 9 0 o u u o u u� � • D z 0 moo _gym a m °9m O a CD I/I m m=£ tI p 9 °9m O a CD 3nN3Av uliws acacia • ARCHITECTS, ��c 74*r RWgw" rad • cuxs4y, Golden Va", MN 55427 a renovation to the home of I� m Ryan Blackwell & Natalie Osdoba Blackwell 80 Smith Avenue - Orono, MN 55391 acacia • ARCHITECTS, LLC 14d3 Ridgeway Rd • 61x.544 -w65 Golden Vasey, MN 55427 hibit B a renovation to the home of iv m Ryan Blackwell & Natalie Osdoba Blackwell 80 Smith Avenue Orono, MN 55391 acacia • ARCHITECTS, LLC 14d3 Ridgeway Rd • 61x.544 -w65 Golden Vasey, MN 55427 hibit B C rn 70 r rn rn r Z Fn Fn 1 rn O 70 rn rn L rRus 0 O WALK-IN GLOSEi (N IIIA --� GIRDER TRVS _ u[rce51DKrH N � O I � oII D5LOPED CLG � N u ;i FlfTURE WINDOW SE. O DRC55ER 7'-2' 5MNG LINE ANDING ---- -NEW ------ - a renovation to the home of 2 STAIR o. m Ryan Blackwell & Natalie Osdoba Blackwell - 6-312- rn� Seo$ inn (l yl n F LINE Orono, MN 55391 ANDING ---- -NEW ------ - a renovation to the home of W STAIR m Ryan Blackwell & Natalie Osdoba Blackwell 80 Smith Avenue Orono, MN 55391 �N 36" WALL Dowty A a _ Uil 2'-6°DR --� ----------- 7, 6"DR SLOPED CLG N 800K SNELVFS FUTURE LOW CABINETS 5LOPED CLG a vrnnnO a3A�n �pcyn0 $a D� acacia • ARCHITECTS, LLC 14d3 Ridgeway Rd • 61x.544 -w65 Golden Vasey, MN 55427 a renovation to the home of W m Ryan Blackwell & Natalie Osdoba Blackwell 80 Smith Avenue Orono, MN 55391 acacia • ARCHITECTS, LLC 14d3 Ridgeway Rd • 61x.544 -w65 Golden Vasey, MN 55427 =0 <rn 1170 r b rn rn r Z rn Q n n Z A rn z �I 7 \1 FO a renovation to the home of "Nibm - Ryan Blackwell & Natalie Osdoba Blackwell ° O rn Orono, MN 55391 h, rn r 8� A o� m ❑❑� 5*5 j Z '""cJ LAUNDRY 03 rn r -a vzcw a cTa n Nie 70 a ` S E 2x10 JolsT5 �q l6"o.c.� R O Om n� mAzp< oda o�No II ➢i� rn��O� a;z-y 3'-0 - >i Ix4 �220TR )JRICEDARSNG A OCIE PORCH ADO g °- A �- El`LI�s7 q) o9o oD a p . Fozn- 0 g -------- ---- �n aQ _____________ __ Fo D' -g o A � z _ Aya�_ -- to K --z o X002 - p "' F m N A Ex15TING WNDW jj oNmI ➢ I I I I, imp rn I-0 T Up 'C z� �Z �rn z �➢ m3UFAz oN Foo I oNa F mn F ?oma<Ao_oAoc� o� ° ;zpNO I -I� °� � I � STAIR p £ N TO PATIO < 9DOOR (3 EQUAL PANELS) - FUTURE PATIO ------------------- acacia • ARCHITECTS, LLC 2423 Ridgeway Rd • 61x.544 -w65 Golden Vasey, AN 55427 a renovation to the home of "Nibm Ryan Blackwell & Natalie Osdoba Blackwell ° 80 Smith Avenue Orono, MN 55391 acacia • ARCHITECTS, LLC 2423 Ridgeway Rd • 61x.544 -w65 Golden Vasey, AN 55427 N O c z rn rn rn D O z G rn N rn r rn G O z acacia • ARCHITECTS, LLC 14d3 Ridgeway Rd • 61x.544 -w65 Golden Vasey, MN 55427 a renovation to the home of r m Ryan Blackwell & Natalie Osdoba Blackwell 80 Smith Avenue Orono, MN 55391 acacia • ARCHITECTS, LLC 14d3 Ridgeway Rd • 61x.544 -w65 Golden Vasey, MN 55427 cacI acacia • ARCHITECTS, ��c 14*r RWgw" rad • cuxs4y, Golden Va", MN 55427 a renovation to the home of r� Ryan Blackwell & Natalie Osdoba Blackwell 80 Smith Avenue - Orono, MN 55391 i rn Cn rn r— rn D O z Jar � xbe � n A YR I ✓ x w ✓��� -- _ e-- ------ - I/I m m=£ o`�"vvomo mo' av ° � j s;.. o X91 0 o u u o u u� � • D z 0 moo _gym a m °9m O a CD I/I m m=£ tI p X91 °9m O a CD 3nN3Av uliws acacia • ARCHITECTS, ��c 74*r RWgw" rad • cuxs4y, Golden Va", MN 55427 a renovation to the home of I� m Ryan Blackwell & Natalie Osdoba Blackwell 80 Smith Avenue - Orono, MN 55391 acacia • ARCHITECTS, LLC 14d3 Ridgeway Rd • 61x.544 -w65 Golden Vasey, MN 55427 a renovation to the home of iv m Ryan Blackwell & Natalie Osdoba Blackwell 80 Smith Avenue Orono, MN 55391 acacia • ARCHITECTS, LLC 14d3 Ridgeway Rd • 61x.544 -w65 Golden Vasey, MN 55427 C rn 70 r rn rn r Z Fn Fn 1 rn O 70 rn rn L rRus 0 O WALK-IN GLOSEi (N IIIA --� GIRDER TRVS _ u[rce51DKrH N � O I � oII D5LOPED CLG � N u ;i FlfTURE WINDOW SE. O DRC55ER 7'-2' 5MNG LINE ANDING ---- -NEW ------ - a renovation to the home of 2 STAIR o. m Ryan Blackwell & Natalie Osdoba Blackwell - 6-312- rn� Seo$ inn (l yl n F LINE Orono, MN 55391 ANDING ---- -NEW ------ - a renovation to the home of W STAIR m Ryan Blackwell & Natalie Osdoba Blackwell 80 Smith Avenue Orono, MN 55391 �N 36" WALL Dowty A a _ Uil 2'-6°DR --� ----------- 7, 6"DR SLOPED CLG N 800K SNELVFS FUTURE LOW CABINETS 5LOPED CLG a vrnnnO a3A�n �pcyn0 $a D� acacia • ARCHITECTS, LLC 14d3 Ridgeway Rd • 61x.544 -w65 Golden Vasey, MN 55427 a renovation to the home of W m Ryan Blackwell & Natalie Osdoba Blackwell 80 Smith Avenue Orono, MN 55391 acacia • ARCHITECTS, LLC 14d3 Ridgeway Rd • 61x.544 -w65 Golden Vasey, MN 55427 =0 <rn 1170 r b rn rn r Z rn Q n n Z A rn z �I 7 \1 FO a renovation to the home of "Nibm - Ryan Blackwell & Natalie Osdoba Blackwell ° O rn Orono, MN 55391 h, rn r 8� A o� m ❑❑� 5*5 j Z '""cJ LAUNDRY 03 rn r -a vzcw a cTa n Nie 70 a ` S E 2x10 JolsT5 �q l6"o.c.� R O Om n� mAzp< oda o�No II ➢i� rn��O� a;z-y 3'-0 - >i Ix4 �220TR )JRICEDARSNG A OCIE PORCH ADO g °- A �- El`LI�s7 q) o9o oD a p . Fozn- 0 g -------- ---- �n aQ _____________ __ Fo D' -g o A � z _ Aya�_ -- to K --z o X002 - p "' F m N A Ex15TING WNDW jj oNmI ➢ I I I I, imp rn I-0 T Up 'C z� �Z �rn z �➢ m3UFAz oN Foo I oNa F mn F ?oma<Ao_oAoc� o� ° ;zpNO I -I� °� � I � STAIR p £ N TO PATIO < 9DOOR (3 EQUAL PANELS) - FUTURE PATIO ------------------- acacia • ARCHITECTS, LLC 2423 Ridgeway Rd • 61x.544 -w65 Golden Vasey, AN 55427 a renovation to the home of "Nibm Ryan Blackwell & Natalie Osdoba Blackwell ° 80 Smith Avenue Orono, MN 55391 acacia • ARCHITECTS, LLC 2423 Ridgeway Rd • 61x.544 -w65 Golden Vasey, AN 55427 N O c z rn rn rn D O z G rn N rn r rn G O z acacia • ARCHITECTS, LLC 14d3 Ridgeway Rd • 61x.544 -w65 Golden Vasey, MN 55427 a renovation to the home of r m Ryan Blackwell & Natalie Osdoba Blackwell 80 Smith Avenue Orono, MN 55391 acacia • ARCHITECTS, LLC 14d3 Ridgeway Rd • 61x.544 -w65 Golden Vasey, MN 55427 cacI acacia • ARCHITECTS, ��c 14*r RWgw" rad • cuxs4y, Golden Va", MN 55427 a renovation to the home of r� Ryan Blackwell & Natalie Osdoba Blackwell 80 Smith Avenue - Orono, MN 55391 i rn Cn rn r— rn D O z NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4620 TO: Ryan and Natalie Blackwell 80 Smith Ave Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF REQUEST: Variances DATE OF MEETING: 17 October 2106 ZONING FILE: #16-3873 DATE OF NOTICE: 18 Oct 2016 COPIES Ryan & Natalie Blackwell Via Jeremiah Battles email: Dan Vanderheyden The Orono Planning Commission voted on a motion to recommend approval of the requested variances consistent with the staff recommendation. VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next meeting is tentatively scheduled as: Monday, November 14, 2016 This is a City Council meeting. The meeting begins at 7 PM If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please contact Melanie Curtis at mcurtis@ci.orono.mmus or 952.249.4627. Council Exhibit D MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 17, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 7. #16-3873 RYAN AND NATALIE BLACKWELL, 80 SMITH AVENUE, VARIANCES, 6:55 P.M. — 7:01 P.M. Natalie and Ryan Blackwell, Applicants, were present. Curtis stated the applicants' home is situated as close as 17.8 feet to the front lot line, which is Smith Avenue, 11.8 feet from the north side lot line, approximately 90 feet from Lyman Avenue on the side, and over 200 feet from the rear lot line. The majority of the home is nonconforming with respect to the front and side yard setbacks, although the house as it is could be legally rebuilt in kind in its current location. The applicants are proposing to construct footprint and second floor additions to the existing home which will allow for additional bedrooms and living space. The applicants are proposing a 12 -foot extension towards the street resulting in a 22.3 foot setback as well as expansion of the garage 11 feet also within the front 50 -foot setback. With the exception of the 15' x 19' master bedroom at the rear of the house, the entire home is located within the 50 -foot setback. The proposed expansions of the second story over the existing home and proposed additional both require front and side yard setback variances. In addition, two new rear decks are proposed, with variances being required. Staff has provided an analysis of the practical difficulties within the Staff report and the Planning Commission may ask for additional testimony regarding this application or discuss the practical difficulty criteria. No public comments have been received regarding this project. Staff finds that the nonconforming location of the house resulting in limited to no expansion opportunities on a nearly one acre property constitutes a practical difficulty with respect to making any improvements or changing the footprint. The variances are supported by practical difficulties and Staff recommends approval of the variances as requested. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Natalie Blackwell, Applicant, stated before they wanted to remodel, they wanted to live in the home for a period of time and get to know the neighbors. Currently there is a single -stall garage on the property. Blackwell indicated they have met with Staff a couple of times prior to developing the plan in order to MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 17, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. understand the rules and to create a plan that would follow those rules. Blackwell stated she hopes the Planning Commission likes their plan and will recommend approval to allow them to proceed forward to the City Council. The Planning Commission had no questions for the applicant. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:58 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:58 p.m. Thiesse stated it appears to be a reasonable use of the property and that they are limited in what they can do given the topography. Thiesse stated a two -stall garage is reasonable for Minnesota and a two bedroom home is not out of line. Lemke commented it is a nice improvement over what exists currently. Schwingler stated there were also no comments from the neighbors. Schwingler stated in his view it is a great improvement. Lemke asked if the applicants have spoken to any of the neighbors about the improvements. Ryan Blackwell indicated they have spoken to all the neighbors and they all said it was a nice improvement.IV AW Leskinen moved, Lemke seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3873, Ryan and Natalie Blackwell, 80 Smith Avenue, granting of side yard and front yard setback variances. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Date Application Received: 09/21/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 09/21/16 60 -Day Review Period Expires: 11/20/16 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Jessica Loftus, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner h'1GG Date: 12 October 2016 Subject: #16-3873, Ryan & Natalie Blackwell, 80 Smith Avenue Variances Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicants are requesting side yard and front yard setback variances in order to enlarge the attached garage, main floor footprint, and second story area of the existing home; two new decks are also proposed. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Proposed Survey/Site Plan Exhibit D. Colorized Survey - Staff Exhibit E. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit F. Aerial Photos Exhibit G. Site Photos Exhibit H. Applicable Code Sections Exhibit 1. Property Owners List Exhibit J. Plat Map Background The applicants are proposing to construct additions to the existing home which is situated as close as 17.8 feet from the front lot line (Smith Avenue); 11.8 feet from the north side lot line; approximately 90 feet from the side street lot line (Lyman Avenue); and over 200 feet from the rear lot line. The proposed footprint expansions include a 12 foot extension from the existing garage toward the street resulting in a 22.3' setback from Smith Avenue; the expansion is also proposed to expand the garage portion of the house 11 feet to the south, also within the required 50 -foot front yard setback. With the exception of the 15' x 19' master bedroom at the rear of the house, the entire home is located within the 50 -foot setback. The master bedroom portion of the home is located partially within the required 30 -foot side yard setback. Therefore the proposed expansions of the second story over the existing home and proposed addition also require front and side yard setback variances. Two new rear decks are also proposed; variances are needed for the decks as well. FILE # 16-3873 12 Oct 2016 Page 2 of 5 LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Sections 78-420 - Setbacks: Section 78-420 - Lot Area/Width: RR -1B Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres) 200' Actual 38,148 s.f. (0.87 acre) =160' Section 78-1403- Structural Coverare: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 38,148 s.f. (0.87 acre) Allowed: 5,722 s.f. (15%) Variance RR -1B Required Existing Proposed Needed? Front (Smith Ave) 50' 17.8' 22.3' Yes Rear 50' +200' No change No Side Street 50' =90' =80' No (Lyman Ave) House 11.8' North Side 30' 11.8' Yes Deck 11.7' Section 78-420 - Lot Area/Width: RR -1B Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres) 200' Actual 38,148 s.f. (0.87 acre) =160' Section 78-1403- Structural Coverare: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 38,148 s.f. (0.87 acre) Allowed: 5,722 s.f. (15%) Existing: 1,692 s.f. (4%) Proposed: 2,412 s.f. (6%) Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations: The property is exempt from hardcover restrictions. Applicable Regulations: Front and Side Yard Setback Variances (Code Section 78-420) The property is a corner lot. By definition, as the short side, Smith Avenue is considered the "front" yard for setback purposes; Lyman Avenue is a side street. As it exists, nearly the entire home is nonconforming with respect to front and side yard setbacks and can be re -built in-kind. The applicants are proposing to expand the footprint on the south side so as to not encroach closer to the side lot line. Refer to the colorized survey/site plan attached as Exhibit D. The existing home foundation is for the most part proposed to remain. The new foundation and walls are proposed to meet up with existing. The footprint of the existing home, and the home including the proposed additions is reasonable, and within the scale of the neighborhood. Variances are necessary to do almost any structural expansion to the home due to the nonconforming location. The applicants are proposing to bump out the footprint area on the south side by 11 feet on the south and 12 feet toward Smith Avenue to create a two car garage where a one stall garage exists. The footprint expansion will allow for the creation of three bedrooms upstairs. An existing porch off of the master bedroom will be removed; the master bedroom space will be converted to a family room and the master bedroom moved upstairs. The second story is proposed to be expanded over the entire new footprint with the exception of the living room and new family room. The second story will be 11.8 feet from the north, side lot line where a 30 foot setback is required. FILE # 16-3873 12 Oct 2016 Page 3 of 5 The applicants have proposed two new decks on the rear of the home; the north deck is proposed off the kitchen at 6' x 16' with stairs to ground level to be 11.7 feet from the north, (side) lot line where the house is at 11.8 feet. The south deck is proposed to be 14' x 16'; because of its proximity to Smith, it requires a front yard setback variance even though it is located behind the existing home. Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The proposed footprint addition, decks, and second story addition are residential in nature. There is adequate space for light, air and open space between the home and Smith Avenue; the proposed second story addition will not further encroach into the front or side setbacks. The variances are in harmony with the Ordinance. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances for improvements to a single family residence in a residential zone are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as well as the character of the neighborhood. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The request to permit construction of additions to the home, within the 30 foot side and 50 foot front setback areas appears to be reasonable as the adjacent properties do not appear to be adversely impacted; the mature vegetation and topography separate the Property from both roadways as well as adjacent neighbors. The setback encroachments will not create an unreasonable perception of additional massing. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The location, size, and orientation of the home on the property were not the result of actions by the landowner. The portion of the neighboring home to the north is a one-story garage is set back sufficiently to allow for light, air, and open space between the two homes; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. FILE # 16-3873 12 Oct 2016 Page 4 of 5 The proposed additions to the home will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The existing home garage is set back 36 feet from the paved roadway of Smith Avenue and it does not appear that a second story addition will adversely impact the neighbor to the north. Further, the existing home is lower on the hill that is Smith Avenue, when compared to properties to the north, further reducing the impact. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The applicant's home is a corner lot with a defined front yard on Smith Avenue. The home (according to Hennepin County) was constructed in 1947 and is in a nonconforming location on the property. The proposed improvements will not increase the footprint nonconformity within either setback. 5. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The topography, which drops off steadily as you move east, the narrowness of the lot, as well as the nonconforming location of the home on the lot make this property unique. 6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Options for conforming expansions of living space, including going upward, are severely limited on the property. Staff finds the variances are necessary to preserve the property right of the applicants. 7. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the requested variances will not adversely impact health, safety, comfort, or morals; nor will it be contrary to the intent of the Code. 8. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The lot width, the location and size of the existing home, as well as site topography, create practical difficulties affecting the Property; the variances are necessary and will not merely serve as a convenience to the Owner. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Septic System Status The property is served by city sewer. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis Staff finds that the nonconforming location of the house resulting in limited to no expansion opportunities on a nearly one acre property constitutes a practical difficulty with respect to making any improvements or changing the footprint. The variances are supported by practical difficulties. FILE # 16-3873 12 Oct 2016 Page 5 of 5 Public Comments No public comments have been received regarding this project. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends approval of the variances as requested. PC, City of Orono Variance Application StreetAddress: Application 9 2750 Kelley Parkway Off— ` rO Orono, MN 55356 Date Received_ 641A (p Main: 952-249-4600 Staff L/i.(,- fax: 952-249-4616 Fee r) 10D ` Mailing Address: Escrow ## & $ T AV- O 1{ + P.O. Box 66 G~ Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Permit Fee SHO Notes Please complete. Applicant will be notified within 15 days as to the status of the application. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agenda. SITE LOCATION: . & 'VM- i"Irl 4L I DESCRPTION OF REQUEST: (attached additional sheets as necessary) APPLICANT 1 AGENT INFORMATION: Applicant Name: eurn'l /full/ N(. Phone (Primary): 1412"061-6244 Applicant Email: r 7b wz1com Address: � �*rrim'h City: f)rPO�® ZIP: ,63j Applicant is: Contractor (Homeownerb (Circle One) PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION: Name: Phone (Primary): Mailing Address: City: ZIP_: Email: 13(check here if property owner is same as applicant APPLICANTIAGENT AND/OR OWNER: • Agree to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, • Agree to pay additional flees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and • Certify that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant and owner recognize that they are solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reject It until It Is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of its potential merit. Acknowledge the Escrow Agreement is completed and signed_ • The Owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents, Commission and Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner and/or Applicant acknowledge they must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant and/or owner is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicant/owner and advise the City Planner assigned to your project_ ApplicantlAgent Signature: Date: 5 -%Il -or ApplicantlAgent Signature: Date: Property Owner Signature: Date: Property Owner Signature: Date: Variance Application - May 2016 Page 2 3873 RECEIVED SEP 212016 CITY OF ORONO DATA PRIVACY ADVISORY In accordance with Minnesota State Statute 13.04 Rights of Subjects of Data, Subd. 2, "Tennessen warning", we would like to inform you that your request for a permit or license from the City of Orono or any of its departments may require you to furnish certain private or confidential information. You are notified that: 1. The information you furnish will be used to determine your qualification for the permit or license requested. 2. You may refuse to supply data, but refusal may require that the City deny the permit or license. 3. The information may be shared with other local, state or federal agencies to the extent necessary to process the permit or license. 4. If your requested permit or license requires Council action to approve, some information may become public. 5. You have certain rights under Minnesota State Statute 13.04 (see following page) to review private data on yourself. 6. Your full name is required to process this application or permit. First Middle Last 50 &rn 4�_ _ Address l2. - 7/ - MLT ymo Y'9 City State Zip Phone I understand my rights as stated above. al,_'� .-- RECEIVED SEP 21 2016 Variance Application — May 2016 Page 10 3873 CITY OF ORONO PC- all,&LT- 1�--> PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An application will not be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the City. Minnesota State Statutes Section 462.357, Subdivision 6(2) requires that practical difficulties be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. The difficulties must be unique to the property as variances run with the land and not the land owner. Personal and economic situations are not considered valid practical difficulties. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council practical difficulties having merit must be demonstrated. HOW DO 1 PROVE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if practical difficulties exist and how the variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove practical difficulties, address all the relevant points listed below and answer them as clearly as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is justified. The information the City receives is what is used in determining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave something out it will not be considered. Please address each of the twelve practical diffrculaes criteria as they relate to the request, if they do not apply, write N/A in the space provided.' 1. "The property owner proposes to use the rope rty in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter." dArga 2. `The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." ELUL In v o I iii rr v i Iv,,. e, 2 5 014 i ��1A I 3. "Thee vvarri`ance, if granted, fwilll snot alter the essential, character of the locality." W94 remajP4 ldo rYL. Id7(l.1_YYltu:rl r[tt�!6% d�ilbNt 7H.L !:1'It�_4.sr'i'✓_4 al �YlCtar�../'1,ri 4. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists undeA the terms of the Zoning Chapter." , A . _ 5. "Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 11BJ.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapt�r.� 6. "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located! Variance Applicagon — May 2016 RECEIVED Page 4 3SEP 21 2016 #387 CITY OF ORONO 7 'The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a hun-fami1v 8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.' - J 0 {Xlq rrq NO"� 0tkWhdeUS "�vn►l'h�Q�7 ,moi 9. "The conditions do -hot apply generally to other land or strtS�tures in�tt di�r+ 10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." , 11. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other res ect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code." rsk 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty." Practical Difficulties Statement Should you feel the practical difficulties cannot fully be described in the above criteria, describe the practical difficulties preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary): RECEIVED SEP 212016 Variance Application — May 2098 Page 5 # 3873 C1W OF ORONO The Gregory Group, Inc. LOT SURVEYS COMPANY Site Plan Survey For: Established in 1962 LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA RYAN & NATALIE BLACKWELL 760173rd Avenue North (763)560-3093 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 Fax No. 560-3522` .aIF i urur)Jnrs Trrtifiratr ------------ ALL \955. / I Property located in Section 2, Township 117, Range 23, Wetland /i/ l Hennepin County, Minnesota. Basis for bearings is / / Address: 80 Smith Ave., Orono, MN assumed V vv \v vt N i i I \ / CP l I _956_------_- -_-/ easoey ,958 Iran /st _296.6Jho g60 \ N Q vv vv vv vv v vv i0p0v `iso 994.3 \ \ t \ \ \ \ \ \ 992.7 F - s 970.3 �,9e4.1 910 g1A / Wel/ \g?door11 \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ /'// \ \ � w,z2@ 9&6.6 I \ \ 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ / / / � 975.37 / pp Plpe ® 9 _ 0 /p bit Mallbaw rc\4 b\ 9 2�.5\ \974. 16 edge %94.7 990.64 \O\Chlmney�/`\ °7 INVOICE NO. 85646 °SILTFENCEFOREROSIONCONTROL \ \\ \\ \\ ' mhnm\ 1086-01 / 97/34v F.B.NO. SCALE: 1" = 20' o oo / r0\ o / inv l2�" mPpa� 990 TI\N / I III I \\ \gym II \\ /' I� / / 0 Denotes Found Iron Monument 9,57 \ 1 O Denotes Iron Monument 9 �c1 0 sea BIw �, 1 / / i I v `� v l �' ANO ''� lr eege 970.12 Denote, Existing Contours T QQOQ / Qp� �roT) oto m� m� _. Denotes Proposed Contours , ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE G �/ / / / I f �J� ' 000.0 Denotes Existing Elevation y� mV l2"e%"G! P.\le I I X000.0 Denotes Proposed Elevation EXTEND CULVERT TO ACCOMMODATE NEW DRIVE / 967.41 BIN1', / / ° f \� I\ II \ \ 9505 / j-- Denotes Surface Drainage e ye / Proposed First Floor match existing) vv �� 11 i Il 96 .92 �'� // , 994.7 P ( 9) Proposed Garage Floor 986.6 Proposed Lowest Floor (match existing) 19°Fullbasement Walkout Type of Building L=100.10 I Ra l 9669 PROPOSED HARDCOVER j I I x b/t Exist. House & Prop. Add. = 1692 sq.ft Lot 42, ORONO ORCHARDS l 970 90 Proposed front porch = 52 sq.ft Hennepin County, Minnesota \ bit edge s \w / / / Proposed driveway area = 646 sq.ft Prop. front walk, stairs, etc. = 117 sq.ft I_-_----- bit eage l // Proposed future improvements = 668 sq.ft Existing Stone wall in back = 162 sq.ft \ Property is in Flood Zone "X", area not Total Hardcover = 3337 sq.ft A\� subject to flooding, per FEMA Map No. Area of parcel = 36148 sq.ft The only easements shown are from plats of record or information \ I i 27053C0306E, effective date Sept. 2, 2004. Percentage of Hardcover = 8.7 provided by client. \ I Powers I certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed land 97768 \\ I 9" \% t 973.43 Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. I I a \ Dated this 16th day of September, 2016. 1 \I b/t\ \ 1 975.43 A,\ Rev Dmwn BY .`7. �ltrNuism. \\ \\\\\ Signed File Name \\ II I\ \y. \\\ \�\ Grego . P sch, Minn. Reg. No. 24992 oo-42inv85646siteplan.dwg 1 �� \ �� _ -- - - - _ - 1� {�"" �i �� 11 � j { 11 11 1 1 !1 � ,! 1 If ♦ � ��� N7001O a" E !S4?.4 maasurdd 350.00 plat � �� ! ! � \ E] 16 i 1 1 1 all •- y� i---------------� --- -- AO f rwe � ! r / L= '�=c � t � � a ' aa •F i of �' �\ Id // t t tl i' „•16;1 r £ r 10 ' I _ _ ♦� �` lz. mss; 41 wmi;rl SCAel £ r / �i Y-�~ r • 1 "r `.....Lia.... T The Gregory Group, Inc. d.b.a. LOT SURVEYS COMPANY Established in 1962 LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA 7601 73rd Avenue North (763) 560-3093 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428 Fax No. 560-3522 17ururjjnrs Trrtifiratr Basis for bearings is assumed The only easements shown are from plats of record or information provided by client. I certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Surveyed this 14th day of November 2015. Existing Conditions Survey For: MARK D. WILLIAMS CUSTOM HOMES Property located in Section 2, Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota Pole 1 Riser \\ \ � 3,q, � I 973.43.4 3 I m\ I �v I � bd11 9755.4.4 3 1 1 1 1 .l ,i. ---------------- i 970.3 / I 9�2 F bit edge \974./6 i INVOICE NO. 84581 F.B.NO. 1086-01 SCALE: 1" = 20' Property Address: 80 Smith Avenue Orono, MN Lot 42, ORONO ORCHARDS Hennepin County, Minnesota Hardcover 0 Denotes Found Iron Monument Lot area O Denotes Iron Monument X LI Denotes Woad Hub Set for i it eege excavation only 970.12 Denotes Existing Contours Concrete = /��♦ i Denotes Proposed Contours Flagstone Patio = 000.0 Denotes Existing Elevation X000.0 AIIe�v� r `v i I Denotes Prop.— Elevation Stone Stens = 4 Denotes Surface Drainage Total — 27657 5q it Percentage = 6.96% Property Address: 80 Smith Avenue Orono, MN Lot 42, ORONO ORCHARDS Hennepin County, Minnesota Hardcover Lot area 36, l46 5q it t3oldrng = /,3 / 2 5q ft Porch = / 93 5q ft D'rummou9 = 640 5q ft Concrete = l 57 5q it Flagstone Patio = 226 5q ft Flagstone Paths = 102 5q ft Stone Stens = 27 5q ft Total — 27657 5q it Percentage = 6.96% Minn. Reg. No. 24992 1-7 iy ��� ` ( ! r %f ♦`\ ly iy i li 111 11 11 1 hl=, i l i CO V [ o/ INC, IV r y 1 4y k j M170° jam* E 847.46 [Msured 350.00w FV \\ 4 1 ♦ use1 i y �c� ¢ + a c { %rr°► r - i /Cg—��\fir'" i` DQ C, t=10 O.DV • � �g t % i j '' r� %bias, t� �f ra tj tj �_ �� \ 9� Ali i �._ !. - - �! ! t ' I ter— �•� t e CE Ave" t woorl ail Ab AV 44- ! r 4 o0 N z rn z C: rn NEIGHBOR'S DRIVE DRAWING INDEX I. 51TE PLAN 2. MAIN LEVEL PLANS BEFORE * AFTER 3. UPPER LEVEL PLANS BEFORE AFTER 4. LOWER LEVEL PLANS BEFORE AFTER 5. ELEVATIONS G. SECTION I SCALE: 1/16" = I'-0" ARE REDUCED 50% (HALF SCALE). 'KY ESTIMATE SET NOT INTENDED FOR PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH iI "--i 4J J p' fy ■ � J 1l1 V; ry k, 10 z U ■� c� ro �c vw r°, w 20 m Ct C o ■ v iI "--i 4J U c� ct C o � m ct o z O 00 O 4J U C� r-, ct II JULY 2016 8 SEPTEMBER 2016 iI 2 MAIN LEVEL PLAN 'AFTEK' 2 SCALE:I/4" = 1'-0" PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH r0 0 J fy ■ � J 4!S N 411 10 Z U c� ruUJ ~ 1--1 � 7 C C u C-3 rvj w V Q L7 ra� YTS o ■ v U c� CIS O o � � m x 0 00 O 4J U C� r-, ct II JULY 2016 8 SEPTEMBER 2016 -� UPPER LEVEL PLAN "BEFORE" SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" I5-0" REMOVE CHIMNEY (IF SIDING ALL NEW)I IAWN3335 ATTIC EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE FUTURE CON5IDERATION: POTENTIAL WALK-IN CL05ET ENCROACHING INTO ATTIC W/DOOR TO MASTER BEDROOM. DEPENDENT ON EX15TING ROOF 5TKUCTURE LAYOUT S FLOOR J015T SIZE. CONFIRM M. BATH CLG. HEIGHT5 (0-4" MIN. FIXTURE CLEARANCE IN EX15TING SPACE) a z w m JN 5,_4, 3 O - 5PRI NG LINE DRE55EP 1 2'-0" DR BEDIROOM 3 JN BEAM 19 I I I I I 1 w I I I V J U oL O 1 m I m w N N al MASTER N Oo w BEDROOM o w 7-0" CLG ~ 19'- 14" L, 4-512" TACKED RODS - OPENING ZaU N I T-51/2" I N Ic9 z z 4'-4"X2'_10" ulu ro N N 1 SHOWER oio u z OJ Q O tYl. BATH 1 I K w m I I N — 1 Z - NOTES: I.) ALL 5TRUCTURAL NOTE5 ARE A55UMPTION5 FOR ESTIMATING ONLY. ENGINEERING TO FOLLOW. 2.) ASSUME 3PLY 3/4" X 24" LVL RIDGE BEAM RUNNING NORTH/50UTH 1 wQ 3 1 __-_____N_EW__G_A_B_L_E_ R_O_O_F_________ c9 z N p 1 w z OVER FRAME EXI5TING FLAT ROOF n STAT R N E g BATH w 1 n 9 d a HALL o N � J - DR 'f}Ip 3 m m m N 411 1 1 I 10 Z I m I uUJ z 2 KID' p ° o BATH w 1 n 9 d 0 0 J - DR 'f}Ip oc N N 411 u 10 Z uUJ IN _ L _ ru■ 218 DR ~ 1--1 �7 I w_ N z— BEAM _ � N = HENRY'S � �1 E�AII rvj ROOM E o1 m rn 5LOPED 5' CLG CLG a 8' CLG 15LOPE I I CLG. p READING NOOK/ 5 SPRING OR DE5K AREA LINE 4,_3., O13 WALK-IN SPRING � CLOSET LINE G -I" 9'-I P' 4'_0" 24'-O" UPPER LEVEL PLAN "AFTER" 5CALE:1/4" = 1'-0" 3 PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH COPYRIGHT 201E ACACIA ARCt �I 0 0 J p' fy ■ � J 4l1 N 411 u 10 Z uUJ ru■ ~ 1--1 �7 S uw c u V E�AII rvj v Q m rn o ■ v 3 PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH COPYRIGHT 201E ACACIA ARCt �I o � O CIO O Z� 88 00 U Ct ra ct II JULY 20IG 8 SEPTEMBER 20IG 3 PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH COPYRIGHT 201E ACACIA ARCt GA5 METER J WATER IN IN 7-4. ¢ WH CLG WATERT REATMEdT 0 o RELOCATE!I�, FEASIBLE TO ALLOW FOR 5-5^aG; 7'-5°CLG I MEC( ANICAL WATER OFTENE I 'td 3 I/2" X 4 3/4" POST N I l I E zxa LOlsrs @ le•o.c. 3 EVALUATE EXI5TING CONDITIONS. IF LAUNDRI�' 0UNIN5ULATED; Lr I II CRAWL OR 5PRAYFOAM INSULATION o RECOMMENDED. NO DOOR 4 WALL Ilk K4FCHANICAL ROONNA 15 NOT RE'C}C�ATED. GRILL DECK SPACE 2❑ Q V ABOVE I RADON 3 1/2' X 4 3/4" POST o ENGINEERING TO FOLLOW. _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - ru1-- GI STACKo I I O z HEATER HERE IF COST EFFECTIVE 4 51MFUFIES NEW WdRk + �' QI REC ROOM L0J z D - m `r OPENING 4lilllill N m .j _ I I® 5TEP5 E LANDING O QII I I A60VE I li ___CRAWL___ 4 __ ____--__-J I II 3"',X 4 3/4" P05T U w W v PLANTINGS °-' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- (UNFINISHED) /�� 7� 4. ANDIN p u `\ Iia' -c) CLG METER m i DRIVE GARAGE i LIt --------- LOWER LEVEL PLAN "BEFORE" 5CALE: 3/16" = P-0" DUCT5 ____j U O STORAGE T-2' CLG r N 0 RATIO BACK PORCH REMOVE CHIMNEY TO GRADE (IF SIDING ALL NEW) SPRAY FOAM EXISTING RIMS TYPICAL JWATER IN II I MECHANICAL IDi o RELOCATE!I�, FEASIBLE TO ALLOW FOR EXISTING WND FUTURE 54gROOM 5PACE IN NE CORNER. z I � I I II CRAWL N SPACE STORAGE El I 2X8 EVALUATE EXI5TING CONDITIONS. IF LAUNDRI�' 0UNIN5ULATED; Lr NEW THERMAX I �'�VERIFY P05T FOOTINGS E�l FUTURE OR 5PRAYFOAM INSULATION o RECOMMENDED. NO DOOR 4 WALL Ilk K4FCHANICAL ROONNA 15 NOT RE'C}C�ATED. NO DECK FOOTING5IN F3 PHASE ONE + STAIR FUTURE ABOVE LANDING "—I II 1`5 ®<—NEW P05T 4 I I FOOTING o FOOTING/FOUN DATION: EXISTING WND FI: 20"X10" SPREAD FOOTING W/(2)#5 X 5' z BELOW FR05T. 12" CMU I f2:12" DIAMETER PIER X 4' DEEP N F3: 8" DIAMETER PIER X 4' DEEP 2X8 F4: 10'X 10" SPREAD FOOTING W/(2)#5 Lr F5: 24" X 24" X 10" PAD FOOTING W/(2)#5 FUTURE EACH WAY. GRILL DECK 'ALL STRUCTURAL NOTES ARE ABOVE ASSUMPTIONS FOR ESTIMATING ONLY. ENGINEERING TO FOLLOW. NO DECK FOOTING5IN F3 PHASE ONE + STAIR FUTURE ABOVE LANDING I I Iv�vv I v�I�vnl lulu II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II IL---------------- GARAGE ABOVE SLAB ON GRADE �L N I w 1 24'-0" I Ljlm I — - - R57 AWING WALL ABOVE) LOWER LEVEL PLAN "AFTER" 5CALE:1/4" = 1'-0" EXI5TING WALL 0-4 3/4"+/- L � "—I II 1`5 ®<—NEW P05T 4 I I FOOTING Tn ICKEN FURRING OR I Box OUT AROUND 5i CK EXISTING WND FUTURE WALL 0 EXISTING WALLS I I J' -O" OOR CONFIRM I I I, TRTD 2X8 4 OUVERED Lr EXISTING I�@IGOC /1 - - - - - - -(*F2 w NEWMECHAN;I�AL? MECHANICAL soFF1 FOUNDATION �I v J RELOCATE FURNACE 4/OR WATER _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - ru1-- I 71 O O z HEATER HERE IF COST EFFECTIVE 4 51MFUFIES NEW WdRk + ~ 1--1 d L0J z D - toACCESS = `r OPENING 4lilllill N m .j _ I E�AII rvj N O IGLbyET mr+7 -Z ___CRAWL___ 4 __ ____--__-J L___—___fuT,URE REC ROOM O W v -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- (UNFINISHED) p u I I I I mp V x4'0.. FI III I I I I I FUTURE TV FUTURE _ 50OK5HELVE5. BOOKSHELVES I I Iv�vv I v�I�vnl lulu II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II IL---------------- GARAGE ABOVE SLAB ON GRADE �L N I w 1 24'-0" I Ljlm I — - - R57 AWING WALL ABOVE) LOWER LEVEL PLAN "AFTER" 5CALE:1/4" = 1'-0" EXI5TING WALL 0-4 3/4"+/- L � "—I II I I FUTURE — RETAINING r0 FUTURE WALL 0 DECK ABOVE I I I I I —IEX15TING� 1 I INCLUDE DECK F2 GARAGE_ I11 FOOTINGS IN I 4l1 PHA5E ONE. Lr I I - - - /1 - - - - - - -(*F2 FUTURE LANDING I I I I I w p � ~ I Q � I W m w 0 O � � I � I I I -----------i REMOVE BACK �` PORCH L PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH COPYRIGHT 20IG ACACIA ARCr "—I r� r0 0 J fy ■ � J 4l1 Lr N 411 I.— Z ■ ru1-- ~ 1--1 7 � u C u V E�AII rvj mr+7 O ■ v L PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH COPYRIGHT 20IG ACACIA ARCr "—I r� CIS O m � O � O 00 U rMry�i ct II JULY 20IG 8 SEPTEMBER 2016 L PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH COPYRIGHT 20IG ACACIA ARCr 0 0 ❑ ❑ ®0 00 SOUTh ELEVATION_ 5 5CALE:1/4" = P-0" NORTH ELEVATION 5CALE:1/4" = I'-0" 2 WEST ELEVATION 5 5CALE:1/4" = P-0" r0 0 J fy ■ � J 4!S N 411 10 Z c� ruUJ ~ 1--1 � 7 C C u C-3 rvj w V Q L7 ra� YTS o ■ v U c� cd O o � � m x ct ct SECTION @ GARAGE DORMER 5CALE:1/4" = P-0" (i r0 0 J fy ■ � J 4!S N 411 10 Z U c� ruUJ ~ 1--1 � 7 C C u C-3 rvj w V Q L7 ra� YTS o ■ v (i U c� cd O o � � m x c ° o z 0 00 O 4J U C� r-, ct II JULY 2016 8 SEPTEMBER 2016 (i TRIM EXISTING HOUSE MASSING SHOWN SHADED D PANELS WE5T ELEVATION SCALE: 3/I G"= I'-0" EXISTING NEW UPPER ROOF ROOF RP NEW DORMER NEW PORCH ROOF c r ■ TRIM N EXISTING ELEVATION DASHED I EXISTING ELEVATION DASHED-> BLACKBALL RESIDENCE 9 -IG -IG 80 SMITH AVE. ORONO Q N AV �i � - 'ow Ai ii- � 4� •� I 4 LAMM. �i . �x�g 1� .�"~•-we} `r 'M" wpm ,i 1.44 _ As Y+ M ��,� � •� �.�' (Y � e _ �� 1 '�ti"�'� k �� Y 1 r,a � *S' �a�-'., - I.+d * ; �`' � • r 1 e -:, + . - 1 ,�,. • + L 41 n - •. _ J[ y � AIL- *^� ' b, x }}h ' ? �FyR � 1 Jobw �Id I Z �' "°'� � = � _fie, �" . y ; + ��° • t � � ,�i1�7j,�.' +a'# � � , 1 loro asr rl 17 Af 41 16 'ACPs - ,�• � �' 14 i '' � �. 'b++ .� � , � � ' �� ��''� 1 '1 �'.. ^1 �� . lid• # �.+�, •� _ _ fir.., .� '� - r � :t �d' � f P i' _ ''4i J • I 1! a ij, Ilj bp. y L• � - '1 FUM PC Exhibit H Code Section Sec. 78-420. - Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in the RR -1 B district shall exceed 2'/2 stories and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. (b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Side Yard Lot Lot Front Side Rear Area Width Yard Yard Adjacent Yard to Street (acres) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) 2 200 50 30 50 50 (Code 1984, § 10.28(5); Ord. No. 18 3rd series, § 3, 9-27-2004) Page 1 RUN DATE: 09/20/2016 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM (PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PAGE: 1 38 02-117-23 21 0001 38 02-117-23 210031 S A MELBERG & C W MELBERG J& D AHLBERG 1290 LYMAN AVE 95 SMITH AVE ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 STEVEN A/CAROLINE W MELBERG JAMES H & DIANNE R AHLBERG 1290 LYMAN AVE 95 SMITH AVE WAYZATAMN 55391 WAYZATAMN 55391 38 02-117-23 210002 38 02-117-23 210032 T J BONNETT/A B BONNETT P S GOSHGARIAN ET AL 40 SMITH AVE 100 ORONO ORCHARD RD S ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 THEODORE J BONNETT PETER S GOSHGARIAN ALLISON B BONNETT AMY GOSHGARIAN 40 SMITH AVE 100 ORONO ORCHARD RD S WAYZATAMN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 21 0003 38 02-117-23 210033 ROBERT MILLER CHRIS SANKEY 60 SMITH AVE 120 ORONO ORCHARD RD S ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ROBERT MILLER CHRIS SANKEY 60 SMITH AVE 120 ORONO ORCHARD RD S WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 210004 38 02-117-23 210034 N O BLACKWELL & R BLACKWELL G MARC WHITEHEAD ET AL 80 SMITH AVE 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 00000 NATALIE O BLACKWELL G MARC WHITEHEAD RYAN BLACKWELL 305 W FULLERTON PKWY 80 SMITH AVE CHICAGO IL 60614 WAYZATA Mid 55391 38 02-117-23 2100 16 38 02-117-23 210035 THOMAS F MILLER G MARC WHITEHEAD ET AL 115 SMITH AVE 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 00000 THOMAS F MILLER O MARC WHITEHEAD 115 SMITH AVE 305 W FULLERTON PKWY WAYZATAMN 55391 CHICAGO IL 60614 38 02-117-23 210017 38 02-117-23 210037 D C QUINN & S QUINN D E& C M WHITELEY 125 SMITH AVE 60 ORONO ORCHARD RD S ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 5539] STACEY C & DAVID C QUINN D WHITELEY/C MYERS-WHITELEY 125 SMITH AVE 60 ORONO ORCHARD RD S WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 210018 38 02-117-23 22 0009 R K JOHNSON & E JOHNSON E D PHELPS & D S PHELPS 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 45 SMITH AVE ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55391 R KENMORE JOHNSON ELLEN & DAVID PHELPS ELOUISE JOHNSON 1950 FOX RIDGE RD 145 SMITH AVE ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55391 110 SMITH AVE 38 02-117-23 210022 38 35-118-23 34 0014 RYAN L WEBER H RANSON & M HANSON 110 ORONO ORCHARD RD S 1280 LYMAN AVE ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 RYAN L WEBER HARLAN & MARCIA HANSON 110 ORONO ORCHARD RD S 1280 LYMAN AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 210026 JAMES A FISK TRUSTEE 110 SMITH AVE ORONO MN 55391 JAMES A FISK 110 SMITH AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 RECEIVED 38 02-117-23 210027 H 1 & E T MCMILLAN LYMAN AVE ORONO MN 55391 # 3873 sCf 2 12016 HOWARD & ELIZABETH MCMILLAN LYMAN AVE CITY OF ORONO WAYZATA MN 55391 2 - Hennepin County has developed electronic forms of certain property information databases. Hennepin County makes reasonable efforts to produce and publish the most current property information available. The viewer should understand, however, that Hennepin County makes no representation or warranties, either express or implied, or as to merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose regarding the accuracy and/or completeness of the information contained herein. 212016 # 3873 C"(WOWMO 1 4> ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM [print name(s)] � [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at 0-0 AY14 also referred to as Land Use Application No. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvt plans aat the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. ?-.%4 -16 Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM I (we) 5_ .IQC t [6a4(0I ln.k_ of !;L"�n m& -n AX.&L C, [print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at k.g_ also referred to as Land Use Application No. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. `ao " / Property Owner Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. ]EIVED Variance Application —January 2016 SEP 2 12016 Page 12113 8T; .0e, CITY of ORONO ii ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM (we) 4s,TWri l ri+/ .1 of c �? 5wil k A/,- [print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at 190 &nu, :*L1 Ave also referred to as Land Use Application No. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. I (we) Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM [print name(s)] Of [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at 80 Sb-- : 44- Awe also referred to as Land Use Application No. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. Variance APPl wHOn —January 2016 Page 12 3 8 SEP 21 2018 CITY OF ORONO rc 9 Hennepin County Locate & NotifyMap Provided By: Resident and Real Estate Services Date, g12O+2016 M 35-118-23-33 R� 7-23 0 I� 117-23-21 �s \ X\Z' • 02-1 i7 02-117-13-21 �fl -23- 02-117-23-22 Buffer Size: 350 feet Map Comments: N O BLACKWELL & R BLACKWELL 80 Smith Avenue Orono, MN 55391 18-23-34 In A In m U fel 0 60 120 240 ft I I I I I I,, 1 RECEIVED For more information contact: Hennepin County GIS Office SCPrr3 2 12016 300 6th Street South Minneapolis, MN 55487 gis.info@hennepin.us Date Application Received: 9/21/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 9/21/16 60 -Day Review Period Expires: 11/20/16 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: November 9, 2016 Item No.: 20 Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Y"_4 Planning Dept. Title: Senior Planner Item Description: #16-3874, Stonewood LLC o/b/o Lyle & Gretchen Shaw, 1750 Shadywood Road — Variances Zoning District: LR -1C, One Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre/ 100' min. width Lot Area/ Width: 10,740 s.f. (0.25 acre) / 62'+ defined width Application Summary: The applicants request variances for lot area, lot width, hardcover and structural lot coverage for construction of a new residence on the property. Planning Commission Recommendation: The Orono Planning Commission at its October 17 meeting voted 5-0 on a motion to recommend approval of the area, width, structural coverage and hardcover variances. Staff Recommendation: Planning staff recommends approval per the recommendation of the Planning Commission. List of Exhibits A — Draft Resolution B — Updated Survey (eliminated 0.1 foot side setback encroachment) C — Notice of PC Action 10/19/16 D — Draft PC Minutes of 10/7/16 E — Neighbor Acknowledgements submitted at 10/17 PC Meeting F — Planning Commission Memo and Exhibits dated 10/13/16 The applicants are planning to construct a new home on this one-quarter acre lakeshore lot in the half -acre LR -1C zoning district. It is one of the smallest lakeshore lots on Shadywood Road, primarily due to the shape of the lakeshore. The property currently contains a small home with no garage. Applicants are requesting variances for hardcover and structural coverage, as well as for lot area and width. The proposal includes a new home with attached 2 -stall garage and a driveway with backup apron to allow vehicles to enter Shadywood Road in a forward manner. While the existing house encroaches approximately 18 feet into the 75' lakeshore setback, the new home is proposed to be 75' from the OHWL. Similarly, the existing house encroaches 16' lakeward of the average setback line, while the new home will be completely behind that line. A proposed grade -level patio, however, is located partially within the 0-75' zone where no hardcover is normally allowed. 16-3874,1750 Shadywood Road November 9, 2016 Page 2 Total hardcover proposed for the site is 29.6% where only 25% is normally allowed. Existing hardcover is 16.9%. Structural lot coverage, including the proposed house, attached garage and roofed front stoop, calculates to 1,951 s.f. or 18.2% of the lot area where 15% lot coverage is allowed. Please review the attached Planning Commission memo, exhibits and draft minutes. While the Planning Commission had no issues with the area, width and hardcover variances, there was some discussion regarding the structural lot coverage variance. After debating the issue, the conclusion reached was that if the lot coverage variance was not granted, the house would have to be reduced to a size that would be out of character with the immediate neighborhood. It was also noted that other homes in the neighborhood exceed the 15% limit, some having been granted variances in order to do so. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the lot area, lot width, hardcover and structural lot coverage variances as proposed. A resolution for approval is attached. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt or amend the attached resolution entitled A Resolution Granting Variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-350, 78-1403, 78-1680 and 78-1700 for Property Located at 1750 Shadywood Road - File No. 16-3874. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL Council Exhibit A NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-350, 78-1403, 78-1680 AND 78-1700 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1750 SHADYWOOD ROAD - FILE NO. 16-3874. WHEREAS, Lyle E. Shaw and Gretchen S. Shaw, husband and wife, (hereinafter the "Applicants") are owners of the property located at 1750 Shadywood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 16, SHADYWOOD, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "Property"); and WHEREAS, Stonewood LLC on behalf of the Applicants on September 21, 2016 made a complete application to the City for variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-350, 78-1403, 78-1680 and 78-1700 in order to allow the construction of a new residence to replace the existing single family residence on the Property, said construction requiring variances for lot area and lot width for a lot 0.25 acre in area and 62 feet in defined width where a lot area of 0.5 acre and lot width of 100 feet are required; and a variance to allow a hardcover level of 29.6% where only 25% is normally allowed, and such hardcover to be located partially within 75 feet of the lakeshore where no hardcover is normally allowed; and a variance to allow structural lot coverage of 18.2% where only 15% is normally allowed; and WHEREAS, on October 17, 2016 after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on October 17, 2016, the Planning Commission on a vote of 5-0 recommended approval of the variances as presented; and WHEREAS, on November 14, 2016, the Orono City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested variances as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning this property: FINDINGS OF FACT: Al. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A2. The Property is located within the LR -1C Single Family Lakeshore Residential District which requires a minimum lot area of 0.50 acre and a minimum lot width of 100 feet for construction of a single family residence. A3. The Property is 10,740 square feet (0.25 acres) in area, being 62 feet in defined width. The property is considered as legally nonconforming with regard to lot area and lot width. A4. The property is located within Storm Water Quality Overlay District Tier 1 which allows 25% hardcover. The proposed new residence will result in total hardcover on the property of 3,179 s.f. or approximately 29.6%, exceeding the maximum overall hardcover allowance for the Property. The portion of proposed hardcover within the 0-75' zone where no hardcover is normally allowed is 110 s.f. A5. Regarding the lot area and width variances, lakeshore lots on the western shore of Crystal Bay were platted between Shadywood Road and the lakeshore in the 1890s. These lots were typically 50-60 feet in width, and varied in depth due to the relatively straight road and curvilinear shoreline. The applicants' lot is at one of the "pinch points" where the lot depth is relatively short. On a majority of the originally platted lots individual cabins were built, which over time have been remodeled or replaced with larger homes. In a small number of cases, two or more lakeshore lots have been combined to create a larger lot, but a majority of the properties remain as single lots and most are significantly smaller than the 112 -acre requirement of the LR -1 C district. The fact that Applicants' property contains an existing residence and has been assessed for and is connected to municipal sewer and water, are factors which inherently support the granting of lot area and width variances for construction of a new residence. A6. With regard to the hardcover percentage and location variances, because of the attachment of the proposed garage to the proposed house, the garage becomes part of the house and as required by code is proposed to meet the 30' street setback. This results in additional length of driveway as compared to a side -load detached garage, while allowing for a 10'x10' backup apron and room for off-street guest parking. Off-street parking and the ability to enter the road in a forward movement are features critical in maintaining traffic safety along Shadywood Road. The proposed driveway is not much wider than the garage doors. The proposed grade -level patio extends approximately 6 feet past the average lakeshore setback line but at the low level is not considered as a view encroachment. The patio does constitute approximately 110 s.f. of hardcover in the 0-75' zone where hardcover is not normally allowed. Total hardcover proposed on the site is 3,179 s.f. (29.6%) where 2,685 s.f. (25%) would normally be allowed. Potential reductions to reach the 25% limit would likely require a home re -design given the site conditions of proximity to Shadywood Road and the need for minimum driveway, backup apron and sidewalks to serve the residence. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL MG] AT With regard to the requested variance for structural lot coverage for a new home, the 15% limit was established in 1989 primarily to limit structural massing on properties less than 2 acres in area. Lots smaller than 10,000 s.f are allowed 1,500 s.f of structural lot coverage. Past City approvals of variances to the lot coverage requirement when granted have often been predicated on livability, functionality and safety associated with use of a property. The proposed house, covered front stoop and attached garage comprise 1,951 s.f. or 18.2% structural coverage of the property. The applicants propose complete removal of the fairly small (20'x36') cabin existing on the property. The property has no garage, and has been used seasonally for many years. The proposed new house with a 2 -stall attached garage will provide for a more functional year-round residence. Attaching the garage allows for additional second -story living space above it. It has been typical of tear-down/rebuilds on the lakeshore to attach the garage, resulting in a more compact massing of structure on a given site and resulting in a less - crowded streetscape. An added benefit is the ability to have a backup apron in the street yard to allow forward vehicle movement entering the road — especially important on Shadywood Road. A8. In considering this application for variances, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. VARIANCE ANALYSIS: B1. "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance ...." Single family homes and the associated amenities are permitted uses in the LR -1C district. The area and width variances if granted would allow construction of a single family home on the property. B2. "Variances shall only be permitted... when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan." The proposed new residence structure is consistent with the comprehensive plan guiding of this and surrounding properties for residential use. B3. "Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. `Practical difficulties,' as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that: i. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls." CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ii. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." iii. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." The property owners are proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner by constructing a modest size single family home with a minimally sized 2 -stall garage, but the specific size and massing aspects of the request are not permitted by the Zoning Code. With respect to lot area and width, the substandard lot in single separate ownership is a circumstance inherent to the lot and not created by the landowner. The lot is one of the smallest lakeshore lots in the neighborhood, due to the curvature of the lakeshore and the relatively straight nature of Shadywood Road. A smaller home meeting the lot coverage and hardcover standards could be designed for the property but would be somewhat out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. The character of the neighborhood is not likely to be significantly altered by construction of the proposed home. Structural lot coverage for homes in the immediate neighborhood ranges from approximately 14% to 28%, with a median and average of approximately 20%. There is a relatively equal split between the number of homes with attached garages and those with detached garages near the road. B4. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties." Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. The design of the proposed home is related to the need for functionality for the homeowner including storage of vehicles and equipment, as well as providing for reasonably sized living spaces. B5. "Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78." This condition is not applicable. B6. "The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located." This condition is not applicable, as the use for a single family residence is an allowed use in the RR -1B District. B7. "The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." This condition is not applicable. B8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." The lot is one of the smallest in the neighborhood. The adjacent property to the south is nearly identical in size and shape 4 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. to the applicants' property, and was granted variances in 2006 for 20% structural coverage. Most of the developed lakeshore lots in the immediate area are larger than applicants' lot and most have lot coverage exceeding the 15% limit. B9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located". The standards applicable to this property apply to all other property in the LR -1C District; the lot coverage limits similarly apply to all other lots in the LR -1C district that are less than 2 acres in area. However, the LR -1C district contains many homes on properties which do not meet the LR -1C lot size standards due to originally being platted or developed prior to establishment of zoning codes in Orono. B10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." Granting of the lot area and width variances is necessary to preserve the property rights of the owner to build a new residence on the property. Similarly, in order to construct a residence consistent with the size, quality, and functionality of other lakeshore homes in the neighborhood, some level of hardcover variance and lot coverage variance is necessary. Granting of hardcover and structural coverage variances is not necessary if the ability to construct a residence consistent in size and functionality with the surrounding neighborhood is not a consideration. B11. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter." Granting of the requested variances would not impair health, safety, comfort or morals and would be in keeping with the intent of the zoning code. B12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty." Granting of the area and width variance is necessary to solve an obvious practical difficulty. Granting of hardcover and structural coverage variances is also necessary in order to allow construction of a home that is commensurate with the surrounding neighborhood, and which provides for functionality and room sizes that are reasonably expected and accepted as normal in the neighborhood. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-350, 78-1403, 78-1680 and 78-1700 in order to allow the construction of a new residence to replace the existing single family residence on the Property, said construction requiring variances for lot area and lot width for a lot 0.25 acre in area and 62 feet in defined width where a lot area of 0.5 acre and lot width of 100 feet are required; and a variance to allow a hardcover level of 29.6% where only 25% is normally allowed and such hardcover to be located partially within 75 feet of the lakeshore where no hardcover is CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. normally allowed; and a variance to allow structural lot coverage of 18.2% where only 15% is normally allowed; subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the survey & site plan submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A and the proposed building plans attached as Exhibit B. Any amendments to the approved survey, site plan or building plans which are not in conformity with City codes or which require further variances will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. Applicants shall comply with the permitting requirements of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 3. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the owners, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the project and commencing construction of said project within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variances will expire on that date (November 14, 2017). 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned Owners have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the Owners and the Owners' heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the Property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 14th day of November, 2016. ATTEST: Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor Property Owner 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2016, by Lyle E. Shaw, husband of Gretchen S. Shaw. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this i day of , 2016, by Gretchen S. Shaw, wife of Lyle E. Shaw. Notary Public 16-287A EXISTING HOUSE CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR Council GRETCHEN SHAW Exhibit OF LOT 16, SHADYWOOD HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA (A f- aArt+, 5��rey i CONTOUR (O.H.W.) LAKE MINNETONKA CRYSTAL BAY LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES Lot 16, SHADYWOOD • : denotes iron marker found (908.3): denotes existing spot e!evation, mean sea level datum --917---: denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datum Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, and the location of an existing house, spot elevations, topography, trees, lakesides of adjoining houses, and all visible "hardcover" thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. G R 4 N B E R G &ASSOCIATES, INC. I s re certify that or pian, specification, a report �E was prepared by me, LI under my direst supervision 1":20' and that I cam o duly Licensed Land Surveyor under CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS, & SITE PLANNERS the lows of the State of Minnesota. WE 445 NORTH WILLOW DRIVE, LONG LAKE, MN. 55356 7-21-16 952-473-4141 im to Mark S. Grasberg Minnesota License Number 12755 16-287A S Ursa 5e7phcbr- mcIR Ac4 01-411MIINA-Y&51� ) NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Council Exhibit l CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway ZONING FILE: #16-3874 PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4620 DATE : NOTICEE: October 19, 2016 TO: Sven Gustafson Stonewood LLC 153 East Lake Street Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF REQUEST: Variance Review DATE OF MEETING: October 17, 2016 COPIES: Lyle & Gretchen Shaw 7001 Kingston Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55346 The Orono Planning Commission voted 5-0 on a motion to recommend approval of the area, width, structural coverage and hardcover variances. Vote: 5 For 0 Against Applicants' next scheduled meeting is Monday, November 14, 2016. This is a City Council meeting. The meeting begins at 7:00 PM if you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please contact Mike Gaffron at maaffron@ci.orono.mn.us or 952.249.4622 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 17, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Leskinen moved, Lemke seconded, to rec n Natalie Blackwell, 80 Smith Awe e, granting of VOTE: Ayes 5, N Council Exhibit D approval of Application No. 16-3873, Ryan and front yard setback variances. 8. #16-3874 STONEWOOD, LLC, ON BEHALF OF LYLE AND GRETCHEN SHAW, 1750 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES, 7:01 P.M. — 7:27 P.M. Sven Gustafson with Stonewood, LLC; Kathy Alexander, Architect; and Lyle and Gretchen Shaw, Applicants, were present. Gaffron stated the applicants are planning to construct a new home on a substandard lakeshore lot. The property currently contains an existing small home with no garage. The property is located on Shadywood Road on the west side of Crystal Bay. The property is one of the smallest lots in the neighborhood along that shoreline. The applicants are requesting variances for hardcover, lot area, lot width, and structural lot coverage. The proposed survey also shows that there is a 10 -foot setback requirement where the applicants are proposing nine feet. Staff believes the house can be shifted slightly to meet the 10 -foot setback. The existing house is fairly small compared to most of the other homes in the neighborhood and has existed as a cabin for a number of decades. The proposed house is a bit larger than what currently exists. When Staff performed an analysis of five homes to the north and five homes to the south, it was determined that the proposed 18.2 percent structural coverage would not be inconsistent with the neighborhood. The lot consists of a quarter acre in a half -acre zone. The applicants are also looking for a hardcover variance to allow 29.6 percent where 25 percent is allowed. In this situation where the existing house has no garage and the proposed house will have an attached garage that meets the required 30 -foot setback from the street right-of-way, additional driveway is required. A backup apron is also proposed to allow for easier access onto Shadywood Road. The existing house encroaches slightly into the average lakeshore setback as well as into the 0-75 foot zone. The proposed house, however, will meet the average lakeshore setback and the 75 -foot setback. Page 11 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 17, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. There is a grade level patio proposed that is located partially within the 0-75 foot zone where no hardcover would normally be allowed, which requires a variance. Staff has provided an analysis of the variance requirements. Lot area and width variances are appropriate given the nature of the lot and the history of the lot sizes in this neighborhood. Staff, however, does not feel there is a justification for the side setback variance since the house can be relocated slightly to meet that setback. Staff does not generally recommend granting a variance for structural lot coverage for a new home where there are opportunities for an alternate design, especially in a complete teardownlrebuild situation. The 15 percent limit was established in 1989 primarily to limit structural massing on properties less than two acres in area. Lots smaller than 10,000 square feet are allowed 1,500 square feet of structural lot coverage. Given the surrounding homes, the proposed home is fairly modest along with a fairly modest patio. In terms of the hardcover, the driveway is proposed at a minimum width based on the width of the garage doors and a backup apron. If the width of the driveway is reduced, it would make it difficult to maneuver. Gaffron stated he would answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Schoenzeit asked what the average ages of the homes were that Staff surveyed. Gaffron indicated there was a range of ages. Some of the homes are fairly new within the last 5 to 15 years. Schoenzeit asked if many of them were constructed with structural coverage variances. Gaffron indicated he did not research to see if they had been granted structural coverage variances but many of them were granted hardcover variances. Gaffron stated in his view most of them are over the 15 percent limit. Page 12 of 28 NU MUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 17, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse asked if the property to the south is yet to be developed. Thiesse noted the property to the north is much larger than this property. Gaffron stated the property to the north is almost double the size, with a fairly large house, and the house to the immediate south is also larger than the applicants' proposed house. Gretchen Shaw, Applicant, stated at the time of the original submittal, they had not gotten the signatures of the adjacent neighbors. Shaw indicated they have subsequently obtained the signatures of those neighbors and that she would Re to submit those at this time. Shaw stated the only suggestion they received was to improve the landscaping, which is something they intend to do. Shaw stated they have owned the home for approximately 20 years. It is currently a cottage or cabin structure and is quite limiting in use. Shaw stated they are planning to retire and that they hope to use it as a year-round home. Shaw stated in its current state, they could not do that. Lyle Shaw, Applicant, stated the house was constructed in the 1940s and is pretty limited. Shaw indicated one neighbor actually reviewed the plans in quite a bit of detail and suggested including a few windows. Jeff Gustafson, Stonewood, stated they are willing to relocate the house slightly to eliminate the side yard setback variance. Gustafson noted in Staff's report it says the property to the south was granted a variance for 20 percent structural coverage in 2006 and that they used that as a guide for what might be reasonable. The Planning Commission had no questions for the applicants. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. Page 13 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 17, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. V Lemke stated he agrees with Staff and that the house appears to fit in with the rest of the neighborhood. c Lemke commented the current house is quite limiting. Thiesse pointed out if you take the square footage of the proposed garage and subtract it from the structural coverage, they would be at the current structural coverage on the lot. Thiesse stated it is the garage that is adding the structure to the property and that the applicants have a right to have a garage in Minnesota. Thiesse noted the hardcover is being driven by the turnaround, which is absolutely necessary given the road, and that narrowing up the driveway will not help the lake. Schwingler commented the proposed house improves the neighborhood. Leskinen stated she was thinking the same thing about the garage and that is what is driving the structural coverage. Schoenzeit stated if the City keeps approving structural coverage variances rather than the lots becoming conforming as they rebuild, this whole neighborhood will be rubberstamped at five percent more structural coverage. Schoenzeit stated regardless of where a property is located, the City allows them a 1,500 square footprint, but that these applicants are getting 1,951 square feet over the 1,611 allotted based on their lot size.. Thiesse noted the lot is small. Leskinen stated that is part of the practical difficulty, especially given the contour of the shoreline, and that in her view it is a reasonable request. Schoenzeit asked why the neighboring house received a 20 percent structural coverage variance. Gaffron indicated he does not know the answer at this time but that Staff can research it prior to the City Council meeting. Page 14 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 17, 2016 ` 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse noted that house was built 10 years ago, which is when the precedent was set. Thiesse stated if you look down the channel on the other side south of this area, those houses are also becoming very similar in size. Schoenzeit stated the question is if it makes sense or it is a good idea, is it becoming a wink -wink, nod - nod situation. Schoenzeit stated typically 15 percent has been a very sacred number. Thiesse stated he would agree it is more often than not. Schwingler commented the Planning Commission looks at these on a case-by-case basis and that he does not have an issue with it in this situation. Thiesse noted the applicants are proposing the same size house but are requesting a garage, which is rs reasonable request. Schoenzeit stated if this one is not held to the same standard as other lots in the City, in his view the structural coverage variance is losing its weight. Thiesse stated if a 1,600 square foot house and garage are constructed, it would not fit in with the neighborhood since both homes on either side of this property are huge. Schoenzeit stated perhaps this is a discussion for a work session. Schoenzeit stated if the City is not going to enforce the 15 percent structural coverage limit, then it should not be on the books. Thiesse stated the City has held the 15 percent number sacred for a number of years and that this is a variance request. Schoenzeit commented the argument could then be made for a 3 -stall garage rather than a 2 -stall garage, which would help make for cleaner neighborhoods. Thiesse pointed out the City has granted a number of hardcover variances in the past as well but that is not being discussed tonight. Page 15 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 17, 2016 > 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit stated if the rule is 15 percent, the house is too big. Schoenzeit stated if the City is going to , stop enforcing 15 percent structural coverage, then it is a reasonable project based on the other homes in the neighborhood. Schoenzeit stated depending on what the duty of the Planning Commission is, it could be an issue. Thiesse stated the duty of the Planning Commission is to answer the practical difficulty questions, and that one of the questions is whether it fits the neighborhood. Schoenzeit stated at 15 percent, it would still fit in with the neighborhood. Leskinen commented she would disagree with that. Schoenzeit stated when the next guy asks for a structural coverage variance, there is no way the City can hold him to 15 percent if they approve this one based on the rationale that it fits the neighborhood. Thiesse commented he agrees with that but that he is not going to vote on this one simply because the next application is requesting a structural coverage variance. Thiesse stated he believes this one fits in with the neighborhood. Leskinen noted the whole point of the variance is if it cannot meet the ordinance as it stands and the practical difficulties of this application are very clearly outlined. Leskinen stated by taking it on a case- by-case basis, that does not mean the Planning Commission is blowing off the 15 percent. Leskinen stated the Planning Commission has to deal with the merits of what is in front of them. Schoenzeit stated in the past the Planning Commission has encouraged the applicants to acquire more land if their lot is substandard and they want a bigger house. Leskinen stated the Planning Commission is not talking about that tonight. Schoenzeit commented the City loses credibility in enforcing it anywhere else. Page 16 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETP G Monday, October 17, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. ` ,V 4V Thiesse stated the City has been trying to hold the 15 percent sacred for a long time but that the City has allowed the other numbers to go all over the map.` Schoenzeit noted it is a clean sheet and it is way bigger than what would normally be allowed on this size of property. Thiesse commented a 1,000 square foot house on Lake Minnetonka does not cut it in this day and age. Schoenzeit noted it is 1,611 square feet. Thiesse stated the garage consists of the other structural coverage and that it is basically 1,000 square foot house. Schoenzeit stated if the City is going to stop enforcing structural coverage, it should be discussed in a work session. Thiesse asked if hardcover and average lakeshore setback variances will also be discussed at the work session since they are also being requested tonight. Schoenzeit stated a structural coverage limit is a starting number. Schoenzeit commented the distance of the driveway from the street that naturally adds coverage to the house is fine if it is necessary, but that if one of the top numbers is no longer solid, then the Planning Commission should stop reviewing it. Barnhart stated what he is hearing is that the neighborhood has established the scope of the structural lot coverage or style of house and that it might be appropriate to suggest that the City re-examine the structural coverage in certain areas where variances have been granted in the past. Barnhart stated it might be appropriate to look at different standards for different areas at some point in the future but that the Planning Commission should still examine the variance in this case based on what has been presented tonight. Page 17 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 17, 2016 } 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit commented the discussion may need to be around nonconforming lakeshore lots where 15 percent structural coverage is not reasonable. Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission can have that discussion. Lemke stated he understands what Commissioner Schoenzeit is saying, but that given this situation, in his view it is a great solution for a very limiting lot. Lemke stated the practical difficulties are met and that he would vote to approve it. Schoenzeit stated if there is a lakeshore amenity checklist and many people do it for under 2,000 square feet, then the 15 percent limit is out of date. Thiesse stated he agrees and that perhaps the limit should be 2,000 square feet. Schwingler noted that is not before the Planning Commission tonight. Schoenzeit stated based on what is before the Planning Commission, they have to adjust the criteria to put it through. Thiesse commented the City adjusts the criteria for variances all the time. Thiesse stated the applicants can shrink it until it becomes unlivable in order to meet the limit but that they are requesting a variance. Schoenzeit stated he would be happy to discuss it in a work session. Leskinen moved, Lemke seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3874, Stonewood, LLC, on behalf of Lyle and Gretchen Shaw, 1750 Shadywood Road, granting of lot area, lot width, hardcover and structural lot coverage variances, as outlined in Staff's report, with elimination of the side setback variance. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 9. #16-3875 PILLAR WINDMILLER AND GREG BLASKO, 7:46 P.M. Page 18 of 29 BAY ROAD, VARIANCE, 7:27 P.M. - ,< JI CENT PROPERTY OWNERV ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM + Council of 4 Exhibit E [print nam (s) (print ddress) I have rev ie a ire pi For the proposed improvement or proposed use f the property located at /1!50d also referred to as Land Use Application No. I (we) understand that in execdting this acknowledgement; I (we) am (are) not asked to.declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the impraveme a q and t the proposed neighbor's pro,1W or use requires Council approval. If you have any information that inay assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submityou rba nrnents is the Building & zoning Oftice at least is days prior to the scheduled meeting date, H# MewfkklAiii+H!# r1^4+FMt�t�4ii#4�YiikiiM�fH*i���� f itiH�.�f iliii#�#iir#ti4�4kt+�4i ikiil3aar�firtfl�f*#� M*1Y44fkttl� t#*+#� stMRa�4�nHrktRilirr wi K ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM I (we) of �` [print n me(s)] [p " t address] have nevi ed a plans for the proposed. Improvement or prop edf the property looted at .A!5b Pisa referred to as Land Use Appilcatiori No. I (we) understated that in executing this acXnowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval df the property or use but merely to .confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the irnprdvement pis and thele proposed rnelghboes project or use requires Council approval. Date Date V If you have bny information that may assist the City In the review of this Land Use .11 Application, please submit yaur comments to the Buildlrig & zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date, 1/atr6itCeApplro�kan»14day24i¢Paw v b�l ADJACENT PROPERTY OVVNERS' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM '� of (we) [print addr ssj tint name(s)] have re iewed the plans for the {proposed Improvement or proposed use of the property located at — S Aa cscti>. also referred to as Land Use Application No. $C 1 (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement: I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Counoil that l (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and thatthe proposed neighbors projector uss requires Council approval. 1-4 /0- —lie —1 Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. ## y./r*,e##iF�k'k###ie#'# ##irk#&#*k •�ti####�g#tNt*###i9H1 pkv iy##4##*i�irk�r'ItR'##iriYiY'k�'#i�fe7Mtfrir*irit�aFdrk# ##iriHrirRd f� #+f�i.f..irMleir#�F Mi#f#!r* *#� MkAlo#*!e w!# ie�M ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM I (we) Xof (print address3 [print name(s)) have reviewed the plansreferred t proposed. for ! asLand Use improvement ator proposed use of the property located at also I (we) understand that In executing this acknowletfgement, 'l. (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property br use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) ani (are) aware of the #rrprdvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. caner Date r£ip�fty . Owner Date . If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office atleast 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date_ Date Application Received: 9121116 Date Application Considered as Complete: 9121116 60 -Day Review Period Expires: 11/20/16 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Jessica Loftus, City Administrator From: Mike Gaffron, Senior Planner jr2N Date: October 13, 2016 Subject: #16-3874, Stonewood LLC o/blo Lyle & Gretchen Shaw - 1750 Shadywood Road - Variances - Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicants request variances for lot area, lot width, hardcover and structural lot coverage for construction of a new residence on the property. Staff Recommendation: If Planning Commission determines that the practical difficulties test is met and the variances are justified, then a recommendation for approval may be in order. Zoning District: LR -1C, One Family Lakeshore Residential, 112 acre/ 100' min. width Lot Area/ Width: 10,740 s.f. (0.25 acre) 162'+ defined width List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Survey — Existing Exhibit C. Survey - Proposed Exhibit D. Proposed Building Plans Exhibit E. Practical Difficulties Statement Exhibit F. Hardcover Worksheets Exhibit G. Staff Review — Neighborhood Lot Sizes, Lot Coverage Exhibit H. Plat Map Exhibit I. Property Owners List Exhibit J. Neighborhood & Site Photos Background The applicant Stonewood LLC is planning to construct a new home on this substandard lakeshore lot for the Shaws. The property currently contains a small home with no garage. The lot is approximately one-quarter acre in the half -acre LR -1C zoning district, and is one of the smallest lakeshore lots on Shadywood Road, primarily due to the shape of the lakeshore. The property is served by municipal sewer and water. Applicants are requesting variances for hardcover and structural coverage, as well as for lot area and width. Additionally, the "proposed" survey indicates the north side setback at 9.9 feet where a 10 -foot setback is required. The proposal includes a new home with attached 2 -stall garage and a driveway with backup apron to allow vehicles to enter Shadywood Road in a forward manner. While the existing house encroaches FILE #16-3874 October 13, 2016 Page 2 of 7 approximately 18 feet into the 75' lakeshore setback, the new home is proposed to be 75' from the OHWL. Similarly, the existing house encroaches 16' lakeward of the average setback line, while the new home will be completely behind that line. A proposed grade - level patio, however, is located partially within the 0-75' zone where no hardcover is normally allowed. Total hardcover proposed for the site is 29.6% where only 25% is normally allowed. Existing hardcover is 16.9%. Structural lot coverage, including the proposed house, attached garage and roofed front stoop, calculates to 1,951 s.f. or 18.2% of the lot area where 15% lot coverage is allowed. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET (Variances noted in bold type) LR 1C Zoning District Re uired/Allowed Proposed Lot Area 0.50 ac. minimum 0.25 ac existing Lot Width 100' minimum 62' existing Proposed New Residence District Tier Tier Street Setback 30' 30.8' (North) Side Setback 10' 9.9' (South) Side Setback 10' 10.4' Lakeshore Setback 75' 75' Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 10,740 s.f+ (0.25 acre) Existing: 9.3% (994 s.f.) Allowed: 15.0% (1,611 s.f) Proposed: 18.2% (1.951 s.fl Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Total Allowed Existing Proposed Overlay Area in Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover District Tier Tier Tier 1 10,740 s.f 2,685 s.f. (25 %) 1,816 s.f (16.9 %) 3,179 s.f. (29.6 %) Portion of Hardcover within 0-75' zone: 110 s.f. + (1.0%) APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 78-350. L -1^ Lot RE -a tr-eds z Sy=�;sei� 4reg.:ladars 78- 403: Lot C'ov2rEge zr-c Mzssmig S crW-Iards ( s •. u •rl overzge limited to 15%) 78-1680: -Ez dcover Rest_ fon Zeaes H. -o`_ ru-`owe-r in 0-75' Zone) 78-1700: 1� deover T -er P-er cenmg Umits (25% mar. FIC !a Tier :) o �EFr g Reguiarcus: Var<z.-ce (i ^. 'IS- In 78 In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the FILE #16-3874 October 13, 2016 Page 3 of 7 individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in Harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when (staff commentary in bold type): 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. Single family homes and the associated amenities are permitted uses in the LR - 1C district. The area and width variances if granted would allow construction of a single family home on the property. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed new residence structure is consistent with the comprehensive plan guiding of this and surrounding properties for residential use. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls. The property owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner by constructing a modest size single family home with a minimally sized 2 -stall garage, but the specific size and massing aspects of the request are not permitted by the Zoning Code. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. With respect to lot area and width, the substandard lot in single separate ownership is a circumstance inherent to the lot and not created by the landowner. The lot is one of the smallest lakeshore lots in the neighborhood, due to the curvature of the lakeshore and the relatively straight nature of Shadywood Road. A smaller home meeting the lot coverage and hardcover standards could be designed for the property but might be slightly out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. The side setback variance is not justified based on the lot size. c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The character of the neighborhood is not likely to be significantly altered by construction of the proposed home. Structural lot coverage for homes in the immediate neighborhood ranges from approximately 14% to 28%, with a median and average of approximately 20%. There is a relatively equal split between the number of homes with attached garages and those with detached garages near the road. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. The design of the proposed home is related to the need for functionality for the FILE #16-3874 October 13, 2016 Page 4 cf 7 homeowner including storage of vehicles and equipment, as well as providing for reasonably sized living spaces 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78." This condition is not applicable. 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This condition is not applicable, as the use for a single family residence is an allowed use in the LR -IC District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The lot is one of the smallest in the neighborhood. The adjacent property to the south is nearly identical in size and shape to the applicants' property, and was granted variances in 2006 for 20% structural coverage. Most of the developed lakeshore lots in the immediate area are larger than applicants' lot and most have lot coverage exceeding the 15% limit. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The standards applicable to this property apply to all other property in the LR -1C District; the lot coverage limits similarly apply to all other lots in the LR -IC district that are less than 2 acres in area. However, the LR -IC district contains many homes on properties which do not meet the LR -1C lot size standards due to originally being platted or developed prior to establishment of zoning codes in Orono. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. In the opinion of staff, granting of the lot area and width variances is necessary to preserve the property rights of the owner to build a new residence on the property. Similarly, in order to construct a residence consistent with the size, quality, and functionality of other lakeshore homes in the neighborhood, some level of hardcover variance and lot coverage variance is necessary. Granting of hardcover and structural coverage variances is not necessary if the ability to construct a residence consistent in size and functionality with the surrounding neighborhood is not a consideration. 11. The granting of the proposed variances will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. In the opinion of staff, granting of the requested variances would not impair health, safety, comfort or morals and would be in keeping with the intent of the zoning code. FILE #16-3874 October 13, 2016 Page 5 of 7 12. The granting of such variances will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. In the opinion of staff, granting of the area and width variance is necessary to solve an obvious practical difficulty. Granting of some magnitude of hardcover and structural coverage variances is also necessary in order to allow construction of a home that is commensurate with the surrounding neighborhood, and which provides for functionality and room sizes that are reasonably expected and accepted as normal in the neighborhood. The Commission may recommend and the Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Analysis — Lot Area and Width Variances Lakeshore lots on the western shore of Crystal Bay were platted between Shadywood Road and the lakeshore in the 1890s. These lots were typically 50-60 feet in width, and varied in depth due to the relatively straight road and curvilinear shoreline. The applicants' lot is at one of the "pinch points" where the lot depth is relatively short. On a majority of the originally platted lots individual cabins were built, which over time have been remodeled or replaced with larger homes. In a small number of cases, two or more lakeshore lots have been combined to create a larger lot, but a majority of the properties remain as single lots and most are significantly smaller than the '/2 -acre requirement of the LR -1C district. The fact that applicants' property contains an existing residence and has been assessed for and is connected to municipal sewer and water, are factors which inherently support the granting of lot area and width variances for construction of a new residence. Analysis — Side Setback Variance The survey indicating a proposed side setback of 99 feet to the north lot line may be inadvertent. With a proposed setback of 10.4 feet shown on the south side, it should not be a problem to reposition the house to meet the required 10 -foot side setback on both sides. There is no apparent justification for a variance to the side setback requirement. Analysis — Structural Lot Coverage Staff does not generally recommend granting a variance for structural lot coverage for a new home where there are opportunities for an alternate design, especially in a complete teardown/rebuild situation. The 15% limit was established in 1989 primarily to limit structural massing on properties less than 2 acres in area. Lots smaller than 10,000 s.f are allowed 1,500 s.f of structural lot coverage. City approvals or denials of variances to the lot coverage requirement have not been extremely consistent through the years, but when granted have often been predicated on livability, functionality and safety associated with use of a property. The applicants propose complete removal of the fairly small (20'x36') cabin existing on the property. The property has no garage, and apparently has been used seasonally for many years. The proposed new house with a 2 -stall attached garage will provide for a FILE #16-3874 October 13, 2016 Page 6 of 7 more functional year-round residence. Attaching the garage allows for additional second - story living space above it. It has been typical of tear-down/rebuilds on the lakeshore to attach the garage, resulting in a more compact massing of structure on a given site and resulting in a less -crowded streetscape. An added benefit is the ability to have a backup apron in the street yard to allow forward vehicle movement entering the road — especially important on Shadywood Road. The proposed house, covered front stoop and attached garage comprise 1,951 s.f. or 18.2% structural coverage of the property. Analysis — Hardcover Variance Because of the attachment, the garage becomes part of the house and as required by code is proposed to meet the 30' street setback. This results in additional length of driveway as compared to a side -load detached garage, while allowing for a 10'x10' backup apron and room for off-street guest parking. The proposed driveway is not much wider than the garage doors. The proposed grade -level patio extends approximately 6 feet past the average lakeshore setback line but at the low level is not considered as a view encroachment. The patio does constitute approximately 110 s.f. of hardcover in the 0-75' zone where hardcover is not normally allowed. Total hardcover proposed on the site is 3,179 s.f. (29.6%) where 2,685 s.f. (25%) would normally be allowed. Potential reductions appear to be limited — slight reductions in the driveway or patio may be possible but a reduction to reach the 25% limit would likely require a home re -design. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has submitted a Practical Difficulties Statement attached as Exhibit E, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Neighbor Comments Staff has not received any comments from the neighbors as of this writing. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the lot area and width variances, as well as the structural lot coverage and hardcover variances, if granted will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does Planning Commission find justification for granting structural lot coverage and hardcover variances for this new construction? 4. If the Planning Commission concludes that the variances as requested or in some other manner or configuration are justified, does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the variances? 5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? FILE #16-3874 October 13, 2016 Page 7 of 7 Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the site plan be revised to eliminate the side setback variance. If Planning Commission determines that the practical difficulties test is met and the variances are justified, then a recommendation for approval of the area, width, hardcover and lot coverage variances may be in order. If Planning Commission finds that the practical difficulties test is not met for one or more of the requested variances, a recommendation for denial, partial denial, or tabling for revisions, may be appropriate. Options for action include: 1) Recommend approval (with or without specific conditions). 2) Recommend partial approval (specify) 3) Recommend denial, stating reasons. 4) Table for further information or revisions — specify what inforrnation or changes are desired. 5) Other. City of Orono Variance Application 2760 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Main: 952-249-4600 fax: 952-249-4616 Wing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0065 Application # Date Received: Staff Fee: Escrow # & $ Permit Fee Notes: 1(p ` Please complete. Applicant will be notified within 15 days as to the status of the application. Incomplete applications will trot be placed on Planning Commission Agenda. PC Exhibit SITE LOCATION: n," -5c> W004n-- DESCRPTION OF REQUEST: Lam` . L67 1-�1OTIA, {attached as necessary) APPLICANT 1 AGENT INFORMATION. Applicant Name: 5 Phone (Primary): LQl'l,_- xgz- Applicant Email: S ar 4:9 t . Address: &S . Applicant is:ontractor Homeowner (CircleOne) PROPERTY OWNER IN Name: L` Phone (Primary): __" }C Mailing Address: }-Email: A r as applicant ZIP: APPLICANTIAGENT ANDIOR OWNER: Agree to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, • Agree to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and Certify, that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant and owner recognize that they are solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reject it until It Is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of Its potential merit. Acknowledge the Escrow Agreement is completed and signed. The Owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents, Commission and Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner and/or Applicant acknowledge they must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant and/or owner is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicant/owner and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. Applicant/Agent Signature: Date: ApplicantlAgent Signature: 74 Property Owner Signature: Prope wrier Signature: Variance Applicadon — May 2016 ac -.. Sep - .-01 lry Page 2 SEP 2 12016 t CITY OF ORONO # 3874 f ii EXISTING HOUSE 16-287 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR GRETCHEN SHAW OF LOT 16, SHADYWOOD HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA i CONTOUR (0.H.W.) LAKE MINNETONKA CRYSTAL BAY LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Lot 16, SHADYWOOD f : denotes iron marker found (908.3): denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum --917 --: denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datum Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. This survey Intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, and the location of an existing house, spot elevations, topography, trees, lakesides of adjoining houses, and all visible "hardcover" thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. GR O NB ER G & ASSOCIATES INC. 1 hweby �`fy that Ta �°n �`i�`�°"� � r�°`t SME was ed by n4 ar undx my anddirect swervie 0% 10-20' CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS, & SITE PLANNERS and laws o am ° ty L surveyor under orf tfis laws of the State of A6masota. 445 NORTH WILLOW DRIVE, LONG LAKE, MN. 55356 7-21-16 952-473-4141 aoa na. Mork S. Gronberg Minnesota License Number 12755 16-287 fe 3874 PC Exhibit B RECEIVF—:) SEP 21 ?t,`11 JCITY OF ORONO 18-28'7A EXISTING 1 HOUSE I PA #1740 TIO 1 ! l axn y "� �'� �� (as+►1i i �1 i ' ----S 89°53'30" E 31.23 '� l a•''"�c. 0 .rr ... 31.28— ~" t��� 63.19 P I a 41F.1' I IS f iPROPOSED ................... .. 1` LWKk /PROPO iy yl / DRI EWAYD #1750HOUSE r-0 ,, � AVERAGE 1 1 1 a� !9j ftl 13 KMESWRE (A) , SETBACK 11 1 } `�rrriyy EQNS& WELL(q 1 14ACK I "�ryyy 11 11 y ............scoTn�aaE 2 i 1 ao ., y 1 l�aa. L • --30.92_ ..... -~• r°.,�•�a (a,awf � � _ 9S1 a4-•''`�- � EXISTING y» GARAGE 1 66 � 1 LACkr"P(sass) \ yl (6., (.A) 1 EXISTING 1 \ \ \1 HORSE DECK #1750 (141.1) 1 1 (9+ 4 (aa1 �.� 1 yi Ib CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR GRETCHEN SHAW OF LOT 16, SHADYWOOD HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LAKE 1 MINNETONKA 1 CRYSTAL BAY 929.4 CONTOUR ,.� •'LINE (a.Fl.w.} 1 '�-' I 1 � 1\\ 11 \tou,B 11 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES 1 1 1 1 Lot 16, SHADYWOOD 11 � 11 1 1 t • : denotes iron marker found (Eaob (908.3): denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum --917--: denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datum Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. PC Exhibit C ?" N �: iff,7t, This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, and the location of an existing house, spot elevations, topography, trees, lakesides of adjoining houses, and all visible "hardcover" thereon. It does not purport to show any other ..3874 improvements or encroachments. G R O N B E R G &ASSOCIATES, hereby certBfy that t)fia �W '`atian or reportSCALE was prepared by l or under my dSWV supervision, ip, 2a �p$�11■ ® INC.• and th°t ! am a duly Licensed Lad Surveyor uwkr 1y/�e r CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS, & SITE PLANNERS �°'"$ °f the sta#e of Minnesota. DATE 7-21-18 445 NORTH WILLOW DRIVE, LONG LAKE, MN. 55356 (+�g � +I �pl+� 952--473-4141 sae IED• SEP I 0 16- 287A Mark S. Gronberg Minnesota LICenas Number 12755 s6. PETAL P106 ,moi I TAR pm� C�4 Ali 0 0 M.- OA ' Ir - .............5 31.28 ....... l PROPOSED DRIVEWAY NUUI,)t PAT # 1740 rL 10) (942.1) (93u) , Iia (93") 1 j �' I ' (940A) 1-1 (93m) (934.3 Lill 31.23 0 7ALW 63.19 Ln: ....18.9 (C) PROPOSED WALK (D) &0 Pi 29.13. PROPOSED ..................... - HOUSE #1750 (A) 28.13 d 40.8 11 EGRESS WEj.L,_,(Ej, 24"- SCOZC9"PhNE 11 ""'30.92.......... EXISTING 0 9 — X\1142* GARAGE GARAGE M " "05 0. W 1 \ (941.1} (939.5) (940.8) (939.4) (940.7") (947.2) EXISTING I G, "H-O,-U,S,-E, FO BE REMOVED: no .......\V1 SULEY •KLINE� 7.0 AVERAGI V SETBACKAKESHORE LINE 75' SETBACK T\,LINE 20" H HOUSE #1760 (942. 941.4 ........ 42 DECK 130.90- (940.4 11 929.4 CONTOUR __.__"LINE (O.H.W.) (931.1 I' 01 (932.4) RECENCID er1XFj .1 r)n4,- LAKE mil CRYSTAI LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREM Lot 16, SHADYWOOD e .: denotes iron n (908.3): denotes existir —917 -- -: denotes existir Bearings shown are This survey intends to show property-. and the location n tA- # 3874 N PC Exhibit D RECEIVED SEP 21 2016 "COOF ORONO + id1 , — 04,- i 1 tA- # 3874 N PC Exhibit D RECEIVED SEP 21 2016 "COOF ORONO �r 1h. � WNW, 11FIFF 7J-1 - Q WFIII Ikoo!_�! ALEXANDER Shaw DESIGN GROUP 3D Conceptual Illustration Copyright 2016 - Alexander Design Group Inc. 09/20/16 # 3874 RECEIVED SEP 212016 CITY OF ORONO +.I Ik 14L C: ..ifllllifrniilliiil[luilrliiiuniilniiim11iNliliirlli�i�iii�lrlliLllllii�arifiilile(iliinAiniiLrlliil�lu[3 in r[ ur Ii1lUlllll[141[![llIAI[11111[11111[IIIIIlI11AIrlArflrn1111I11A1[IIIIllllll]rllill[IllAl[IlIlfrllEll[IIIi1rlAlAl[IIII UI f111 r ■■ ■■ - ■■ Irl>f{If ■■ ISO NEW >Illll111!111ifi ■■ �■IA llrnymflII■■i■■ !li! fl111r1 lr[IIIIfil illgllllll[nl[111kf1110!llnlllr111g11111r1fElAlrnllllglflllllqllllllrlllll[ILEIIl111111!llllliEltjllllllrnil Vr lo { ` 1111 1,4,11 I111l1 1111111+[1rIp11rlpfll111AllplldrlAlll[11114r11 iA! ► ��� i_1�_� Ifll, t llllll II�illlil11111rI11�ilEl�l�lAI1IlIIIL1ri111I11r1lrillnrnlnllululull[Inulllll{r111g1I11fI�lllf{illlflrllElll Ili i {j�� {jlnll l■IllllrllllllillllrlllLlrkUAlr11111111111�11111111AlliIlllrilllAill1111111r[Ir1111ir111fI III i! ; I�IIf�IIJ.�Illll�l� 1�1. ■ m I111� n n 11[IIIAI■I111linglrlllflr111111IIIfIIrAILI[I11111111lE[IIIAI[IIIIIl1111Ir11111iHIIlil113 Il �IfII�II�IIIII� YI +iiiiiin�� I�III! hI 11111{ llfllllUl[Illi]rlllfl[n111rllllllllllll[1IA1111gfrIr111iI1111II11111RIfIr1111111r111[IIIllrurill, lfi 111! 111 11!!! ■. ... u�++������� __IIIIYI�III�IfIIItI[1M I IIH�..........f11�f1I11111111AirI11LILI11lIrI11LIlI11g11i11111R1I1g1lElli" �� I I III .,r�.�.,.�.�.,.....,.. �ROOP PLAN CM'rPW&ff M6, ALMUMM MMN aaV. W. .m xaures=rop�owl,—m4 � prpllae6lbVa Me MeeCNpNW A! MAIW VPM sreupea�rNlrr'Ven ■o pec esu o s mriD, wtKrQausme a w MMowrK�Pwar. WAMOM soaewtcn�ler� rcrurrowmrsram PQM 1CNII��W p�R wn�er>,w+w��rkpparrplamis uc eeeasraaermeasiart�r rp yip. wiMO�ir�k ��m�wr�.ea�a� a�a�e arelrlalrpfreeretwwenp ncrivxmer i 00.faYGOIlr wmp Gl�rls'N{!m. MLtlealaPMlMO?111r11�MMal Meilree Me b� w��ICvrwp fO6�meaYX9t119T, e16lp{Lirl! wrca lice �Ia'ErfO!{IIR Yllrrla�LpMp� LOMM LEVEL FLOOR PLAN ac*La W-r.r RECEIVED SEP 21 2016 LCfY OF ORONO RMK CK.K.IIO.diGIKKi /l wfl•IMK eepRAO M�IKIImYM 11Q K1GM..TM'Kl11 V /IDMKwwKfl.IGr IC wO ro.K1r1O T� bSR�r01Tirt1r1� OglK O Ket.tlw wKf I Ktll,.0 w� IIKI.wC111L�C�! fOltw�{QQ I� W iK! Od�I N� !G �!K!w 110 wMKw•YTr 1011N iKiYWIOII[YdKYMCIi� 11� K91wilfNKKlWKIK1 w.11P� ••LOOKKMAO [�WK'� MI!'OMw� iP.Rio11'r'�b�KflRf etlrwCKlL NOYM.XIgbYrlFaIVAIJm. tlf1iE1 O OCIIK1rri O l�!!/1 r1N MIS wwarm Yt111YLiO111K.IN w1ALwww wwK�IGR K: rnwcaewralarKnKswlulrnw u1K1eInK wrca+lnaow w� wcKlrnnm.we comwo WA.Amummtvmm GmarW- LHOPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN \,V w.." vs•.r v EGL41E PODTAfiE lwl. eu. NN1�7Q1• NK Iwai- 1KI1 WR wr AMAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN GC^& ra•.r-r RECEIVED SEP 212016 C.M OF ORONO Practical Difficulty Statement PC Exhibit E 1750 Shadywood Road, Orono 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. The proposed use is the construction of a modest sized single family home with a minimally sized 2 car garage. It is consistent, though similarly smaller than homes in the surrounding neighborhood. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The lot is one of the smallest in the neighborhood. Due to the curvature of the lakeshore and the location of the street, the property is at the pinch point of the two, creating a shallower lot than the surrounding properties. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed home is consistent in character and size with the surrounding homes. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Economic considerations have not been considered as a part of our request. The design of the home has been driven by needed functionality for the homeowner — indoor storage for their 2 cars, minimal garage space for lawn and snow removal equipment, an elevator — required due to the age of the applicants and the fact that the bedrooms are on the upper level, and not possible to have on the main level, and a minimal covered front porch. 5. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116106, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter. This does not apply. 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located." This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An application will not be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the City. Variance Application — May 2016 Page 5. This does not apply. Our use is permitted 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This does not apply. S. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The lot is one of the smallest in the neighborhood. Due to the curvature of the lakeshore and the location of the street, the property is at the pinch point of the two, creating a shallower lot than the surrounding properties. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The lot is one of the smallest in the neighborhood. Due to the curvature of the lakeshore and the location of the street, the property is at the pinch point of the two, creating a shallower lot than the surrounding properties. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant wishes to continue their use of the property that they've owned for many years. The existing structure does not have a garage, and the age and condition of the structure, as well as it's non -conforming location make remodeling or improving the structure problematic. The applicant&tEIVED —1 - 3874 SEP 2120,6 CITY OF ORONO to build a home that incorporates needed functionality for the homeowner — indoor storage for 2 cars, minimal garage space for lawn and snow removal equipment, an elevator — required due to the age of the applicants and the fact that the bedrooms are on the upper level, and not possible to have on the main level, and a minimal covered front porch. The resulting home exceeds both the hardcover and structural coverage limitations. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. To conform with the hardcover and structural coverage limits, the resulting home lacks functionality and room sizes that are reasonable expected and accepted as normal in the area. Practical Difficulties Statement Should you feel the practical difficulties cannot fully be described in the above criteria, describe the practical difficulties preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary): The subject property exists at a pinch point of Shadywood road and the shore of Lake Minnetonka. See Attached exhibit. Due to it's location, the lot is the shallowest lot in the vicinity, resulting in a reduced lot area. This property, and the property directly to the south are the shallowest in the vicinity. The home to the north is a double lot, and is not similarly restricted. The property to the south has and existing Structural coverage of 24.12%. Given this, our proposal is consistent with conditions on the neighboring property of similar size. The applicant wishes to continue their use of the property that they've owned for many years. The existing structure does not have a garage, and the age and condition of the structure, as well as it's non -conforming location make remodeling or improving the structure problematic. The applicant wishes to build a home that incorporates needed functionality for the homeowner — indoor storage for 2 cars, minimal garage space for lawn and snow removal equipment, an elevator, and a minimal covered front porch. The resulting home exceeds both the hardcover and structural coverage limitations. To conform with the hardcover and structural coverage limits, the resulting home would lack functionality and room sizes that are reasonable expected and accepted as normal in the area. The resulting home would be inconsistent with the neighboring properties. The driveway is a critical element of the site, allowing enough space for parking, guest parking, and space to safely navigate vehicles onto busy Shadywood road. Reduction of the area of the driveway created considerable difficulty. The resulting parking and driveway would be inadequate and unsafe, as it would not allow for guest parking off the street, and would not allow for turn around space for vehicles. RECEIVED SEP 2 12016 3874 CI Y OF ORONO The front porch, because it simply has a post instead of brackets drives the structural coverage figure higher. The applicant requests that this design consideration, which does not affect the size of the home, be considered as a reasonable increase to the structural coverage. Due to the limited area (by hardcover) all bedrooms must be placed either on the upper level or in the basement. This is a difficulty for the applicant due to their age and their desire to occupy the home in the long term. To address this, an elevator has been incorporated into the design. This inclusion necessarily increases the footprint of the home, the hardcover and the structural coverage. The applicant's design eliminates non conformities in the side and lakeside setbacks of the existing structure. r S SEP 21 2018 # 3874 CITY OF ORoNo City of Orono PC Exhibit F a Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Address: 7S 4A Prepared by Cr/� �,�✓B - �-� ` Cater i_f' Stormwater Quality Overlay Clistrict Tier: (Circle one)Tr71,) Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier s Step 1: In the following table ide y 1 Items of existing hardoover on the property, keyed by letter to Cer iticats a# Survey (survey must accompany this form). Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict existing hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 propettles, identify any features by letter which are split at the 75' setb4ck One and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. Key to Surrvse Her them (Descriibs) 1. Stip x Width t ere t=+est Exam Ga e ' x 720 S.F A Q msir 7 V6, S.F. B tqgirR / S.F. C e .!. aS.F. p }e ,"7- ,. 7 S.F. E r,< - 3 a 7 S.F. F S.F. G S.F. H S.F. S.F. S.F. K S.F. L S.F. M S.F. N S. 0 S.F: P S.F. Q S.F. R S.F. S S.F, T S.F. U S.F. Y $.F. W S.F. X S.F. Y S,F. z .F. Total NOR H S.F. Exdftc amt. S.F. .F. S.F. ST. 2 Tdd ExcludWe H000"Or S.F. Not Mft H"Zwer 1jubkod l f m lima ji 11 ''. fS.F. 01 Total Lot Arm 40 7 AeO S.F. Proposed HardCmW Pia ((3)+(4)1 l ,� % C (Pmp� wfa�apwer next p"e) bdi Suvision App On - Joan}+ 2016 Tt* is on � �MU7 alrixt hes been made b ensue rite �rotthe �n �hev�sin;lagever, #any wommftn is rat 0mow" with pr ww" ofthe l de Pep 18 7 4 SITY OF O � RONO � City of Orono Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Address: sx a Prepared by: C,09 s Date: Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) ljir 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Step 2: ROPOSED HARDCOVE In the following to e, i entify a items of proposed hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to Certificate of Survey (survey must accompany this form). Include all existing hardcover items that are intended to remain, as well as all proposed hardcover items that will be added. Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict proposed hardcover status of the property. For Tier 9 properties, identify any features by letter which are split at the 75' setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. KeytoHardcover Item (Describe) Su Length x Width Total (Square Feet (Example) Gara a (24'x 30' 720 S.F. A S.F. © S.F. C C TG � p S.F. C t E EDRF;'i W"GL /-12 Z S.F. S.F. F G S.F. H S.F. I S.F. S.F. K S.F. L S.F. M S.F. N S.F. o S.F. P S.F. a S.F. R S.F. S S.F. T S.F. U S.F. V S.F. W S.F. X S.F. Y S.F. Z S.F. S.F. l Total Proposed Hardcover Excludable Hardcover See C& Code Sec 7S -16S4 : S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 2 Total Excludable Hardcover p S.F. 3 Net Proposed Hardcover Subtract line 2 from line ONsS.F, 4 Total Lot Area /0 S.F. Proposed Hardcover Peroentage J(3)+(4)] pC RECEIVED `. 460°% SEP 2 120111 -# 3874 Subdtvision Application - Jenuary tole This is an information packet reg ►(er"as been made to ensure the accuracy of the Information contained herein; however, If any information is not consistent with provisions of the City Code, the Code provisions wfil prevail. page 19 PC Exhibit G Shadywood Road — Lot Area & Lot Coverage Analysis MPG 10/12/16 The following data is based on a review of 10 lakeshore developed properties (5 either side of 1750 Shadywood Road). Lot areas and lot coverage by structures for each lot were estimated using the City's GIS and digital aerial map evaluation resources which allow calculation of areas. Note that the lot coverage calculations include roof overhangs which are not normally included in the lot coverage calculation — the data are accurate for comparison purposes but may not reflect the actual lot coverage if calculated by survey methods. (The data for 1750 Shadywood is based on the submitted site plan, and overhang square footages have been added based on the submitted building plans). Address 1680 Shadywood 1690 Shadywood 1710 Shadywood 1720 Shadywood 1740 Shadywood 1750 Shadywood 1760 Shadywood 1770 Shadywood 1780 Shadywood 1790 Shadywood 1800 Shadywood Lot Area 13,950 s.f. 16,300 s.f. 17,000 s.f. 12,300 s.f. 20,400 s.f. 10,740 s.f. 10,780 s.f. 11,100 s.f. 12,150 s.f. 13,800 s.f. 15,500 s.f. Lot Coverage (Incl. Roof Overhangs) 2,400 s.f. 17.2% 2,900 s.f. 3,400 s.f. 3,450 s.f. 3,600 s.f. 2,250 s.f. 2,400 s.f. 2,200 s.f. 2,550 s.f. 2,950 s.f. 2,210 s.f 17.8% 20.0% 28.0% 17.6% 21.0% 22.3% 19.9% 21.0% 21.4% 14.3% Average Lot Coverage of 10 Neighboring Lots: 19.95% Median Lot Coverage of 10 Neighboring Lots: 19.9-20.0% 4 ,i Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map 1 Provided By: Resident and Real Estate Services J PC Exhibit H Date: 9/20/2016 Buffer Size: 350 feet Map Comments: 1711723210021 GRETCHEN 5 SHAW 1750 Shadywood Road Orono, MN 55391 7 RECEIVED SEP 2 1201 i I CITY OF ORONO 0 120 240 480 ft For more information contact: Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South Minneapolis, MN 55487 gis-info@hennepin.us cosy reel' L.auels Use Avery® Template 51600 Bend along line to i Feed Paper ■ expose Pop-up EdgeTM AVEWO 5900T' JOHN P FITZPATRICK ARLYN A & NANCY J BIRKHOLZ 38 17-117-23 21 0005 38 17-117-23 21 0023 LAUREEN E DARLING DANIEL P O'DONOGHUE 1719 EAGERNESS POINT RD 1770 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATAMN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 PC Exhibit I 38 17-117-23 21 0006 38 17-117-23 21 0024 CITY OF OROINO ERIC P WILSON P O BOX 66 2885 SANFORD AVE SW CRYSTAL. BAY MN 55323 #34389 17-117-23 210021 GRANDVILLE MI 49418 38 i7-117-23 210007 38 17-117-23 21 0025 CITY OF ORONO JOSHUA D MATEFFY P O BOX 66 CAITLIN M MATEFFY CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 2342 NORTH WAYNE AVENUE CHICAGO IL 60614 38 17-117-23 21 0008 38 17-117-23 210026 MICHAELA DIERCKS DOUGLAS R SEABOLT 1795 SHADYWOOD RD 1800 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 21 0017 38 17-117-23 210027 JAMES S & DARCY D LOFFLER CHAD J RICHARDSON 9471 FOXFORD RD 1810 SHADYWOOD RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 210018 38 17-117-23 21 0028 JOHN P FITZPATRICK ARLYN A & NANCY J BIRKHOLZ JOAN H FITZPATRICK 1740 SHADYWOOD RD 1710 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATAMN 55391 WAYZATAMN 55391 1825 SHADYWOOD RD 38 17-117-23 2. 0019 38 17-117-23 23 0001 THOMAS J & ANN D MONSON HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND 225 COUNTRY CLUB CT NOT FOR SALE/WATER FRONT LA CROSSE WI 54601 38 17-117-23 21 0020 38 17-117-23 24 0001 ARLYN A BIRKHOLZ RONALD A & SABRINA L RUUD NANCY J BIRKHOLZ 1825 SHADYWOOD RD 1740 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATAMN 55391 WAYZATAMN 55391 17-117-23 210021 38 17-117-23 24 0009 y7438 GRETCHEN S SHAW MARK KOSEK & GINA FINK KOSEK 1750 SHADYWOOD RD 1875 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATAMN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 a 38 17-117-23 H EISS210022 DAVID H EISS +T'w �! 1760 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATAMN 55391 joYOF ORONO Nq uettes faciies A paler Utiiisez le abarit AVERY® 5'16019 9 A i 1 Sens de Repliaz A la hachure afin des A charaeenent rl�v6ler le rebord Pop-up vwvw.avary wm 1 -800.60 -AVERY PC Exhibit J RECEIVED SER? 17014 # 387,hd CM OF ORC.)NO (. ogk` 1artfi map:Aido- B4f17Vf)l6j2Dl5)- C image lof2 raS 175t? �v&oy vjc*N m G 7�K �10R� 4r A Date Application Received: 9/21/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 9/21/16 60 -Day Review Period Expires: 11/21/16 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Name: Jeremy Barnhart Y"-4 Title: Community Development Director Date: November 14, 2016 Item No.: 21 Agenda Section: Planning Items Item Description: #16-3875, Pillar Homes, obo Whitney Windmiller and Greg Blasko, 3295 Crystal Bay Road, Variances Application Summary: The applicants propose to remove the existing one story, walk out basement home and replace it with a two story, walkout basement home. The height requirements will be met, though variances from lot area, lake yard, rear yard, and structural coverage regulations are needed to build the designed home. The proposed home would extend into the required lake yard 11 feet, reduce the rear yard setback to 11 feet (30 required), and include 17% structural coverage where 15% is permitted. The lot is substandard due to size. The existing home encroaches into the lake yard and the east side yard setback. An existing watermain, cutting through the west side of the lot further impacts the buildable area. This watermain is not within an easement. At the request of the engineer, the applicants are providing an easement to protect the watermain if the variance is approved. The attached Planning Commission memo outlines the request in greater detail. The home is separated from the lake by a portion of Crystal Bay Road, a steep slope, and heavy vegetation. Planning Commission Recommendation On October 17t", the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the application including the evidence submitted. Two comments have been received regarding the variance, these comments were generally in support of the variance, but included concern about the impact to the access lane. Following the public hearing the Commission voted 5 to 0 in favor of a motion to approve the variances. The commission suggested conditions to protect the access drive and formalize the watermain encroachment. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Based on Planning Commission recommendation, staff has prepared a resolution approving the variances. Council should consider adopting or amending the approval resolution. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Draft Resolution Exhibit B. Proposed survey and plans Exhibit C. Draft PC Minutes 10/17/16 Exhibit D. PC Staff Report and exhibits - 10/17/16 Council Exhibit A 16-3875 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-350 AND 78-1403 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3295 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - FILE NO. 16-3875. WHEREAS, Greg Blasko and Whitney Windmiller, individual persons, (hereinafter the "Owners") are owners of the property located at 3295 Crystal Bay Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as follows: That part of Lot 2, Block 2, TOWNSITE OF LANGDON PARK, lying Southwesterly of the Northeasterly 80 feet thereof, according to the plat thereof on file or record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for Hennepin County, together with that part of Northern Avenue vacated abutting upon said described premised in the rear lying between the extensions of the easterly and Westerly side lines of said tract. Subject to a right to create a public easement for highway purposes over the Southeasterly 33 feet of that part of said laid out as Northern Avenue as shown in Deed Doc. No. 198674, Files of Register of Titles; and WHEREAS, the Owners on September 20, 2016 made a complete application to the City for variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-350 in order to allow the construction of a new single family residence on a lot 12,841 s.f. in area where 21,780 s.f. lot area is normally required; with a lake yard setback of 64 feet where a 75 feet is normally required; with rear yards setback of 11 feet where a 30 -foot setback is normally required; from section 78-1403 to allow 2,299 s.f. (17.9%) of structural coverage where 1,927 s.f. (15%) is permitted; and WHEREAS, on October 17, 2016 after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and Page 1 of 7 WHEREAS, on October 24, 2016, the Planning Commission on a vote of 5-0 recommended approval of the variances as presented; and WHEREAS, on November 14, 2016, the Orono City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested variances as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning this property: FINDINGS OF FACT: Al. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. A2. The Property is located within the LR -1C Single Family Rural Residential District which requires a minimum lot area of 0.5 acres and a minimum lot width of 100' for construction of a single family residence. A3. The Property is 0.29 acres in area, being 108 feet in defined width. The Property is considered as legally nonconforming with regard to lot area. A4. The Property is located within Storm Water Overlay District Tier 1 which allows 25% hardcover. The proposed residence construction will result in hardcover on the Property of approximately 24.99%, below the maximum hardcover allowance. A5. The Owners are planning to construct a new home on this lot. The proposed 2 -story home includes an attached garage and has an overall footprint of approximately 2,299 s.f. The house is proposed as a walkout, taking advantage of the existing slope of the lot. The existing home is a walk out. A6. The Owners are requesting a number of variances, as Crystal Bay Road, an existing watermain, and existing vegetation all impact the buildable area of the lot in an unique way. AT The Property at 100' wide and less than 1/2 acre in area is typical of lots in the Crystal Bay neighborhood. Over the past century, individual lots as well as double lots and a few triple or larger lots have been built on with single family homes. A8. The Owners are proposing to meet the required side yard setbacks, and the average lake shore setback. The encroachment into the latke yard is minimum and not impactful to the neighborhood. The rear (street) setback variance is to permit a 11 foot setback for Page 2 of 7 the proposed side loaded garage. The bulk of the house is behind the 30 foot rear street setback line. The proposed setback is not out of character with the neighborhood; the neighboring house to the west is setback about 5 feet, and the neighboring house to the east is setback about 25 feet. The need for the shortened setback is in part due to the topography of the lot and its relation to the `walkout' configuration. A9. In considering this application for variances, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. VARIANCE ANALYSIS: B 1. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The ordinance is intended to reduce lake impacts (lake yard and structural coverage) and massing (structural coverage and rear yard setbacks). The proposed two story homes presence will be mitigated by the fact the home is fairly secluded, the primary access is via a dead end gravel driveway (which this house is the second from the end) and the adjacent Crystal Bay Road is separated from the improvements with riparian vegetation and steep slopes. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variance allows the redevelopment of the single family lot, this improvement is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The property owner desires to construct a new 2,299 square foot home, replacing a 1,781 square foot home on a lot that has approximately 2,400 square feet of buildable area. The planned expansions outside of this area are not out of character with recent variances in the area, notably for the house to the south. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The slope of the lot toward the lake, the location of Crystal Bay Road, and the location of the existing watermain, all influence the buildable area for the lot, none of which was created by the landowner; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Many of the homes in the immediate area require some level of variance to improve the property. The two lots on either side of the subject property have obtained Page 3 of 7 variances over the years. Most recently, the lot to the south received a variance from the lake yard, the average lake, rear yard and lot coverage in 2014. The new home as proposed is 2 story with a ground floor walk out. The home appears to be consistent in scale with the homes on either side, though there are smaller homes in the neighborhood. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The location of the watermain through the lot, and not within an easement does impact the property, and the ability for the owner to improve the lot. This is peculiar to the subject lot. The small lot does add challenge to reasonable improvements for the property. 5. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The watermain does not impact other properties in the area the same way. This watermain effective makes the side yard setback 19-33 feet, depending on the location of the watermain. Other lots in the area have received variance to improve the properties. 6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The lot permits approximately 2,400 square feet of buildable area. It seems likely that some variance would be necessary to build a home with the typical amount of covered parking and the amount of living space consistent with the neighborhood. 7. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. There has been no evidence to suggest that the variances would impact the health, safety, and comfort of adjacent parcels or the city at large. The City has received some comment regarding the care and preservation of the gravel access road, primarily through a construction impact standpoint. An inspection of the road should be completed prior to construction to establish a baseline. 8. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The applicant appears to propose a home that minimizes encroachment into the lake zone (average lake and lake yard). CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Page 4 of 7 Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-350 and 78-1403 in order to allow the construction of a new single family residence, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the survey/site plan and building plans submitted by the Owners and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A and B. Any amendments to the approved survey/site plan and building plans which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. Owners shall comply with the permitting requirements of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 3. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Owners, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the project and commencing construction of said project within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variances will expire on that date (November 14, 2017). 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned Owners have read, understand and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the Owners and the Owners' heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the Property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 14th day of November, 2016. ATTEST: Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor Page 5 of 7 Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2016, by Gregory Blasko. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2016, by Whitney Windmiller. Page 6 of 7 Notary Public Page 7 of 7 i Note Lot width as meas. along 75ft. OHW setback line = 108.1 ft. PC Exhibi' 91OZ 1 d3S ' Lot width as meas. along 30 ft. ROW setback line = 101.0 ft. Building hermit Survey 3 0Ai3D�a ,� r `f Prepared for: Wh i to ey Win dm ill er Council 1rn ~asl Proaosed Elevations: Legend Exhibit B ( — FFE = 953.5 9 Found iron Monument It�l Manhole 16-3875 3 ` TOF (street side) - 952.67 w 1 sem: - Y GFE = 952.34 D Set Iron Monument (LS 14700) � Hydrant � m ' ' t TOF (lake side) = 951.67 1 000.0 Existing Elevation + Power Pole -a (0 L q 18in. Bos j p LFE = 943 0 �� d 1 din Po �c,F (000.0) Proposed Elevation cV `, \ .G g Proposed Drainage Tree (deciduous) oo R a �• � r �— Existing Well R. W. Prop. Retaining Wall °► J 949• t�` Gc`� ti4i ti t3 Oin. Bass Site Address: Existing Hardcover Calcul at'an (sq. ft.) r Step 3295 Crystal Bay Rd. House 1,781 �001 ; t E 10ln: Elm ? Orono, MN 55391 Bituminous Driveway 1� 83 $ (n ci 4 (\--Prop.—) Pavers Erosn �QJ �•,� 4x8 Stoop hedSteps 93 32 \ i ) Cor1 trot 3, 090 ° EiM 1 4. Proposed —Hardcover Colculatlon (sq. ft.: 'r Q 5 "f os �J Prop. HouselGarage 2,211 if ,, ; ! i'' ` Q �� ,� i �r •o o SSP Prop. Entry 88 b i °i °i �l , Prop. Bituminous Driveway 650 y a, �S x 957. Prop. Patio 204 J p '. o Z �/ ,�Q k! Exist. Steps (to remain) 56 ° Total Proposed Hardcover 3 209 a* CiP o %,o ILI C!`ts\� 9 Tota! Lot Area 14,876 a o '' R YI+r r9"9 \�° �\ y (less Crystal Bay Rd pavement) 2,035 ' o�o 54. ' m E y osed House a� � Adjusted Lot Area 12,841* ° L fi ���► & Garage 5 9 a? r9 `! 9 Percent Existing Hardcover 24, IZ* � •�' (2, 211 s. f.) 'b/,`tA k• 3 9 a, Q I ' Ay, cqr 94ti.4 1q` ?05� �` i Percent Proposed Hardcover 25.0.°$'' w i / Proposed x 5 �7 3a ,�, * y'* ° ! L . 1 "'+ + r *Crystal Ba Rd. pavement not included in E try Elevations: Ys Y P r�� J LFE=9430 ��/ Prop. Bit. �Q; � ,- • •• hardcover calculation. � }, a � .9 1 \ ' �irf ¢uldV \ =953,5 / Driveway. ♦ 4 • 6.Zc �y�_. r3¢J ��J\ \ FFE� ( *�(650 s: f. j gh "' Excluded Hardcover: 4 w o (' \� \ ,.: Proposed Retaining Woils 60 "� in..�Elm F. •950 w o Note: a, O Proposed grades and drainage designed by r IQ o /rte �� <).- `(�• Gronberg and Associates, Inc. and must be J 0 x 944.5 /0' 9 Ci �3°�r'.' ` verified and approved by the City of Orono I x' �'� L `'&91- Q MHR= 951.7 ;' prior to construction. �- • �'. �9¢ �� �Q' l bpi 161n•. ks C 1 t Oa R.W. mss Q,\ 1 �� ;-• �e Catch Basin-'` Boundary Descriptlan "su ailed by client) 1 MH 932. \ S • �� That part of Lot 2. Block 2, TOWNSITE OF 9 X 9h ' LANGDON PARK lying Southwesterly of the O 944' _W -Prop. —• d_ . Northeasterly 180 feet thereof, according to y J Erosion � B?� 4 the plot thereof on file or record in the office rey Cort#rot/ ; off; ?' of the Register of Deeds in and for Hennepin cc County, together with that part of Northern . � � �., g J — � xm • �► Avenue vacated abutting upon said described Approx. 4x8 .- y��: -•: ; ,' i Q premised in the rear lying between the shed lacatl extensions of the Easterly and Westerly side V +1 \ 24i . Bass lines of said tract. Ca C SCALE `����' Subject to a right to create a public easement V 20 0 10 20 40 9�5`r� ��c ' 1 r ;'J RECEIVED far highway purposes over the Southeasterly 33 feet of that part of said laid out as Northern Gaj , Avenue as shown in Deed Doc. No. 198674, ^j& 11>0 SEP 212016 Files of Register of Titles. 1 inch = 20 feet ` spy `� Bearings based on assumed datum. #3d Q h 'o- PC Exhibit D SEP 21 201A 3875 CITY OF ORONO W S 952.259.1441 = U - Z W N a SECOND FLOOR TOP OF SUB FLR PIATE HEIG'riT - �� �v FIRST FLOOR ,L TOP OF SUB FLR ISSUE DATE 9.19.16 1 ELEVATION- SIDE A2.1 ELEVATION # 3875 RECEIVED SEP 21 2016 GM Of ORONO RECEIVED SEP 2 12016 3875 5 CITY OF ORONO MINUTES OF THE Council ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Exhibit C Monday, October 17, 2016 16-3875 6:30 o'clock p.m. 9. #16-3875 PILLAR HOMES PARTNER, INC., ON BEHALF OF WHITNEY WINDMILLER AND GREG BLASKO, 3295 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, VARIANCE, 7:27 P.M. — 7:46 P.M. Casey Chermak, Pillar Homes, was present. Barnhart stated the applicant is requesting variances to allow construction of a new residence at 3295 Crystal Bay Road and is requesting lot area, lake yard, rear yard, and structural coverage variances. The proposed home would extend into the required lake yard by 11 feet, reduce the rear yard setback to 11 feet where 30 feet is required, and include 17 percent structural coverage where 15 percent is permitted. The proposal does meet the average lakeshore setback. Barnhart noted at the variance training last month, the Planning Commission heard that the property owners are allowed to build within the building setbacks, 30 feet high at 15 percent maximum. The property currently contains a single level walkout home and the applicants are proposing a two-story home with a walkout. There will be visual impacts as a result of the project. Barnhart displayed the survey of the property and pointed out the location of the lake and the road. Crystal Bay Road in this situation is quite a bit lower than the proposed home pad and the people in the area will be able to see the house up on the hill. Barnhart noted there is currently some pretty dense vegetation along the road. Access will be provided through an existing Hennepin County easement that was approved back in 2007. The only comments the City has received to date are to preserve the drivability and the maintenance of that existing driveway. Barnhart stated it would be appropriate to include that as a condition. Barnhart pointed out the proposed garage is situated 11 feet from the property line. The average lakeshore setback line cuts through the subject property. The proposed encroachment into the rear yard setback is for the garage and there is also a portion of the home that encroaches in the 0-75 foot zone. Barnhart illustrated the buildable area of the property. Page 1 of 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 17, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart stated currently there is an existing water main that runs between 9 and 23 feet north of the property line. That existing water main is not within an easement. Staff has advised the applicant to relocate their house at least ten feet away from that existing water main to allow the City to maintain or replace that water main at some point in the future should it become necessary. Barnhart noted that water main does influence what is buildable. The existing home is within the side yard setback for the property to the north and also encroaches into the lake yard by a small amount. The Planning Commission should discuss whether the proposed improvements meet the criteria for a variance. Barnhart noted the configuration or design of the house has been made to minimize the impacts to the properties to the north and south as well as the lake yard but some variances are still required. Barnhart noted the proposed house is quite a bit higher than what currently exists and that a taller house where a smaller house once stood will have some visual impacts. The applicants are allowed a maximum height of 30 feet. Barnhart displayed a picture of the rear yard of the property. Barnhart noted the property to the south received a variance in 2014, which was for a setback of 57 feet from the ordinary high water line where 75 feet is normally required. That property also received a variance for 36 percent hardcover where 25 percent is normally allowed. Properties on either side have been granted variances since 1989. Barnhart displayed a picture of the area along Old Crystal Bay Road. The vegetation along the road is proposed to be maintained. Barnhart displayed a picture illustrating the easement and a sketch of the proposed home. The applicants are proposing a 2,200 square foot home which does not appear to be out of character with the neighborhood. Barnhart stated the applicant is here to address any questions the Planning Commission may have. Thiesse asked if there is a maintenance agreement for the gravel driveway. Page 2 of 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 17, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart stated it would be part of the easement but that he has not seen an easement at this point. One of Staff's recommendations would be to monitor the gravel drive at the beginning of the project and then verify at the conclusion of the project that it is within the same standards. If the majority of the construction occurs during the winter, damage to the gravel driveway would be minimized. Casey Chermak, Pillar Homes, stated Staff has been very forthright and has helped guide him along the way. The location of the water main was pointed out to them very early on in the process and was a driving force in what is being proposed for the property. Chermak stated the location of the water main was not known prior to the purchase of the property and that the larger setback is more onerous on the property owners. Chermak stated based on Staff's request for an easement, it seemed fair to pull the garage forward. The size of the garage has also been reduced and was set forward a little bit to hold the grade up on the north side. The south side of the garage would act like a landscaping retaining situation, which also enabled n some of the trees in the front near the gravel road to be retained. Chermak stated if they look at the survey, they modified the grade where the utilities are very minimally so that access to that area would be easy. Some of the architectural things that were done were driven by that easement and that they attempted to make the house fit into the neighborhood. Chermak noted the new house to the south is a two-story house and fits very well in the area. Chermak stated they wanted to blend this house in with the older house to the north and the newer house to the south. As it relates to the structural coverage, the proposal is just slightly over the limit. Chermak stated in his calculation he might have accidentally included the 88 square feet for a front stoop and that there is no structure proposed for the front stoop. Chermak stated it is his belief that might not have needed to be counted in the structural coverage. Hardcover was kept at 25 percent and structural coverage is proposed at 17 percent. The Planning Commission had no questions for the applicant. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Page 3 of 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 17, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Greg Blasko, Applicant, commented the property and the water main has been a little bit of a challenge but in their view they have done a good job of working within the bounds and the project will improve the property. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Thiesse asked if the City will be requiring an easement over the water main. Barnhart stated Staff is recommending an easement over the water main and that in Staff's view the water main is justification for the variance. Thiesse asked if the existing house is already within the 0-75 foot setback. Barnhart indicated it is. Thiesse asked if the road is counted in the calculations. Barnhart stated Crystal Bay Road is within the property but is not within the hardcover calculations or the lot size. Whitney Windmiller, Applicant, stated if the road is taken out of the calculation, that gets them to 17 percent, but if the road is included, the structural coverage would be at 15 percent. Barnhart stated Staff generally in these situations imagines that the land or road is not there for purposes of calculations. Thiesse commented he finds it unfortunate there is a road there. Schoenzeit stated anytime there is a property where there is not an existing easement for the utilities, some leeway is in order since the City is an unlicensed user of the land. Schoenzeit stated any accommodations made for the pipe and grading are great and justifies the variance requests. Page 4 of 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 17, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Lemke noted neither of the adjacent properties meet the 75 -foot setback and that it would be tough to enforce it on this property when it is not enforced on the other two properties. Thiesse commented the house fits the character of the neighborhood. Schoenzeit noted it is not a new encroachment. Thiesse pointed out the patio encroaches a little bit further than what currently exists. Lemke commented he hates to see the three large oak trees removed. Thiesse asked if they have any concerns with winter construction. Blasko stated they do not. Schwingler commented it is a definite improvement to the area. Lemke moved, Schoenzeit seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3875, Pillar Homes Partner, Inc., on behalf of Whitney Windmiller and Greg Blasko, 3295 Crystal Bay Road, granting of lot area, lake yard, rear yard, and structural coverage variances, subject to monitoring and verifying the condition of the gravel driveway and further subject to an easement being provided. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Page 5 of 5 Date Application Received: September 21, 2016 Date Application Considered as Complete: September 21, 2016 60 -Day Review Period Expires: November 21, 2016 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Jessica Loftus, City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: October 17, 2016 Subject: #16-3875, Pillar Homes, obo Whitney Windmiller and Greg Blasko, 3295 Crystal Bay Road, Variances Public Hearing Council Exhibit D 16-3875 Application Summary: The applicant proposes to remove the existing home and is requesting lot area, lake yard, rear yard, and structural coverage variances to build a new single family home on the property. The proposed home would extend into the require lake yard 11 feet, reduce the rear yard setback to 11 feet (30 required), and include 17% structural coverage where 15% is permitted. Staff Recommendation: If the Planning Commission supports the lake and rear yard encroachments and the structural coverage variance, staff recommends approval of the lot area variance. If a variance is approved, it is recommended that a Drainage/ Utility easement be provided, to formalize and protect the watermain and its impact on the proposed improvements. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Proposed Survey Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit F. Plat Map Exhibit G. Property Owners List Exhibit H. Public Comments Exhibit 1. Staff Exhibits a. Buildable area b. Existing encroachments c. Proposed encroachments Background The property owners wish to remove the existing single story/walkout basement home and construct a new two story/walkout home at 3295 Crystal Bay Road. The new home proposed is 2,299 square feet, the existing home is 1,781 square feet. A steep, heavily vegetated slope separates the lake (and Crystal Bay Road) from the buildable FILE #16-3875 October 17, 2016 Page 2 of 5 portion of the lot. The buildable portion of the lot sits higher than the Crystal Bay Road. The subject property is 14,875 square feet, smaller than the 1/2 acre minimum lot size for the district. Additionally, the encroachment of Crystal Bay Road further reduces the lot area of the property. Lot area calculations for homes in this area do not include the land area or hard cover of Crystal Bay Road. The effective lot size is 12,841 square feet, and is used for the following analysis of the variance. Access to the home will be via an existing gravel drive within Hennepin County right of way and parallel to the Dakota Rail Trail. Further, an existing water -main runs between 9 and 23 feet north of the southern property line. Though a portion of this watermain encroaches further into the lot, is located generally within vacated Kenwood Way, which was vacated in 1967. Per the vacation resolution #299 at that time, an easement was to be retained. The location of this watermain impacts available locations for the home, as staff has advised the property owner to be 10 feet back from the watermain to facilitate future maintenance repairs, effectively increasing the setback to 19-33 feet. Staff recommends that an easement be retained per the original vacation document. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-350 - Setbacks: LR -1C DISTRICT Required (Feet) Proposed (Feet) Rear 30 11 Side (north) 10 10 Side (south) 10 13.7 Lakeshore 75' 64 lection 78-350 - Lot Area/Width: LR -1C DISTRICT Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acre) 100' Actual 12,841s.f. (.029 acre) 108' @ 75' 117'@ OHWL Section 78-1403- Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 12,841 s.f. (.029 acre) Allowed: 1,926.15 s.f. (15%) Existing: 1,813 s.f. (14%) Proposed: 2,299 s.f. (17.9%) Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Total Area Allowed Overlay Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover in Zone Hardcover District Tier 3,210 s.f. 3,090 s.f. 163.5 w/in 3209 s.f. 431 s.f. Tier 1 12,841 s.f. (25 %) (24.06 %) 75' (24.99%) w/in 75' Applicable Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the FILE #16-3875 October 17, 2016 Page 3 of 5 proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The ordinance is intended to reduce lake impacts (lake yard and structural coverage) and massing (structural coverage and rear yard setbacks). The proposed two story home will have a greater presence in the neighborhood, a presence perhaps mitigated by the fact the home is fairly secluded, the primary access is via a dead end gravel driveway (which this house is the second from the end) and the adjacent Crystal Bay Road is separated from the improvements with riparian vegetation and steep slopes. The Planning Commission should discuss whether the proposed structural coverage and lake yard variances are consistent with the intent. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variance allows the redevelopment of the single family lot, this improvement is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The property owner desires to construct a new 2299 square foot home, replacing a 1781 square foot home on a lot that has approximately 2400 square feet of buildable area. The permissible building area is shown on staff's Exhibit La. The planned expansions outside of this area do not appear to be out of character with recent variances in the area, notably for the house to the south. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The slope of the lot toward the lake, the location of Crystal Bay Road, and the location of the existing watermain, all influence the buildable area for the lot, none of which was created by the landowner; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Many of the homes in the immediate area require some level of variance to improve the property. The two lots on either side of the subject property have obtained variances over the years. Most recently, the lot to the south received a variance from the lake yard, the average lake, rear yard and lot coverage in 2014. The new home as proposed is 2 story with a ground floor walk out. Noted above, the home will impact the neighborhood, though the Commission should discuss whether this impact is negative. The home appears to be consistent in scale FILE #16-3875 October 17, 2016 Page 4 of 5 with the homes on either side, though there are smaller homes in the neighborhood. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The location of the watermain through the lot, and not within an easement does impact the property, and the ability for the owner to improve the lot. This is peculiar to the subject lot. The small lot does add challenge to reasonable improvements for the property. 5. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The watermain does not impact other properties in the area the same way. This watermain effective makes the side yard setback 19-33 feet, depending on the location of the watermain. Other lots in the area have received variance to improve the properties. 6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The lot permits approximately 2400 square feet of buildable area. It seems likely that some variance would be necessary to build a home with the typical amount of covered parking and the amount of living space consistent with the neighborhood. 7. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. There has been no evidence to suggest that the variances would impact the health, safety, and comfort of adjacent parcels or the city at large. The City has received some comment regarding the care and preservation of the gravel access road, primarily through a construction impact standpoint. An inspection of the road should be completed prior to construction to establish a baseline. 8. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The applicant appears to propose a home that minimizes encroachment into the lake zone (average lake and lake yard). The Planning Commission should discuss whether the level of encroachment is appropriate. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Analysis The proposed improvement seems consistent with recent neighborhood improvements. The encroachment into the 75 lake yard is greater than the current encroachment, but will have negligible visual impact to the lake. To lessen the encroachment, the house would have to be redesigned, and likely the garage shifted to the north side of the lot. A rear yard variance is likely FILE #16-3875 October 17, 2016 Page 5 of 5 to be required regardless of the configuration. The impact of the watermain does add to the hardship of designing a home on this small lot. Engineer Comments The engineer recommends a drainage and utility easement be provided. Public Comments To date, Staff has received comments from an adjacent property owners. These comments are attached as Exhibit H. Primarily, the concerns seem to center on protection of the gravel access alleyway. It is recommended the concerns be addressed in the resolution of approval, should approval be recommended. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? City of Orono Variance Application Street Address: P2750 Kelley Parkway Vn Orono, MN 55355 Main: 952-249-4600 fax: 952-249-4616 Mailing Address.- P.O. ddress.P.Q. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Application # Ko - a5 fl s Date Reoeived: _ q -L. - I b Staff : CM Fee: 1700 Escrow # & $ 1150b Permit Fee Notes: PC Exhibit A Please complete. Applicant will he notified within 15 days as to the status of the application. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agenda. SITE LOCATION: DESCRPTION OF REQUEST: APPLICANT / Al Applicant Name: Phone (Primary): Applicant Email: Address: Applicant is: cc PROPERTY OWNER INFORI Name: Phone (Primary): != Mailing Address: ( d Email: G h I c (attached additional sheets as necessary) Homeowner (Circle One) Q check here if property gwner is same-,ps,applicant ZIP: 5 ZIP: APPLICANT/AGENT AND/OR OWNER: • Agree to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, • Agree to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and • Certify that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant and owner recognize that they are solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reject it until it is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of its potential merit. • Acknowledge the Escrow Agreement is completed and signed. • The Owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents, Commission and Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. * Owner and/or Applicant acknowledge they must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant and/or owner is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative att d in place of the applicant/owner and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. II Applicant/Agent Signature:) Date: ILA Applicant/Agent Signature: Date: Property Owner Signature: Date: �© Property Owner Signature: iiA Date: G 'do 64EIVED Variance Application — May 2046 page 2 SEP 21 2016 3 CITY OF ORONO City of Orono Variance Pre -Application Meeting Form (This form is to be completed by a City Planner during your pre -application meeting.) For Office Use Only: City Planner: Meeting Datellfime: PC Date: Met with: What is the purpose of a pre -application meeting? Pre -application meetings aid the applicant in preparing a complete proposal, inform them of the procedures and requirements of the city code, and identify policies or regulations that create opportunities or problems for the proposal. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: C3 X .00J Property Identification Number (PIN): 23 -- 00 1 Zoning District: c— Size of Property: 3 11c X jti ESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUEST: Average Setback ❑ Side Yard Setback XRear Yard Setback ❑"Lake/Front Yard Setback ❑ Hardcover Tier 1 ❑ Hardcover Tier 2 ❑ Hardcover Tier 3 ❑ Hardcover Tier 4 ❑ Lot Coverage XLot Area ❑ Lot Width ❑ Other: Applicant's 41* PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES: Owner and/or Applicant has received the Practical Initials: Difficulties Documentation Form, understands it as it has been explained to them, and is aware that it must be completed and submitted in conjunction with their Owner's (► Initials: formal variance application. Applicant's BILLS AND ESCROW: Owner and/or Applicant shall pay for consultant expenses Initials: incurred in review of this application and/or additional staff time not covered in initial application fee, as well as provide an escrow in the amount of $ 46450 to Owner's 6a,R Initials: guarantee payment of the above. UTIIEK INFORMATION: *Please note: Your variance application will NOT which this form will be completecj by City ptaff. Applicant Signature: Owner Signature: Variance accepted without a pre -application meeting during Date: !/Z ///, te: Z6 f ECEIV�D SEP, 21 2016 Page 3 # 387r;CITY OF ORONO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM of i f: Y r o Z -1e) r^i 3s� 3` i [print name(s)] _ [print address have reviewed the pians for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at also referred to as Land Use Application No. I (vise) understand that in executing .this acknowledgement, I (We) am (are) not asked to declare approval.. or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm 'for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the Improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. If you have any Information that may assist theclty.itl the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled .m:ee.tstg date. MY'fNM`R4MRINRRaRRlima R�IRIfirtMMliti3tRiliMK�'iRiR�F1RRNMf�iRRR/*RRl�f+F1R *RRRlif#iYiilY'�RM'M#i M*+iM#Riit4YR�4`RkiiR#*Mfif►iFiliiiiiiM ADJACENT PROPERTY 0lfMERS' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM [printnasne(s)] ..... [print address] have reviewed the plans for the. proposed 'Improvement or proposed use of the property located at also referred to as :Land Use Application No. I (ws) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval .or disapproval of the property or use but merely to oonflrm For the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the Improvement plans and that ft proposed neighbor's project or use requires council approval. Property Owner Data If you have any Information that may assist the City in. the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meatirg date, varkrics Appfimfiw-May MO Page 13 RECEIVE® SEP 21 70 ON OF oROlva DATA PRIVACY ADVISORY In accordance with Minnesota State Statute 13.04 Rights of Subjects of Data, Subd. 2, "Tennessee warning", we would like to inform you that your request for a permit or license from the City of Orono or any of its departments may require you to furnish certain private or confidential information. You are notified that: 1. The information you furnish will be used to determine your qualification for the permit or license requested. 2. You may refuse to supply data, but refusal may require that the City deny the permit or license. 3. The information may be shared with other local, state or federal agencies to the extent necessary to process the permit or license. 4. If your requested permit or license requires Council action to approve, some information may become public. 5. You have certain rights under Minnesota State Statute 13.04 (see following page) to review private data on yourself. 6. Your full name is required to process this application or permit. Q1 Le—a, WQs � C-�) / First U Middle Last 51 a� 5C-0�+ Address �6�6Ki5il-Je, �� cj �`f� �- 51 -21U a s City State Zip Phone RECEIVED SEP 2 12016 Variance Application -- May 2016 Page 90 # car of �ONQ 3879; DATA PRIVACY ADVISORY In accordance with Minnesota State Statute 93.04 Rights of Subjects of Data, Subd. 2, "Tennessen warning", we would like to inform you that your request for a permit or license from the City of Orono or any of its departments may require you to furnish certain private or confidential information. You are notified that: 9. The information you furnish will be used to determine your qualification for the permit or license requested. 2. You may refuse to supply data, but refusal may require that the City deny the permit or license. 3. The information may be shared with other local, state or federal agencies to the extent necessary to process the permit or license. 4. If your requested permit or license requires Council action to approve, some information may become public. 5. You have certain rights under Minnesota State Statute 13.04 (see following page) to review private data on yourself. 6. Your full name is required to process this application or permit. A wit— VIL-L,�4tri First Middle last 5-/z & a, lkl-�> Address City State Zip RECEIVED SPP 2 12016 Variance Application — May 2016 Page 10-# 387014� CITYOFr ORONO PC Exhibit B PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An application will not be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the City. Minnesota State Statutes Section 462.357, Subdivision 6(2) requires that practical difficulties be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. The difficulties must be unique to the property as variances run with the land and not the land owner. Personal and economic situations are not considered valid practical difficulties. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council practical difficulties having merit must be demonstrated. HOW DO I PROVE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if practical difficulties exist and how the variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove practical difficulties, address all the relevant points listed below and answer them as clearly as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is justified. The information the City receives is what is used in determining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave something out it will not be considered. Please address each of the twelve practical difficulties criteria as they relate to the request, if they do not apply, write N/A in the space provided: 1. "The property owner proposes to use the property irti,a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter." 2. "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." 3. "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." 4. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." 5. "Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116106, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this hapter." 6. "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone I re the affected person's land is located! Variance Application — May 2016 Page 4 • RECEIVED SEP 212016 CITY OF ORONO Practical Difficulties 3295 Crystal Bay Road, Orono 1.. This property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter: The property owners propose construction of a single family residential home on the single family residential zoning district. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner: The unique circumstances of the lot - not created by the landowner— include the overall size of the lot being 14,875 sq ft which is less than the half acre zoning of (21,780) and the shallowness of the lot caused by Crystal Bay Road to the lake side and the Dakota Trail access on the non- lake side.— affect this application for the attached variance in the following four ways: a. — lot size variance —as stated b. — 75 ft. lake set back — as stated The survey and home design placed on it will meet and fit behind the average set back line. c. - A front yard setback variance - we have placed only a portion of the new home (garage only) in the street side yard area — the shallowness of the lot is the unique circumstance affecting the variance request. In addition — utilities (main lines) water/sewer cross from the non- lake side of the lot to the lake side on the south lot line. During our pre -application meeting it was requested by staff to stay about 10' from the closest utility. By doing this it about doubles the side set back to the south. The request is to allow future access by the City if repairs are needed to these main lines considerably restricting a portion of the lot and indirectly the design of the house. d. —Structural coverage of 15% based on the entire lot size of 14,876 has been met, the applicant believes that the placement of Crystal Bay Road across the entire lot causes an extreme plight for the landowner especially pertaining to structural coverage. The overall lot size including the road and the affect the road has on the lot experience meets the true intention of the structural coverage. 3. "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality" : The applicant has placed the home and it's design to fit with the character of the locality creating a floor plan that stays behind the average set back and designing it to meet the 25% hardcover. The applicant also prepared a plan to best fit with grades and the unique lot formation caused by the Dakota Trail access and Crystal Bay Road lakeside, which affect this entire area. Practical Difficulties 3295 Crystal Bay Road, Orono G. "rhe speciai condi kris app!V!.nz to the structure or land in question a: peculiar W such property ar hri nediate[V a4joining property:' The special condition for this lot is unique and caused by public utilities (water and sewer) located on the south portion of this lot. It was requested by the city to not build in this area so the City could have access to the public utilities as needed. The lower existing grade to the south side of the house works for the walk out and places key rooms to take advantage of the best view. The city requirement to keep any new structure at least 10 to 15 feet away (in addition to the 10 ft. side set back) from the closest utility crossing on the lot which in turn affects the normal permitted building area for this new home, To build with this additional constraint the garage was pulled forward away from the utilities and now acts almost like a retaining wall to keep the grade on the backside low and the front grades to blend in with existing elevations. S. "The condit! ons do no apply geiue aily "M o heY ;and o-- stru.ctu-res in the district in uvh[ch said land is located." The unique condition of public utilities crossing the lot makes this situation unique to only this lot located in this district. The altering of our structure and design to allow for long-term permanent access for the city utility with minimal grade change to the lot and utilizing the steep grades for fitting the house away from the utilities and nestling it into the slopes that exist and blends the city's request and the owner /applicants design. 10. `the granting cry the application is necsssairy Tor Via prasvmedor ani+ 2n joyment of a substantial prcparty right of the appl c&uto." The granting of this variance provides necessary preservation of the property rights to build in the normal allowable and applicable area of the lot. Because the public utilities crossing on the south portion make this application unique in nature, it has affected the homes location, design and instilling a cooperative nature of the applicant to move the home out of normal permitted areas. U. '"'W he grating o; the proposed valance WEN -4 not in any �vay lm yak health, safety,. comfort: morals, or in ar:y other re*pmici: ,y2 contrare: to the Intent a tine ©ruing ^ade." The home that is designed will not impair the health and safety comfort or morals of the zoning code but the applicant owner believes it will continue to improve the area's zoning code with our design modifications that match the design and scale of other homes in this neighborhood and are a reasonable improvement for this area. The home location on the lot, initiated by a request from the City to move the home away from the public utilities, has caused the necessary request of this variance. 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty." The applicant owner has designed the home to fit around demonstratable difficulties. The public utilities that serve this area run along the none lakeside in a unique driveway easement and cross the property to the south side. The crossing of these utilities along the south portion of the lot provided a challenge and did demonstrate difficulties that we have addressed through floorplan design (i.e. contained to a two car garage and putting the additional outside storage stacked under this area and reduction in size of a porch on the north side of the home to protect a large tree). We also considered the house location to best blend the topography changes with the surrounding properties. Notes Lot width as meas. along 75ft. OHW setback line = 108.1 ft. PC E �� z ��S Lot width as meas. along 30 ft ROW setback line = 101.0 ft. BuildingPermit Survey ❑A13D�� ,� r''' ` / Prepared for: Wh i t�n ey Win dm ill er Pr000sed Elevations° Legend FFE = 953.5 Found Iron Monument Manhole 3 TOF (street side) - 952.67 w GFE - 952.34 O Set Iron Monument (LS 14700) Hydrant m t f TOF (fake side) = 951.67 .000.0 ExistingElevation } Power Pole L p T Bin. Bas j o LFE = 943 0 �� -a 1;�in Po o c(OOQO) Proposed Elevation N r, \ •� Proposed Drainage [ Tree (deciduous) R 3 - Existing Well R"`tttWW Prop. Retaining Wall p r 949• I � } s F Oin. Bass ?�Hardcover Site Address: Existing Ca culat' n . ft. r Step 3295 Crystal Bay Rd. House 1,781 0 s t ?� Orono, MN 55391 Bituminous Driveway 1,001 10rn: Elm p p �' -Prap.-� 9s?� ��. Pavers 183 EFasion �QJ • `�,� Stoop &Steps 93 @,� 4x8 Shed 32 `', 3,090 a Elm 1 � j' `° ya 1 9S t EMposed Hardcover Calculation(sq-. ft. o v �; k/' /+� o ca ; � f=; ,. a y; � os J Prop. Nouse/Garage 2,.211 Q p�` Prop. En try 88 g i P r i x Prop. Bituminous Driveway 650 N 951. O Prop- Patio 204 k 5 '' 4 ��► yyfrt.�' y„ k ' oQ u v Exist- Steps (to remain) 56 O `� m Otir Total Proposed Hardcover 3,209 o q') -z3 `� S ' g Total Lot Area 14,876 w o 4,rn. k ; oR.N+r r9'a9, �0 �� y less Crystal Ba Rd pavement 2"035 �'+ o C ys Y ) Proposed House A 54 �' Adjusted Lot Area 12,841 m fi _ o IT r,9 V & Garage q (2211 s: f.) %�• 95 9 � Percent Existing Hardcover 24.1.x" 12in. Ma ;p 94614x_ �05� �`� Percent Proposed Hardcover 25.0%x' Proposed 5 �7 Fr `, st• -ti Elevations: a,• Ys Y P Us r9 J L {�D J + : i r *Cr tal Ba Rd. pavement not included in E " 9- �ry � f , LFE=943.0 Prop. Bit. hardcover calculation. a �, FFE =953.5/*. D50 s f. } J p ) g Excluded Hardcover: m 4LI -:1v J .. Proposed Retaining Walls 60 o Elm a 'D� ` ' Note: Q.•c a Proposed grades and drainage designed by /p fp �`(�• Gronberg and Associates, Inc. and must be xp x 944.5 �a' �� S -. .4) l9 �� �Q verified and approved by the City of Orono r rp ,A •� r �9� 4 ; MNR=951.7;' prior to construction. O 16in. ks C �.._, V ti t o ` R.W. mss P�� . �.' ca t 9.9 p j /J -• - .:r. `R��•;_�i Ca#eh Basin-� Boundary Description (supplied by clienfi (jam I MH 831. r k'��-0 .� That part of Lot 2, Block 2 TOWNSITE OF ' !y x g. ' LANGDON PARK lying Southwesterly of the % o, 1 J-� r9 944.=Pro . -� �t..p�::. �} _W P Northeasterly 180 feet thereof, according to M ?` 1 Erosion 4 : the la LV plot thereof on file or record in the office O o Cortaro! , p : of the Register of Deeds in and for Hennepin ' Count together with that art of Northern 59 \ of �J-.� ' .• Q Avenue vacated abutting upon said described �1 A rox. 4x8. R : ' ..::; ; -�°• of rQ � `' PP .-� , • ;• •' premised in the rear lying between the shed loco i extensions of the Easterly and Westerly side 24i Bass 4� lines of said tract. c n SCALE '`�+�� � � ,/ : �: s • : -..• :- , �` r '• �J Subject to a right to create a public easement ~� 20 0 10 zo ao �9� �s0 RECEIVED for highway purposes over the Southeasterly 33 feet of that part of said laid out as Northern Q a�� Avenue as shown in Deed Doc. No- 198674, �'o SER2 12016 Files of Register of Titles. 1 inch = 20 feet � Beorings based on assumed datum. # 34 MTV ()I: Dontio PC Exhibit D SEP 21 201A 3875 CITY OF ORONO W S 952.259.1441 = U - Z W N a SECOND FLOOR TOP OF SUB FLR PIATE HEIG'riT - �� �v FIRST FLOOR ,L TOP OF SUB FLR ISSUE DATE 9.19.16 1 ELEVATION- SIDE A2.1 ELEVATION # 3875 RECEIVED SEP 21 2016 GM Of ORONO RECEIVED SEP 2 12016 3875 5 CITY OF ORONO PC Exhibit E City of Orono c'wo Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Address: ;?r� s Prepared by: _ r Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) Tier 1) Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Step 1: EXISTING HARDCOVER In the following table identify Aff items of existing hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to Cerfincate of Survey (survey must accompany this form). Use as many litres as necessary to accurately depict existing hardcover status of the property. For Tier 'i properties, identify any features by letter within the 75' setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. Survey to Hardcover Item (Describe) - Length x Width Total Feet (Example) (Game) (24'x 30' 20 S.F. A VL i i )`%- 7 �--= S.F. j [� ► S.F. G -. fwn -- `k e.. �.t•. ■ • -13.7". F S.F. G S.F. H S.F. I S.F. S.F. S.F. L S.F. M S.F. N S.F. t" I} 11 a - - t k C Q 0, S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. P .p ' e V Y 1 Tota(i=xf8 Herdcoyer Ertciudahte Har�syer Sae Cit Code Sw 78-1884 : --S.F, S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. (21 TOW SxL% We "ardas ow S.F. 3 Net Existing Hardcover Subtract Ifne Q from line Mli S.F. 4 Toia1 Lot Area Existing Hardcover Percentage [(3)+(4)] - a- � Variance Appfttibn — May 2016 (Proposed Hardcover next page) RECEIVED SEP 21 2016 fPsgga 7 3875 ORONO City of Orono JJ%,�•, Hardcover Calculation Worksheet O lt. Property Address: J�,� �:� ' .r> , i; ; N� :�'' t<'•1 . L 13110�4 Prepared by:t 1 ! Date: � G Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle onej(711er !,Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Step 2: PROPOSED HARDCOVER In the following table, identify all items of proposed hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to Certificate of Survey (survey must accompany this form). Include all existing hardcover items that are Intended to remain, as well as all proposed hardcover Items that will be added. Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict proposed hardcover status of the property. For Tier •I properties, identify any features by letter which are within the 75' setback Ilne and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion- Key ortion_ survey Hardcover ttern (Describe) Length x Width P Q i R { r r Fw. il'' qo. Tt Fic Excludable Total line Proposed Hardcover Percentage 1(3)+(4)) Variance Rppllcallan —Meq 2016 «t l C� i' Page 8 �-12 z S.F. S.F. S.F. 2-5,0 RECEIVED SEP z 1 2011 ,CITY OF ORONO Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map "cExhibit F Provided By: Resident and Real Estate Services Date: 9/7/2016 Buffer Size: 350 feet Map Comrnents, 1711723410013 MARK C ZAGARIA 3295 Crystal Bay Road Orono, MN 55391 0 120 240 480 ft 1 a 1 .l—f. 1 1 1 RECEIVEE) For more information contact: Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South SEP 2 1 His Minneapolis, MN 55487 gis.info@hennepin.us CgYCir ORONC PP M •1�r'�1 A � PT fr � P q S Buffer Size: 350 feet Map Comrnents, 1711723410013 MARK C ZAGARIA 3295 Crystal Bay Road Orono, MN 55391 0 120 240 480 ft 1 a 1 .l—f. 1 1 1 RECEIVEE) For more information contact: Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South SEP 2 1 His Minneapolis, MN 55487 gis.info@hennepin.us CgYCir ORONC Use Avery®Tempfate 59640 mclow ann lum W i Feed Paper expose Pop up Edgew i PC Exhibit G 38 17-117-23 34 0052 38 17-117-23410013 38 17-117-23 410030 HENNEPIN COUNTY MARK C ZAGARIA I DONNA E KABANUK REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY 1526 21ST AVE N E 5233 TWIN LAKE BLVD E 701 4TH AVE S SUITE 400 ! ROCHESTER MN 55906 BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 I i 38 17-117-23 410001 38 17-117-23 410014 38 17-117-23 410031 DONNA E KABANUK LEROY J ERGER DONNA E KABANUK 5233 TWIN LAKE BLVD E 3265 CRYSTAL BAY RD 5233 TWIN LAKE BLVD E BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 WAYZATA MN 55391 BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 38 17.117-23 410002 38 17-117-23 41 0015 38 17-117-23 410033 DONNA E KABANUK HEATHER M JOHNSTONE PATRICIA A STUDSRUD 5233 TWIN LAKE BLVD E P O BOX 141 JASON T STUDSRUD BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 MINNETONKA BEACH MN 55361 3130 OLD COUNTY RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 410003 38 17-117-23 41 0016 38 17-117-23 410034 JAYNE MARIE PAASCH DAVID A SCHMID PAUL J & LOIS E REITMAN 2150 KENWOOD WAY 3309 CRYSTAL BAY RD 3335 CRYSTAL BAY RD WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 410004 38 17-117-23 41 0017 38 17-117-23 410035 PAUL MARKUSEN DALE OLSEN & JONMARI OLSEN CLIFFORD G OWEN 4915 SCATTERED PINES LN NW 3315 CRYSTAL BAY RD JILL L HUGHES ROCHESTER MN 55901 WAYZATA MN 55391 2175 KENWOOD WAY WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 41 0008 38 17-117-23 410018 38 17-117-23 44 0057 JOHN HOROSHAK TODD OLSON DAVID A KUPKA ALEXA HOROSHAK 3325 CRYSTAL BAY RD 2215 KENWOOD WAY 3159 NORTHVIEW RD WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 41 0009 38 17-117-23 410019 38 17-117-23 44 0904 BRADLEY & LORI BAKKE CHAD & REBECCA MCSHANE CLAIR T ROOD 7101 LANHAM LA 3329 CRYSTAL BAY RD 3280 NAVARRE LA EDINA MN 55439 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 410010 38 17-117-23 410027 82 16-117-23 32 0024 MARK R PRUETER MATTHEW W SMILEY PATRICIA A STUDSRUD 3215 CRYSTAL BAY RD JENNIFER L S SMILEY JASON T STUDSRUD WAYZATA MN 55391 2190 KENWOOD WAY 3130 OLD COUNTY RD WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 410011 38 17-117-23 410029 82 16-117-23 32 0054 RICHARD ANDERSON JULIE COPELAND RICHARD ANDERSON 3205 CRYSTAL BAY RD 2180 KENWOOD WAY 3205 CRYSTAL BAY RD WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 410012 C WILLIAM WOLFE 38 17-117-23 41 0029 82 16-117-23 32 0060 3255 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD DONNA E KABANUK 5233 TWIN LAKE BLVD E JOHN HOROSHAK WAYZATA MN 55391 BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 ALEXA HOROSHAK 3159 NORTHVIEW RD WAYZATA MN 55391 lWquettes fadles A peler Utilisez le galaarit AVERIf®591i0 ® i Sen de Repllez a la hachure afin de ; vwvw.avery com I chargement rdv6ler le rebord Pop -op -1 1 -800 -60 -AVERY j ^ Dams aiung nne-w U AVERY® 5960 Use Avery® Template 51600 Feed Paper - expose Pop-up EdgeTM rnn 82 16-117-23 32 0061 DONNA E KABANUK 5233 TWIN LAKE BLVD E BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 82 16-117-23 42 0032 HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY 701 4TH AVE S SUITE 400 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 RECEIV Ct SER 2 1 1016 #3875 4 GWoF oRONo f tiquettes faciles a peler A Repliez A la hachure afin de vuww.ave i Utillsez le abarit AVERY® 51600 Sens de � www.avery.com , 9 / chargement reveler le rebord Pop-up 1 -800 -GO -AVERY 1 1 PC Exhibit H Jeremy Barnhart From: Mark Prueter Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 11:67 AM To: Jeremy Barnhart Subject: Re: Comments Hi Jeremy: Thank you for your call. My comments are regarding the Variance application for 416-3875 are as follows: 1. If the Dakota Rail Driveway easement is to be used for property access during and after construction, the property owner shall restore the gravel road to is original integrity. i.e., Condition prior to construction, repair ruts, replace rock as necessary and regrade as appropriate. These repairs shall be at the 3295 Crystal Bay Road homeowners expense. 2. The City of Orono should access the Dakota Rail Driveway Easement's condition prior to construction, confer with existing homeowners along the gravel road and perform a post -construction assessment in coordination with existing homeowners to determine areas of repair necessary. 3. The 3295 Crystal Bay Road homeowner shall also bear their portion of the existing Dakota Rail Driveway Easement expense for utilizing the Dakota Rail Driveway to access their property. If you have any questions or would like to discuss these with me, please feel free to contact me via email or phone. ►MTF 7 Mark Prueter 952-500-1525 On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Jeremy Barnhart <'barnhartci.orono.mn.us> wrote: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Direct 952.249.4626 Planning & Zoning Office 952.249.4620 RECEIVED October 4, 2016 OCT Q 4 2016 Christine Mattson , Planning Assistant, City of Orono Subject: Neighbor Concerns, Land Use Applications Request, #16,3875, Pillar Homes - (WindmillerBlasko), 3295 Crystal Bay Road. Dear Ms. Mattson: My wife Joan and I reside at 3255 Crystal Bay Road, neighbors to the 3295 Crystal Bay Road. property. We view the proposed re -build project as a positive move for the anticipated neighbor and the neighborhood. That said, we do have three concerns associated with project construction traffic matters which must be addressed prior to City of Orono approval. As a background, the access to the property is somewhat limited to a private drive to be shared by Pillar Homes - (WindmillerBlasko), with Wolfe, and six other parties. This "driveway" is on land owned by Hennepin County, (Dakota Rail Trail), under lease to the eight property owners, through the gracious actions of the City of Orono, with lease funding provided by the affected property owners. This road is narrow, un -improved, gravel, and somewhat suspect as to weight carrying capacity when a project of this magnitude is contemplated. Areas of concern, all viewed as responsibility of the applicant, are as follows: 1. Private drive access must be clear 24/7. Individual owner access is desired and expected, but more importantly - our fire hydrants are only accessible from the drive. 2. Construction parking must allow for access and not occupy private properties, (or leased), during this project. 3. Any degradation to the drive and/or properties must be restored to "as -is" condition at project start upon completion. These written comments are submitted as solicited by post card Notice received October 3, 2016. Should any City party wish to discuss, comment, visit, or whatever, I will do my best to accommodate same upon request. Regards, C. W111) Wolfe 32 Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Phone: (952) 471-9671, e-mail: cwwjkwQgmail.Qom f Note Lot width as meas. along 75ft. OHW setback line = 108.1 ft. I '+ `O z,ds // Lot width as meas. along 30 ft. ROW setback line = 101.0 ft. o Building Permit Survey � fi 03AI3 +�� a D311 ✓ Prep ored for: Whitney Win d m ill er m m q a Ptosed Qq Legend ► FFE = 953.5 TOF (street side) - 952.57 • Found Iron Monument Manhole GFE = 952.34 O Set Iron Monument (LS 14700) Hydrant TOF (lake side) = 951.87 co x pQ0.0 Existing Elevation �8in. Bas ► O LFE = 943.0 C Power Pole \ E o + '12tH Po g+¢ (000.0) Proposed Elevation N `•° i V : a Tree (deciduous) to n , � � �•--� Proposed Drainage ,� cp Existing Well R.W. Prop. Retaining Wall 6 d, ° N 01h. Bass ��� /: ; s�,,s 4 Oe 2 Q o► c'+3 V x: ti, oG Site Address tin H r over Calculation S#ep �. r "' I sd 3295 Crystal Bay Rd. House 1,781 t 10in:. Elm Oran o, 3 Q ' : i ``,E -: � o � � ?' � MN 55391 Bitum►haus Driveway 1.001 r\ -Prop.Pavers 183 Er osian �.,� Stoop & Steps 93 a► : f Con trol �c 2 4x8 Shed o 3,090 q) n, hOi EIrr1 1`o #o sS� 1 Proposed Hardcover Calculation (sa. ft. ): ib ,' QOtK y 0 9S Prop. House/Garage 2,211 as Prop. Entry Be .1 lrr: FI �. v ( o j`SJ x 951 Prop- Patio Bituminous Driveway 650 204 a - o i 11%; bc, ., �� ` Exist. Steps (to remain) o Total Proposed Hardcover 3,209 ;! ' �+ r 121 Total Lot Area 14,876aq y 54.2, (less Crystal Bay Rd pavement) 2, 035 �+ y W PrOpdSed HOl1SB� A� Adjusted Lot Area 12,841# m m c� ,' 4 �,� ��► & Gars e y Aly :�: • y ti o 9 9l 3 Percent ExistingHardcover 24.1w g I y 12in. Ma' ' �', S,0 y (2:211 s f.) /+�� `� .Z'* Ito -t' 948 4 '� �a x 7 �` ti '.. . ~- Percent Proposed Hardcover 25.0' I \. / Proposed _ 3 ��, ►' a N1 y`Sst 1 �' `�' '' r'9 Elevations: �vr/4 Pro 8!t , ,~ ` • *Crystal Bay Rd pavement not included in. �' a y 1 r LFE=943 0 p' :.4 hardcover calculation. `9s 1A4 `{ �' 1 r �` ,fr9 N FFE=9.53.5 / . Driveway �� r Iz<lU�� 4 U 4. ±i' ¢3J 'WSJ ,gip �, `.�( O-s;f) g � i,. tsjl�Iu{�sd Hardcover: f � til f in. Elm \ f�, Proposed Retaining Walls 60 s? / Cl g5 P. say=.. t 'U 3 I a ' O ,' 1 rte. ! ` Proposed grades and drainage designed by a ' /ate, f0 Gronberg and Associates, Ino and must be 44.5 �o ' ��' "'5.S l9 �' `�4,~'' verified and approved by the City of Orono .9? $+'�Q ,sl��i MHR=95t 7: prior to construction. as 16in' :ks N Catch Basin- 12 cr► ionunnlled by client) I LJ �,. 4% That part of Lot 2, Block 2, TOWNSI TE OF Cr ti LANGDON PARK lying Southwesterly of the. c �9 . x 944. '� W ;Prop.- Vit. p U d '�St� l' Northeasterly 180 feet thereof, according to c :�' '~ o �-�j• r �� -� + the plat thereof on file or record in the office ,. m �. , �,. '>iao ,� o �= of the Register of Deeds in and for Hennepin O CcD $g control�' ~ �� County, together with that part of Northern �A rax. 4x8 r}: ' =; Avenue vacated abutting upon said described O PP ! shed locafi •� •' � premised in the rear lying between the extensions of the Easterly and Westerly side U 24i , ass 4 lines of said tract.coSCALEQ w b N TrjCs, cr-• Subject to a right to create a public easement \ i RECEIVED highway purposes y zp p 1p �o ap ,.9.�s.� � � ' •�• ' ,� ;' for hi hwa ur oses over the Southeasterly 33 1j C4 feet of that part of said laid out as Northern � !' 11 � � t 1 �•�� ij % Avenue as shown in Deed Doe. No. 198674, � Files of Register of Titles. 3 SER 2Za�� 1 inch = 20 feet � 'l`�y � � 3 Bearings based on assumed datum. 3 5 Y �• �k`t'' 3 12i� P 18in, Bas La CA Oin. Bass :� i•top 0 e loin. Elm ?� W i 1 •,lye + ° 3 in. ass { Q �p •,4 oco Certificate of Surrey Prepared for: SCANNED Whitney Win dm iller a � v Legend ONO --44 N3 d • Found Iron Monument O Set Iron Monument as 14700) Hydron t ;6 g; o O x 000.0 Existing Elevation C� 4 Power Pole ° ° Existing Well o S Tree (deciduous) Manhole �` � a�� � fd `tet �` r ��� v '•' ,t .ry . �Sp a a - 54.2 goo, CO f -.1. ! f'12rn Elm }� 950 1 4C 1, i IQ 1 Din. Oak ' v l``r�`o��;Oak Or 201n. Oak, ^4� 6 O� 'Fh --948 n, MHR= 957.7 ' , ► s; o ��P 947-.- p111 `N1 ' r� . ' �!. Ca ch Basin-; r� �� 41n. Oak 16in. Oak rf. �COrrVgds •. �ti f,1 SCALE 20 a 10 20 aR I inch = 20 feet Site Address: 3295 Crystal Bay Rd. Orono, MN 55391 Existing Hardcover Calculation (S -a- ft. ) House 1,781 Bituminous Driveway 1,001 Pavers 183 Stoop do Steps LU 3.058 Total Lot Area 14,876 (less Crystal Bay Rd pavement) 2,035 Adjusted Lot Area 12,841 Total Hardcover 23.8% Crystal Bay Rd pavement not included in hardcover calculation. BoundqrV Deaw)2tion Cg=1211ed That part of Lot, Block 2, TOWNS17E OF LANGDON PARK lying Southwesterly of the Northeasterly 180 feet thereof, according to the plat thereof on file or record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said County, together with that part of Northern Avenue vacated abutting upon said described premised in the rear lying between the extensions of the Easterly and Westerly side lines of said tract. Subject to a right to create a public easement for highway purposes over the Southeasterly 33 feet of that part of said laid out as Northern Avenue as shown in Deed Doc. No. 198674, Files of Register of Titles. Bearings based on assumed datum, noN fV] co ~ LU o � a UNW CO N " J Ln { Notes: Lot width as meas. along 75ft. OHW setback line = 108.1 ft. I 9-10Z L Z``d3S I Lot width as meas, along 30 ft. ROW setback line = 101.0 ff. Building Term i t Survey y aA1�D3�f Prepared for: Whitney Win dm ill er :21n as ` .� `k 7 Proposed Elevation end atnL FFE = 953.5 TOF (street side) = 952.67 4 Found Iran Monument I� Manhole a � 3 � S, r GFE = 952.34 0 Set Iron Monument LS 14700 0 TOF lake side = 951.67 { ) Hyo'ran t m N N °181n. as �� p LFE ( 94.3 0) x 000.0 Existing Elevation �� Power Pole 4 12iri Pb o to �o c �'f (000.0) Proposed Elevation Nc ,D —a----- Proposed Drainage t Tree (deciduous) °p �' N\ 3 a f i �. �• Existing Well R. W, Prop. Retaining Wall m rn o Oi . Bass �� � b O ii Site Address: Existing Hard_cover Calculation _ _ (sa, ft, a, c tD Step 3295 Crystal Bay Rd. House 1,781 '� o t 10in Elm I ? Orono, MN 55391 Bituminous Driveway 1 001 �, r cn--Prop.—� ?'? ha0 y Paverss 183 -' m to O o EFosian �J �. Stoop & Steps 93 i v i Coptro!4x$ Shedd a 3,090 0 o 1` tiro +� �V 9,s> > Ptosed Hardcover Colculation (gg. ft. ): 3 ° Qo b `' " i ,yds p o Prop. Mouse/Garage 2,211 N cooc I + f , s2 Prop. En try 88 °ry r ` m - V / r `9S� �,�`�� x Prop. Bituminous Driveway 650 a� a �` •a 1�o ' S� X51, o Prop. Patio 204 ,� o '' N Y� n• k ° `oQ+ p v '� Exist. Steps (to remain) 56 Total Proposed Hardcover 3,209 *►, a x t. u `L C C� C� �� Inv S� ,s 9 Total Lot Area 14,876 CoQ ,den ` k aQ `Q ¢ ? `�►� ca 5 54.2., (less Crystal Bay Rd pavement) 2,035 v �a Proposed House �y� Adjusted Lot Area 12,841* ;'��� o �,�`r► '�j & Garage 7, g5 3 a ' •y� aPercent Existing Hardcover 24.1$'(2,211 s.f12in. yO (Cd 94r4 •ac�A S4�F 5 7 z Percent Proposed Hardcover 25.0* Proposed `Ssr•-1feids rr� J Elevations; �ca� *Crystal Bay Rd. pavement not included in v ,t LFE=943.0 / Prop. Bif. hardcover calculation. a I I� • 6+ ,fes u ► Ocl f`9 r FFE=953.5 / `' Driveway, 0 Excluded Hardcover. -�m�ai,�oinElm Proposed Retaining Walls 600 Q Note, a•0. on3i m 'cQ.S a I C3 / _ Proposed grades and drainage designed by a sq Q L ro '(�: Granberg and Associates, Inc, and must be " 944.5 /.�..5�� y — verified and approved by the City of Orono . `9�` 1 MFlR-95t 7, prior to construction. w Qo 15in. ks C ►` l �Q• O S` J , 4 a .. Catch Basin- CJ u� ` A9 ` ,> g s �_.•+ .tea % Bounda cri ion u tient Z That part of Lot 2, Block 2, TOWNSITE OF J rx 944: 9� z 9 LANGDON PARK lying Southwesterly of the � 4y Prop.- Vit, ��= f Northeasterly 180 feet thereof, according to O Ca f 1 Erosion N -.0 � Control :"�(' % "'' '` f the plat thereof on file or record in the office 1 Iv' �+ l �• 'ti h of the Register of Deeds In and for Hennepin d '/k•. qAr County, together with that part of Northern I' —Approx. Avenue vacated abutting upon said described W shed lacati� premised in the rear Iying between theco ftalift extensions of the Easterly and Westerly side r. U 241 Bass lines of said tract. co SCALE .a Subject to a right to create a public easement c c� sa o 10 zo ao RECEIVED for highway purposes over the Southeasterly 33 feet of that part of said laid out as Northern Avenue as shown in Deed Doc. No. 198674, 1 o SEP 2 101Files of Register of lrtles. 3 inch = 20 feet 3 Bearings based on assumed datum. 3d�5 Date Application Received: 09/21/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 09/29/16 60 -Day Review Period Expires: 11/28/16 Department Approval: Name: Melanie Curtis YY1GG Title: Planner REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Administrator Approval: Y"j� Date: 4 November 2016 Item No. 22 Agenda Section: Item Description: #16-3876 - Stonewood LLC o/b/o Luke Beltnick -1380 Orono Ln — Variances Planning Application Summary: The applicants are currently building a new home, and rebuilding an in -ground pool in the existing footprint on the property. However, they would like to reorient the pool deck/patio. Portions of the patio are located within the 75 -foot setback requiring variances. A driveway backup apron near the house is proposed to be re- located within the 35 -foot wetland setback requiring a setback variance to be 25 feet from the wetland. Additionally, a 76 square foot shed is proposed to be constructed within the 50 foot side street setback; a side street setback variance is required. The shed will be constructed to conform to the low floor requirements for the 100 -year floodplain. Planning Commission Recommendation On October 17, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the application including the evidence submitted. Following the public hearing the Commission voted 5 to 0 in favor of a motion to approve the variances consistent with the staff recommendation to include native plantings to mitigate the wetland buffer encroachment. Planning Staff Recommendation The applicant has not provided a plan which includes 200 square feet of native planting buffer as prescribed by the Planning Commission. Staff recommends approval conditioned upon inclusion of the 200 square feet of native plantings between the driveway and the wetland, or the lake. A draft approval resolution has been provided for Council's consideration. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Council should consider adopting or amending the approval resolution. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Exhibit B. Exhibit C. Exhibit D. Exhibit E. Exhibit F. Survey & Plans Draft Resolution PC Action Notice Draft PC Minutes PC Staff Report PC Exhibits x U) z -3P y Q zyt�Ja C3 y Q C d�-cl � < tm�r L CNC1NNW.. LAND $UPV3YOFM LAND PLAWM R9 _t . C*IH Nee CN MYE LU E " 54555 Vin»-sY.Y—e i 94, 1 2 x U) z -3P y Q zyt�Ja C3 y Q C d�-cl � < tm�r L CNC1NNW.. LAND $UPV3YOFM LAND PLAWM R9 _t . C*IH Nee CN MYE LU E " 54555 Vin»-sY.Y—e i 758-51WASLQZED 58.64, EXISTING HOUSE `\ `938.2} # 1325 36 .lt \ i836 3) r„ .. "PROOF OF DRIVEWAY` `POSSIBLE FUTURE DRIVE \ 4jX vd4l (R) \ n (933.8) %'`•929.4 CONTOUR %K / LW (O.H.W.) .:;`•/// / SURVEY ! LINE LAKE r / MINNETONKA 17— IN 64001► BROWN'S BAY U 0 cya- 4-0 a� L � o.. cN L L :3 0 aL 0 V NV) CL U) E J 0 d CLm c v�::so� a� � (D U p-.2 C �a o N s c 3 Y d w oI Lo r - N L vii g3g hoz j g�� o O� V-3" (BUILDMG HEIGHT) i A �D 0 � O�— 3 O, V-3" (BUILDMG HEIGHT) i CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-1281, 78-1282, 78-1435, 78-1605 and 78-1680 FILE NO. 16-3876 WHEREAS, Luke Beltnick, is Trustee of the Luke Beltnick Revocable Trust (hereinafter "the Applicant") the owner of the property located at 1380 Orono Lane, and legally described as: Tract A, RLS No. 1350, files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except that part thereof lying Northeasterly of the following described line: Commencing at the most Northerly corner of said Tract A; thence Southwesterly along the Northwesterly line of said Tract A a distance of 268.60 feet to the point of beginning of the line being described; thence deflecting left 117 degrees 47 minutes to the Southerly line of said Tract A, and there ending (hereinafter the "Property"); WHEREAS, on September 21, 2016, the Applicant has made application to the City of Orono for variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-1281, 78-1282, and 78- 1680 to allow reorientation of an existing pool patio to accommodate a new in -ground pool within the 75 -foot setback resulting in 444 square feet of hardcover where 743 square feet previously existed and hardcover is not permitted; and WHEREAS, Applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1435 to allow construction of a shed for the storage of pool equipment within the side street setback, 19 feet from the side lot line where a 50 foot setback is required; and WHEREAS, the Applicant also has made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1605 to allow construction of a 10 -foot x 20 -foot back up apron to replace a similar driveway backup apron 25 feet from the wetland where a 35 -foot setback is required; and WHEREAS, on October 17, 2016, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variances; and CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. WHEREAS, on November 14, 2016, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested variances as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #16-3876. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The Property is located in the LR -1A Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 144,597 square feet (3.3 acres) in area and has a defined lot width of 140 feet at the 75 -foot setback and 115 feet at the ordinary high water level. 4. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25% according to the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. 5. Applicant has applied for the following variance[s]: a. Hardcover b. Wetland Setback c. Side Street Setback 6. In considering this application for variances, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. ANALYSIS: 1. "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance ...." All of the proposed improvements are residential in nature, are minimal in scope, and do not conflict with the general intent of the Ordinance. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2. "Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan." The requested variances result in residential improvements which are consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. "Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. `Practical difficulties,' as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that: a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls. It is reasonable to rearrange the pool patio within the lake yard in order to reduce the total hardcover impact and make the patio more functional; it is reasonable and minimal to permit a small pool shed for the storage of pool chemicals, equipment, and accessories near the pool within the side street yard as well; the encroachment into the wetland setback is a relocation of the previously existing driveway area and is reasonable; it does not encroach into the required 25 -foot MCWD buffer. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The Property contains a large wetland which separates the dry buildable land near the lake from the remaining dry buildable land, limiting options for development. Further, the narrowness of the buildable area in the lake yard portion of the Property and the floodplain elevations limit usability of the land. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. " The proposed variances result in a changed pool patio and driveway as well as a small shed for pool equipment within the street side yard. There is currently a fence along the street side yard which will be replaced with vegetative screening. The character of the neighborhood should not be adversely impacted by the proposed variances. 4. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties." The Applicant has not requested variances based on economic considerations. 5. "Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78." This criterion is not applicable. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 6. "The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located." The requested variances result in residential improvements and are permitted within residentially zoned properties. 7. "The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." This criterion is not applicable. 8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." The Property is divided by a wetland which separates the dry buildable land at the lake from the remaining dry buildable land limiting options for development, creating a practical difficulty unique to the Property._The side street is a dead end roadway, there are no additional properties further down the road. 9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located." This is correct, the immediately adjacent properties do not have similar limitations. The Property is divided by a wetland which separates the dry buildable land at the lake from the remaining dry buildable land limiting options for development, creating a practical difficulty unique to the Property 10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." The Applicant indicates that it is necessary to make driveway and patio areas more functional while reducing overall impervious surface within setback areas. 11. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter." The proposed variances will not impair the health, safety, comfort or morals of the public. 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty." The Applicant has indicated that they wish to minimize hardcover by reorienting and reducing the existing nonconforming hardcover within the lake setback; and by reorienting the driveway. The width of the lot, proximity to the lake, and presence of the wetland on the Property make locating a conforming spot for the pool shed difficult. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-1281, 78-1282, and 78-1680 to allow reorientation of an existing pool patio within the 75 -foot setback resulting in 444 square feet CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. of hardcover where 743 square feet previously existed and hardcover is normally not permitted; and a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1435 to allow construction of a shed within the side street setback, 19 feet from the side lot line where a 50 foot setback is required; and a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1605 to allow construction of a 10 - foot x 20 -foot back up apron 25 feet from the wetland where a 35 -foot setback is required, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the survey dated 09/20/2016 by Gronberg & Associates and building plans submitted by the Applicant and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A & B (hereinafter the "Plans"). Any amendments to the Plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction and commencing construction of said project. A final inspection must be completed for the shed within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variances will expire on that date (November 14, 2017). 3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4. The undersigned Applicant has read, understand and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the Applicant and the Applicant's heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the Property. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 14th day of November, 2016. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. Property Owner: Luke Beltnick Revocable Trust By: it's Trustee This instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 20, by Luke Beltnick, the Trustee of Luke Beltnick Revocable Trust, on behalf of the Trust. Public if, P-Sof-•2�, _ 4SS55 WY '3�+V� 'XN.I ]'•µyd N:1 `.lM NlM'} •:i. ✓.L1i _ 6a�,etN{Ntil(d��}QkYiTy'yQ'llPA$(A+N RB Q�1Y'i 'yg�y��,}prN�l[P•�H,31'll �•!:, l�Ei�l ,��� s.�e � � wi�u, � wm.e. 341 � a1W Y Y��?� Y 'P JII�141YV [] J i33rONd �4 ���eYw 1 Jnr �N eA Y 1�5,•1� rWW��I11 - IFF-�ggi V �+ F JN Z- 2E m 3 3 C? aj °� o t* 4! i P % 4 2 7 0 sJ� O � a c DR � {f� a Ch 0:) 0N r ) W-0 --jo 40 �5-8 ............. 0 00 ALCZ Q�'* 900 'k; C-1 0 L 0 C 50 o mL < rrI > • IRI Y T' 9' �- 40 �5-8 ............. 0 00 ALCZ Q�'* 900 'k; C-1 0 L 0 C o mL 80 0 En M 1�0 01V V 03 1+ 0 0 r- U) 0 (At 2C MX W < A M ZE 0 17"(D \\\ �--1 NO 410 ? C:) �4 EMARKS �eort I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or ervispion was prepared by me, or under my direct sup, Surveyor under the and laws that I am a ulLicensed Land of the Statedofy Minnesotc, PROJECT lI MVISH %1(31lna) ..£-.8 'o �o a E I A a� I 111 CL 7 �I I �I ..0-.L NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 952.249.4620 TO: Nate Mitchell, Stonewood LLC 153 Lake Street E Wayzata, MN 55398 TYPE OF REQUEST: Variances DATE OF MEETING: 17 October 2106 ZONING FILE: #16-3876 DATE OF NOTICE: 18 Oct 2016 COPIES Luke Beltnick Via Nate Mitchell email: Sven Gustafson The Orono Planning Commission voted on a motion to recommend approval of the requested variances consistent with the staff recommendation to mitigate the 10'x20' driveway area with additional 1:1 native buffer in an appropriate location. VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next meeting is tentatively scheduled as: Monday, November 14, 2016 This is a City Council meeting. The meeting begins at 7 PM At least one week prior to the City Council meeting (November 7th) an updated survey should be provide which shows the area of mitigation as well as the 100 -year floodplain including spot elevations in the proposed shed location for floodplain determination. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please contact Melanie Curtis at mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us or 952.249.4627. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 17, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 10. #16-3876 STONEWOOD, LLC, ON BEHALF OF LUKE BELTNICK, 1380 ORONO LANE, VARIANCES, 7:46 P.M. — 8:03 P.M. Sven Gustafson with Stonewood, LLC, and Luke Beltnick, Applicant, were present. Curtis stated the applicants are currently constructing a new home on the property and are preparing to rebuild an in -ground pool in the same location but would like to reorient the pool deck/patio area. The applicants wish to reconfigure the patio in order to reduce hardcover within the 0-75 foot area and to make it more functional. The changes result in a 299 square foot reduction in the hardcover within the 75 -foot setback. Because the applicants are proposing to change the footprint, hardcover and setback variances are required. With the permit for the home, the applicants were proposing a driveway that met the 35 -foot wetland setback, which is located at the rear of the property. After reviewing the functionality of the layout, the applicants are now requesting to enlarge the driveway to allow a 10' x 20' bump -out to encroach 10 feet into the wetland setback. The site is well below the 25 percent hardcover limitation but there is a setback requirement for hardcover from the wetland. The applicants are also proposing a small 76 -square foot shed adjacent to the pool in order to store the pool essentials and equipment which is currently stored in a fenced in area, which will be removed. The shed would be within the 50 -foot side street setback and 19 feet from the side street lot line. The existing white fence will be removed and replaced with vegetative screening. Staff provided an analysis of the practical difficulty criteria within Staff report. The Planning Commission may choose to discuss the criteria tonight or ask the applicant for further testimony. Staff finds that due to the limiting conditions on the property, it may be reasonable to permit the encroachment into the wetland setback for a portion of the driveway, allow for reorientation and reduction of the pool patio hardcover within the 75 -foot setback; and permit the pool equipment shed to be constructed between the side street and the home. Comments were received from the neighbors and have been included in the packet. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 17, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Staff recommends approval of the application conditioned upon requiring native vegetation in appropriate areas in order to mitigate the additional hardcover within the buffer and/or lake setbacks. Staff further recommends requiring vegetative screening of the shed if approved. The landscaping plan submitted by the applicant does incorporate screening along the roadway as well as behind the shed, which will help screen it from the road. The plan shows some arborvitae plantings in place of the white fence and some screening around the hot tub area and the shed. Schoenzeit asked if a residential landscaping plan is binding. Curtis stated the City can require it as part of mitigation efforts for a variance. Curtis stated the plan on the overhead is the plan that was provided with the building permit application for the home, which is one of the City's requirements. Curtis stated she does not know if the shed was depicted on the building permit plan but the trees along Orono Lane were shown. Luke Beltnick, Applicant, stated as it relates to the parking, there are some aerial pictures that depict the area. Beltnick stated they are proposing to relocate the parking area and make it slightly smaller. Sven Gustafson pointed out the location of the existing parking area and noted that it is quite a distance from the house. Gustafson stated the desire was to slide it closer to the house, which makes it more functional as someone is backing out of the garage. It also is pulled further away from the wetland. Beltnick stated all the pool equipment currently is stored in a 7' x 10' fenced in area by the road and that there is no other place to put the shed. Beltnick noted the road is the reason for the variance and that it acts basically as the neighbor's driveway. Beltnick stated the road is narrow, with no cul-de-sac, and turns directly into the neighbor's property. Beltnick stated no traffic goes down there. Beltnick stated the neighbor is in support of the shed. Staff displayed an aerial picture of the property. Thiesse asked if any landscaping is anticipated across the road. Beltnick indicated they are. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 17, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse asked if the culvert will remain. Gustafson indicated there will need to be some sort of culvert and that they would like to lower the elevation of the culvert. Gustafson stated currently it goes beneath the driveway, then goes above grade, and then back down below grade. Gustafson stated it needs some improvement over what currently exists. The Planning Commission had no questions for the applicant. Lemke asked if there is some formal landscaping being proposed for near the wetland. Curtis indicated the Watershed District would dictate what happens in that 25 -foot buffer area and the City does not limit the type of soft scape that is put in. Curtis stated the City limits hardcover and structure in the 35 -foot buffer but that certain types of plants would be allowed as long as the Watershed District approves them. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:56 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:56 p.m. Leskinen asked whether the driveway apron currently encroaches into the wetland setback. Curtis stated the bump -out apron currently does, but with the proposed house it will be considered a pre-existing nonconformity and would require a variance. Schoenzeit stated the recommendation should include mitigation in kind for the encroachment into the wetland buffer. Thiesse asked if that is something the City has to require or whether it would be required by the Watershed District. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 17, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis stated the City would need to recommend mitigation in equal square footage to the encroachment. Thiesse asked if the applicant is okay with that. Gustafson requested clarification on how it would look. Curtis stated they are meeting the Watershed District's setback but that the Planning Commission is suggesting mitigation of similar square footage for the amount of hardcover that is encroaching. Curtis stated it would either need to be mitigated in the buffer or the ditch could be improved to a higher quality. Gustafson asked if it can be anywhere along the wetland on the property. Curtis stated she would suggest it be between the house and the wetland. Schoenzeit moved, Leskinen seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3876, Stonewood, LLC, on behalf of Luke Beltnick, 1380 Orono Lane, granting of a side street setback variance, a 0-75 foot setback variance, hardcover variances, and a wetland setback variance, with the recommendation a 1:1 buffer mitigation,be done. L VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. F'4 Exfh-,:�t.T A City of Orono Variance Application 2750 ffellay—Parkway Application # .� Orono, MN 55556 Date Received: Main. 952-249-4600 staff . A tax: 9,52-249-4615 Fee; ,00. '75 Malft Address: P.O. Box 66 IlBCroYN p $� Crystal Say, MN 55323-0066 Permit Fee Notes. i Please complete. Applicant will be notified within 15 days as to the status of the application. Incomplete applications will p_W be placed on Planning Commission Agenda. SITE LOCATION: /366) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: (attached additional sheets as necessary) APPLICANT / AGENT INFORMATION: Applicant Name: Phone (Primary): 1 -Z- - 4 Applicant Email: Address: ZIP: Applicant is: Contractor Homeowner (Circle One) PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION: ❑ check here if property owner is same as applicant Name: V e -a , Phone (Primary): r. 12- 5s1- I al Mailing Address: _3ajl FA%w."Or, S Cit : I o Z1P: Email €Ur t GM APPLICANTIAGIENT AND1011 OWNER: Agree to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department, • Agree to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and • Certify that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of hialher knowledge. The applicant and owner recognize that they are solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so, the staff has no alternative but to reject it until It Is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of its potential merit. • Acknowledge the Escrow Agreement Is completed and signed. • The Owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents, Commission and Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. • Owner and/or Applicant acknowledge they must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant and/or owner is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative atten place of the applicant/owner and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. Applicant/Agent Signature: Date: Applicant/Agent Signature: Date: Property Owner Signature: Date: �-(9 A Property Owner Signature: Date: RECEIVED Variance Ap#16ation - May 2016 Page 2 SEF' 2 1 L Q 1 R 3876 CITY OF ORONO DATA PRI ACY ADVISORY In accordance with Minnesota State Statute 13.04 Rights of Subjects of Data, Subd. 2, "Tennessen warning", we would like to Inform you that your request for a permit or license from the City of Orono or any of its departments may require you to furnish certain private or confidential information. You are notified that: 1- The information you furnish will be used to determine your qualification for the permit or license requested. 2. You may refuse to supply data, but refusal may require that the City deny the permit or license. 3. The information may be shared with other local, state or federal agencies to the extent necessary to process the permit or license. 4. If your requested permit or license requires Council action to approve, some Information may become public. 5. You have certain rights under Minnesota State Statute 13.04 (see following page) to review private data on yourself. S. Your full name Is required to process this application or permit. First C% Address City I understa d Signature Middle State my rights as stated above. Last S53 _or wal-10101 zip Phone RECEIVE.) Verian m AA,pkcatFon -- May 2016 SEP 2 1 ?11 Pave 10 3876 CMOF ORONO Practical Difficulty Statement 1380 Orono Lane, Orono MN 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. The proposed use is the construction of a small shed// enclosure to house the pool equipment. The existing equipment is sitting on the ground, surrounded by solid, tall fencing. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the Iandowner. The location of the shed is an improvement from the current location of the fencing and equipment. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. It will not. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Economic considerations have not been considered as a part of our request. The request is purely practical based on the desire to enclose the equipment and move it further from the setback. 5. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter. This does not apply. 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located." This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An application will not be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the City. Variance Application — May 2016 Page 5. This does not apply. Our use is permitted. 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This does not apply. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The pool is pre-existing and is being rebuilt in kind. It cannot be moved so that the equipment location can be conforming. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. The need for the enclosure is based on the unique condition of the pre-existing pool. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant wishes to continue their use of the existing pool. The pool is in need or repair/ replacement. The applicant is rebuilding the home, and the pool & equipment cannot be relocated. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. It will not. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The applicant wishes to improve the aesthetics of the property and relocate the pool equipment to a moiFtCEIVED SEP212ots # 3876 conforming setback from the street right of way. The current enclosure is fencing which will be removed. Practical Difficulties Statement Should you feel the practical difficulties cannot fully be described in the above criteria, describe the practical difficulties preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary): The buildable area of the lot is restricted by the lakeside setback, the wetland and associated buffer, the existing and non. -conforming pool. Additionally, the topography of the site dictated, very specifically, the location of the new home in order to conform with the basement definition. Because of this, the home could not be moved, and the pool is restricted to being repaired or replaced in kind, in the same location. The applicant is requesting a sideyard setback variance for a small enclosure to house the pool equipment and reduce noise. The existing equipment is essentially on the property line, enclosed in fencing. The requested location reduces the non -conformity RECEIVE-) SER 21 Mi J' 3876 F = OF ORONO Practical Difficulty Statement (additional statements) 1380 Orono Lane, Orono MN I. "The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter." Secondly, proposing relocating a portion of the existing driveway that currently lies within the 35' wetland buffer & moving it closer to the garage/auto-court area. There is an existing 372 sq ft within the setback and the proposed amount of impervious surface for re -location is 291 sq ft. The remaining 81 sq ft is eliminated. Thirdly, proposing a slight alteration to the patio within the 75' lake setback. The change in the footprint reduces the overall impervious surface in this zone from 502 sq ft, to 338 sq ft. (these calculations do not include pool footprint, only the patio surface) 2. "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." Re-locationg driveway turnaround/parking improves functionality. Changing the portion of the patio within the 75' lakeside setback reduces total impervious surface by 164 sq ft and improves functionality. 3. "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." NO 4. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." These requests solely make things more functional & reduce impervious surface 5 "Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116106, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter." NA S. "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located." NA 7. "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two- family dwelling." NA 8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." The current setbacks limit functionality/space 9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." Unique lot with many setbacks make it difficult 10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." Also, wishes to make driveway & patio more functional while reducing overall impervious surface within setback areas 11. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code." NO 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty." Existing location of driveway turnaround not functional, requesting to relocate less sq ft to more useable location. Patio change is to accommodate new pool, while decreasing impervious surface within the setback. Practical Difficulties Statement Should you feel the practical difficulties cannot fully be described in the above criteria, describe the practical difficulties preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary): Additions to previous variance request #3876 for 1380 Orono lane, Orono MN *Variance - driveway relocation/wetland setback. Requesting to relocate portion of driveway to a more functional location to accommodate new home. The request results in 81 sq ft less impervious surface within the 35' wetland setback. * Variance — Changing the footprint of the patio within the 75' lakeside setback. Requesting to modify patio to accommodate pool while eliminating 164 sq ft of impervious surface. r ! I �ji PLATE NGT MATCH DRACKET 'C' I RDOFMCs - ! i "'AI TV - MaLlm TO WALL R f TO MATCH FASCIA SOIPiT AND FRIEZE SHED 8CALE: V4081'-10" �o HOUSE # 3876 RECEIVED SEP 217,016 �pn OF ORONO 100 16-034C cs 'o s "V •�Da OF DELMATED / wErL A (TW) 28 }.o3 N 80.31, 03 , W LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1350, files of Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except that part lhereaf lyfng Northeasterly of the following described Gne: Commencing at the most Northerly corner of said Tract A; thence Southwesterly along the Northwesterly line of said Tract A. a distance of 26840feet to the point of beginning of the line being described; thence deflecting left 117 degrees 47 minutes to the Southerly line of said Tract A, and there ending a denotes iron marker (908.3) denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum 810.8 denotes proposed spot elevation, mean sea level datum --917--: denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datum - denotes proposed contour line, mean sea level datum W : denotes proposed buffer monument Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. This survey shows the boundaries of the above described property,. the location of an existing house, to be removed, and the proposed ocation of a proposed house, drivewoy and grades thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. A (SYPi i 2 PzORONO LANE .7g PROPOSED ELEVATIONS : (per architect, verify) 1) Garage = 941,73 2) Top of foundation 3) First floor 4) easement 932.58 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR A STIONEWOOD, LLC IN TRACT A, R.L.S. NO. 1350 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 7$851.. 788..64 , lwml i EXISTING 1 l ( HOUR 81325 OF aRWFWAY I rosselc rvrosF � /r a'a n � ,mow / -- _. // ,AVERAGE LAKESHW SETOACK LINE �I r %I �I r1 r fI r EXISTING HOUSE /13&5 BROWN'S BAY N 64°07' 03,, W (H) pROl? ED "a r 76AE14 NAY t HOUSE 09 . 1380 LINE I � v (A) 62a: �bA TKA -•929.4 CONTOUR s o a 0 1 •.. PA�7p�(a3r1 � ni a / 'R�!�~ LK (axw.) � _-•i]BtNi�A\M' ., r / /�� :' ' <SURVEY :'Ex�Tnc - ... y xo s(E1 x I r. I / LINE a a c .�, LAKE L AKE At - MINNETONKA na �I r %I �I r1 r fI r EXISTING HOUSE /13&5 BROWN'S BAY N 64°07' 03,, W --,—k IL ik (93s.s} \ l� (935.8) r — EXISTING � � 1 HOUSE #1325 PROPOSED. SILT FENCE (930.8) %—.C.'758-51 Neq� 7. s C.S. Mp, t3S0 1 X-7 Z DRI (SWAY B O NG CK � OOF ROOF DRIVEWAY' FUTURE ,DRIVE VERAGE LAKESHORE (933.$) SETBACK LINE .' .->o 9 w / (9326) AR PROPOSEDs, HOUSE .J 'o 1380 • : (A) / -939.5 tea;: x937.0 �"'� Ing{-�:• -- ,.,� g`O d rEXI V) Op M To g3olal t 0 �X';WOL (9324) 284.69 (9325) EYJSTNG TO BE 6 PROPOSED PATIO (D) l 933.0 JI r w (9-3Z7) �3 s 1� 4 RN /4 -"'SURVEY LINE Of LAIC FIA 929.4 CONTOUR LINE (O.H.W.) MINNETONKA BROWN'S BAY 6400 0,3" r r w U D 0 Ofa- Vi City of Orono o1ia Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Address: /3� a/t'o� L�l•�f �lTvN�vo�f7 �c.c BEcrti+Ec�{ you JF Prepared by:Date: 9~ Zo -e6 Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) QTier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Step 2 ROPQSEQ HARQCOVE In the following table, identify all items of proposed hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to Certificate of Survey (survey must accompany this form). Include all existing hardcover items that are intended to remain, as well as all proposed hardcover items that will be added. Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict proposed hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify any features oy letter which are split at the 75' setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separateiv for each portion. Key to Hardcover Item (describe) Length x Width Survey,(Square Total Feet) Exam le (Garage) (24'x 30' 720 S.F. A S.F. B r /77 S. F. C 4(--rl-< tvi-riv AdreaT /991 S.F. D 04CU2 49' le -&Z S.F. E iC/ e !S S.F. F 1 "� S.F. GT E / S.F. H 4 r Fac S.F. 256— S.F. J W L K //0 S.F. K 4 RR O/V T t6 A a ' 6.4 A .f G r 7 S.F. L P l-, S.F. M 7. / JA -1 ,L S.F. N G"j' E447 C-` to ou S.F, 4 HED 745 S.F. P &c, e- 6aeelAA i7Al7- � i/.�G 2 S.F. Q S.F. R S.F. S S.F. T S.F. U S.F. V S.F. W S.F. X S.F. Y S.F. Z S.F. 1 Total Proposed Hardcover A0 ? S.F. Excludable Hardcover See City Code Sec 78-1684): Z 75 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 2 Total Excludable Hardcover A' 7-T S.F. 3 Net Proposed Hardcover ..Subtract line 2 from line 1 /0,128 S.F. 4 Total Lot Area '�I S-F- Proposed Hardcover Percentage [(3)-(4)] 7l2 % This is an information packet regarding Hardcover. Every effort has been made to insure the accuracy of the information contained herein; however, if any information is not consistent with provisions of the City Code, the Code provisions will prevail. Page 9 of 9 ©-75,Z19"vF 0/1,14Ll City of Orono �allo Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Address: ;yF� EGA /360 0461,VC? 4A1Vf � 70' UCW'900,1-Z-C) BEGTiV1Ct' Il dy"Jtr 1'�tSHUo' Prepared by: Date: i� /t 0/l.C� l�� rr" �' J41'.t'+� �' /�✓'i 1`�.i' ..�`� �" • � � 2 a 'fir Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) Tier Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Step 1 LEXL�TINVG HARDCO In the following table identify all items of existing hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to Certificate of Survey (survey must accompany this form). Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict existing hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter which are split at the 75' setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. Key to Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width Survey Total (Square Feet) Exam le (Garage) (24'x 30' 720 S.F. A ✓i` s°fes s r $ 6' ' / S.F. S S.F, C S.F. D 5'yz S,F. E d P&eL IY7 S.F. F S.F. G S.F. H S.F. S.F. S.F. K S, F. L S.F. M S.F. N S.F. 0 S.F. P S.F. a S.F. R S.F. S S.F. T S.F. U ,yr., r- At ,�'T S.F. V x1 rF- S.F. W S.F. X S.F. Y S.F. z S.F. 1 Total Existing Hardcover S.F. Excludable Hardcover See City Code See 78-1684): S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S -F. 2 Total Excludable Hardcover S.F. 3 Net Existing Hardcover Subtract line 2 from line 1 7 S.F. 4 Total Lot Area IA -1 0-7s-' Zcyve /O O tO S.F. Proposed Hardcover Percentage [ (3) _ (4) j 7,4/0 % (Proposed Hardcover next page) Subdivision Application - January 2016 This is an information packet regarding Hiardcover. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained herein; however, if any information is not consistent with provisions of the City Code, the Code provisions will prevail. Page 18 0 - 75 , ze%,416 OA." 1, % 0 -75 * 24WI ' 0A14. r City of Orono o Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Address: =` l.i?C5'0. C,/?O//O 1,1" (F_'oi✓CC.tsGG `GCC BEGTiv/Ck 0ee re- `�kESHO�'f. Prepared by: Date: Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Step 2:eWF!OSED HARCOVE ' In the following table, identify all items of proposed hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to Certificate of Survey (survey must accompany this form). Include all existing hardcover items that are intended to remain, as well as all proposed hardcover items that will be added. Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict proposed hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter which are split at the 75' setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. Key to Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width Survey_ Total (Square Feet) (Example) (Garage) (24'x 30' 720 S.F. A S.F. B S.F. C S.F. Ci A4 -r,00 0e 0004 2 7 S.F. E R004 r6XI.rrY '1 -;-0 ZYZ S.F. F T S.F. G S.F. H S.F. S.F. S.F. K S.F. L S.F. M S.F. N S.F. 0 S.F. P S.F. Q S.F. R S.F. SS.F. T S.F. U S.F. v S.F. W S.F. X _ S.F. Y S.F. Z S.F. 1 Total Proposed Hardcover ' S.F. Excludable Hardcover See Ci!y Code Sec 78-1684): S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 2 Total Excludable Hardcover SR 3 Net Proposed Hardcover Subtract fine 2 from line 1 S.F. 4 Total Lot Area /" a - 7..5' ` 747A, ^` o 0 t3 S.F. Proposed Hardcover Percentage [ (3) _ (4) ] 4'f. V2 % Subdivision Application - January 2016 This is an information packet regarding Hardcover. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained herein; however, if any information is not consistent with provisions of the City Code, the Code provisions will prevail. Page 19 PC Exhibit E City Code Excerpts Sec. 78-305. - Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in the LR -1A district shall exceed 2% stories and shall not exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. (b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Side Yard Lot Lot Front Side Rear Adjacent Area Width Yard Yard Yard (acre) (feet) (feet) (feet) to Street(feet) (feet) 2 200 50 30 50 50 Sec. 78-1279. - Placement of structures on lots. When more than one setback applies to a site, structures and facilities must be located to meet all setbacks. Structures shall be located as follows: (1) Structure and on-site sewerage system setbacks (in feet) from ordinary high water level: (2) Additional structure setbacks. The following additional structure setbacks apply, regardless of the classification of the water body: Page 1 * Except for detached garages on Lakeshore lots as regulated in section 78-1435 and except for structures subject to less restrictive side yard adjacent to street setbacks as regulated in the various zoning districts. (3) Bluff impactzones. Structures and accessory facilities, except stairways, landings and lock boxes, must not be placed within bluff impact zones. (4) Uses without water -oriented needs. Uses without water -oriented needs must be located on lots or parcels without public waters frontage, or, if located on lots or parcels with public waters frontage, must either be set back double the normal ordinary high water level setback or be substantially screened from view from the water by vegetation or topography, assuming summer, leaf -on conditions. (5) Fences, docks, retaining walls. No fence shall be placed within the shore setback zone. Portions of dock located landward of the OHWL shall be considered as a landing, subject to the regulations for landings per section 78-1282. Retaining walls shall not be placed within the shore setback zone. (6) Average lakeshore setback. No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots; except that this does not apply to patios and other accessory structures less than 42 inches above existing grade, stairways, lifts, landings, lockboxes, flagpoles and pump houses. Further, the average lakeshore setback shall apply only to classified lakes and shall not apply to tributaries. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. a. In situations where improvement is proposed on a lot adjacent to a vacant lot or right-of-way, the average lake shore setback shall be equivalent to the setback of the most lakeward protrusion of the residence building on the immediately adjacent improved lakeshore lot. (Ord. No. 101 2nd series, § 1(10.56(16)(C)), 2-24-1992; Ord. No. 11 3rd series, § 1, 5-24-2004; Ord. No. 106 3rd series, § 28, 6-10-2013; Ord. No. 157 3rd series, § 1, 8-10-2015) Sec. 78-1281. - Water -oriented accessory structures. The only water -oriented accessory structures allowed to be located nearer the ordinary high water level than the normal structure setback as specified in this article shall be: (1) One lockbox no greater than 20 square feet in area and no higher than 48 inches in height; (2) One flagpole setback from side lot lines a distance no less than the required principal structure side yard setback for the zoning district; and (3) One pumphouse no greater than 20 square feet in area and no higher than 48 inches in height. (Ord. No. 101 2nd series, § 1(10.56(16)(E)), 2-24-1992; Ord. No. 106 3rd series, § 27, 6-10-2013) Page 2 Setback Setback from: (in feet) Top of bluff 30 Unplatted cemetery 50 Right-of-way line of federal, state or county highway and local public and private roads 30* * Except for detached garages on Lakeshore lots as regulated in section 78-1435 and except for structures subject to less restrictive side yard adjacent to street setbacks as regulated in the various zoning districts. (3) Bluff impactzones. Structures and accessory facilities, except stairways, landings and lock boxes, must not be placed within bluff impact zones. (4) Uses without water -oriented needs. Uses without water -oriented needs must be located on lots or parcels without public waters frontage, or, if located on lots or parcels with public waters frontage, must either be set back double the normal ordinary high water level setback or be substantially screened from view from the water by vegetation or topography, assuming summer, leaf -on conditions. (5) Fences, docks, retaining walls. No fence shall be placed within the shore setback zone. Portions of dock located landward of the OHWL shall be considered as a landing, subject to the regulations for landings per section 78-1282. Retaining walls shall not be placed within the shore setback zone. (6) Average lakeshore setback. No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots; except that this does not apply to patios and other accessory structures less than 42 inches above existing grade, stairways, lifts, landings, lockboxes, flagpoles and pump houses. Further, the average lakeshore setback shall apply only to classified lakes and shall not apply to tributaries. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. a. In situations where improvement is proposed on a lot adjacent to a vacant lot or right-of-way, the average lake shore setback shall be equivalent to the setback of the most lakeward protrusion of the residence building on the immediately adjacent improved lakeshore lot. (Ord. No. 101 2nd series, § 1(10.56(16)(C)), 2-24-1992; Ord. No. 11 3rd series, § 1, 5-24-2004; Ord. No. 106 3rd series, § 28, 6-10-2013; Ord. No. 157 3rd series, § 1, 8-10-2015) Sec. 78-1281. - Water -oriented accessory structures. The only water -oriented accessory structures allowed to be located nearer the ordinary high water level than the normal structure setback as specified in this article shall be: (1) One lockbox no greater than 20 square feet in area and no higher than 48 inches in height; (2) One flagpole setback from side lot lines a distance no less than the required principal structure side yard setback for the zoning district; and (3) One pumphouse no greater than 20 square feet in area and no higher than 48 inches in height. (Ord. No. 101 2nd series, § 1(10.56(16)(E)), 2-24-1992; Ord. No. 106 3rd series, § 27, 6-10-2013) Page 2 Sec. 78-1282. - Driveways, stairways, lifts and landings. (a) A driveway no wider than eight feet is permitted in the shoreland or tributary setback zone if the property has no other frontage on or access to a public or private road. (b) Stairways and lifts are the preferred alternative to major topographic alterations for achieving access up and down bluffs and steep slopes to shore areas. Stairways, lifts and landings shall be allowed in the shore setback zone and must meet the following design requirements: (1) Stairways and lifts must not exceed four feet in width. (2) Landings for stairways and lifts shall not exceed 32 square feet in area. (3) Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or landings. (4) Stairways, lifts and landings may be either constructed above the ground on posts or pilings or placed into the ground, provided they are designed and built in a manner that ensures control of soil erosion. (5) Stairways, lifts and landings must be located in the most visually inconspicuous portions of lots, as viewed from the surface of the public water, assuming summer, leaf -on conditions, whenever practical. (6) Facilities necessary to provide shore area access to physically handicapped persons shall be allowed, provided that the dimensional and performance standards of subsections (1)—(5) of this section are completed in addition to the requirements of the Minnesota Regulations, chapter 1340. (7) A building permit shall be obtained for construction of stairways, lifts and landings regardless of whether such improvements are constructed above, at or below grade. Sec. 78-1288. - Hardcover limitations. Hardcover on all lots within the shoreland overlay district shall comply with the requirements of Article XIII: Stormwater Quality Overlay District. Sec. 78-1405. - Nonencroachments. (a) The following shall not be considered to be encroachments on yard setback requirements: (1) Chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features, cornices, eaves, gutters, and similar building elements, provided they do not extend more than two feet into a required yard. (2) Nameplate signs for one -family dwellings subject to the provisions of article X, division 4 of this chapter; lights for illuminating parking areas, loading areas or yards for safety and security purposes, provided the direct source of light is not visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent residential property and is located at least five feet from the front lot line; public utility poles and overhead lines; mailboxes. (3) Terraces, steps, uncovered porches, stoops or similar structures which do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building and extend to a distance of not less than two feet from any lot line. Window wells including those for fire egress which do not extend more than five feet from the building. Sidewalks, driveways and parking areas when constructed, located and used in compliance with other provisions contained within chapter 78. Driveways may extend to within five feet of a side lot line. (4) In side or rear yards only, bays or cantilevers not to exceed a depth of two feet nor to contain an aggregate area of more than 20 square feet, fire escapes not to exceed a width of three feet and a depth of four feet, and open off-street parking. (5) In rear yards only, balconies, breezeways, detached outdoor picnic shelters, laundry drying equipment, and recreational equipment except as otherwise regulated; no accessory structure shall be closer than five feet from a rear lot line. Page 3 (5.1) Retaining walls, subject to the following provisions: Retaining walls may be located in all required yards when all of the following conditions are met 1. The structure is located at least ten feet from the edge of the traveled roadway; 2. The structure is not located 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; 3. The structure creates no impacts to drainage direction, rate or volume for adjacent properties. Retaining walls which do not exceed two feet in height above existing grade, which are located within the property and at least five feet from any property line, and for which the amount of imported fill associated with the structure does not exceed 20 cubic yards, do not require a building or land alteration permit. C. Retaining walls exceeding two feet in height above existing grade or for which the amount of imported fill associated with the structure exceeds 20 cubic yards or which are located less than five feet from a property line, shall require a land alteration permit and upon recommendation of the building inspector may require city council review or a conditional use permit per the provisions of section 78-967. Retaining walls exceeding the allowed height of a fence in a given required yard shall be located so as to meet the required accessory structure setbacks established for that yard. (6) In side yards only, no accessory structure shall be closer than ten feet from any side lot line. (7) Air conditioning or heating equipment may be located within a required yard but shall be located within five feet of the building it serves; shall not be located within an existing or required drainage and/or utility easement; and shall be located at least five feet from any lot line. (8) Fences erected in all zoning districts are considered as a nonencroachment when they conform to the standards listed below. For the purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply: Permanent fence. A fence that is installed in a fixed or enduring manner that is not intended for a seasonal or temporary purpose. Temporary fence. A fence that is not permanently secured or anchored to the ground by posts or affixed footings, and is installed and removed on a limited term or seasonal basis such as: snow fences, garden fences, seasonal recreational fences such as hockey boards; fences installed for safety or access management purposes for special events; and fences installed for the duration of a construction project such as silt fences, erosion control bioretention logs, and septic drainfield site protection fences. Fence height. The measurement from the top of any part of the fence, including posts or other structural supports, lattice, ornate top design elements, and so forth measured to the existing grade below the fence, as measured perpendicular to the slope (see Drawing). Exception: Post finials extending above the top of the fence shall not be deemed as part of the fence for height determination purposes as long as they do not exceed ten inches in width per finial and do not extend above the top of the fence by more than ten percent of the allowed maximum fence height at that location. Drawing: Fence Height Measurement on Sloped Site Page 4 a. Nonlakeshore lots. 1. Fences and walls within a required front yard or side street yard shall not exceed a height of 42 inches above original grade. 2. Fences and walls within a required rear or side yard shall not exceed a height of six feet above original grade. b. Lakeshore lots. 1. Fences within the required street (rear) yard or side street yard of a lakeshore lot shall not exceed 42 inches above original grade. Exception: A fence not exceeding six feet in height may be located along the street lot line of a lake frontage lot which abuts a major thoroughfare. A major thoroughfare for purposes of this section means any county road or state highway. If such fence involves fill or berming, the total combined height of both fence and fill shall not exceed six feet above the height of the crown of the major thoroughfare. 2. Fences within the required side yard of a lakeshore lot shall not exceed six feet in height, and shall not exceed 42 inches in height for any portion located lakeward of a line drawn between the most lakeward projection of the fence owner's principal residence structure and the most lakeward projection of the principal residence structure on the adjacent property abutting the side yard in which the fence is located. 3. Fences shall not be constructed within the defined lakeshore yard of a lakeshore lot, i.e., shall not be located within 75 feet of the shoreline for general development lakes, 100 feet for recreational lakes, or 150 feet for natural environment lakes. 4. When the building site of a lakeshore lot is separated from the lakeshore by a public or private road, the following definitions will apply for fence location purposes subject to the provisions of section 78-1405(a)(8)a.2: When the yard on the opposite side of the building site from the lake does not abut a street, such yard shall be considered as a standard rear yard. The yard between the building site and the street shall be considered as a standard front yard. C. Special provisions. Split rail fences of no more than three rails within a required front, street or side street yard may have a maximum top rail height of 48 inches above original grade. Board rail fences within a front, street or side street yard for the specific purpose of enclosing permitted domestic animals may have a top rail height of 60 inches and shall be no more than 50 percent opaque. d. Intersection sightline obstruction prohibited. No fence shall be installed so as to obstruct a required clear view at street intersections as required by section 78-1371. e. Fence construction and maintenance. Page 5 1. The owner of a fence shall maintain it in a condition of reasonable repair and appearance and shall not allow it to become or remain in disrepair or in a dangerous condition. 2. Fences shall be installed with the finished side facing neighboring properties or the street. The term "finished side" means that side having no structural supports. 3. Fencing materials shall consist of permanent all weather products. 4. Temporary fencing shall not be allowed to remain on the property following final inspection, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a permitted construction project, or protection of property during a similar project or winter conditions. Winter conditions shall be defined as October 15 through March 31 of the following year. Temporary fencing associated with a special event shall be removed within seven days of the end of such event. Temporary fencing materials shall not be allowed to remain on a permanent basis on a parcel. 5. Existing fences that are legal nonconforming as to location, height, design or other characteristics may be replaced in kind. (9) Entrance monuments, defined for the purpose of this section as a nearly permanent physical structure or object, natural or artificial, used to depict an entrance to the property, erected in all residential zoning districts are considered nonencroachments when they conform with the following standards: a. Each monument, with a maximum of two per approved driveway access, shall be limited to a single pillar with a footprint measuring no larger than 25 square feet and no length to exceed five feet; b. The monument must be setback a minimum of five feet from all property boundaries and never fewer than ten feet from the edge of the paved, traveled roadway; C. Plans and/or elevation views of the proposed monuments are required to be submitted for approval by the planning director; d. All signage proposed for the monuments must comply with section 78-1467; e. The monuments are limited to eight feet in height including any appurtenances. Any monument exceeding the maximum height must meet principal structure setback requirements; f. When more than one monument is proposed, and serving two or fewer residences, a minimum horizontal width of 16 feet is required between them; g. When more than one monument is proposed, and serving three or more residences, a minimum horizontal width of 22 feet is required between them; h. Lighting is allowed, in conformance with section 78-1573 and at the discretion of the planning director. i. When a gate is proposed, the following requirements must be met: 1. The gate must open into the property not outward towards the right-of-way, and 2. Gates serving two or fewer residences shall have a minimum horizontal width of 14 feet in the full open position, and 3. Gates serving three or more residences shall have a minimum horizontal width of 20 feet in the full open position, and 4. For all properties, gate height may not exceed the height of the monument, measured from grade, unless principal structure setbacks are met (if monuments are not proposed then gate height shall be regulated in accordance with the fence height regulations of section 78-1405(8), and 5. Gates must maintain an opacity level of no greater than 25 percent, and 6. For locked and/or secured gates a knox box, meeting the standards set forth by the police and fire department, must be provided for emergency access, and Page 6 On major thoroughfares the monuments and gates must be located 40 feet from the paved, traveled road to allow for vehicle stacking. A major thoroughfare for the purposes of this section means any county road or state highway. A building permit is required for installation. A survey must be submitted depicting where the monuments will be placed, and the property corner pins must be located for inspection purposes. (b) The following shall not be considered to be encroachments on structure height requirements: (1) Parapet walls that extend no more than three feet above the height of the building. (2) HVAC cooling towers. (3) Elevator penthouses. Sec. 78-1435. - Location. Except as may be specifically provided, no detached garage or other accessory building shall be located nearer to the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot. Detached garages or other accessory buildings on lots which have frontage on a lake may be located between the rear yards of such lots and the principal building only if setback requirements of section 78-305(b), section 78-330(b) and section 78-350(b) are met. Exception: Detached garages on lots that have frontage on a lake may be located ten feet from the street or rear lot line when doors face away from the street and an adequate vehicle turnaround is provided on the site. This section shall not apply to lakeshore lots that are divided by streets or private roads or are corner lots. Sec. 78-1605. - Wetland buffer areas and setbacks. (a) This subsection establishes authority for wetland buffer areas around protected wetlands. Buffer areas are necessary and beneficial to maintain the health of wetlands. Buffer areas protect the edge of wetlands from erosion while filtering sediment, chemicals and other nutrients from runoff that drains into wetlands. Buffer areas can improve the biological diversity and health of a wetland environment while reducing the adverse impacts of human activities. (b) All wetlands within the City of Orono are within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), which has rules and regulations for the establishment and maintenance of wetland buffers. In an effort to avoid overlapping or conflicting regulations, the city defers jurisdiction for the establishment and maintenance of wetland buffers to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. If application of MCWD buffer regulations is in conflict with city regulations, the more restrictive requirements shall apply. (c) In order to provide for a minimum level of wetland protection where Minnehaha Creek Watershed District buffer rules do not provide for adequate separation between wetlands and buildings or other structures or surfaces, the city shall require setbacks from the delineated edge of a protected wetland as follows: Where no formal buffer exists and where MCWD does not require a buffer Where a formal buffer exists or where MCWD buffer is required Minimum distance setback from delineated edge of wetland to any building (principal or accessory) or other structure, hardcover, septic systems or wells: 35 feet 35 feet or established buffer width plus 10 feet, whichever is greater Page 7 Areas within the required setback area subject to filling, grading or excavation as part of a construction project shall be revegetated immediately upon completion of such earthwork. Setbacks must be verified with wetland delineation information. The determination of whether a Level 1 delineation or Level 2 delineation is required shall be at the discretion of the planning director. Level 2 delineation information shall be provided on a certified certificate of survey. The requirement for delineation shall be applied in cases where the wetland exists within 150 feet of the proposed project. (d) The City of Orono has established wetland protection strategies in the Orono Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) (January 2011). A protection classification has been assigned to each wetland in Orono based on the stormwater susceptibility and functional assessment for each wetland. The city has also established additional protection requirements for each classification. The four protection classifications are described as follows: Additional Protection Requirements Protection Susceptibility Description (B= Bounce= Change in Classification Rating water level due to runoff event) (P = Phosphorus) B: Maintain bounce at or Highly Highly susceptible to both quantity and quality below existing conditions "Preserve" Susceptible impacts from runoff; have the highest degree of P: Limit loadings to protection predevelopment loading (0.14 Lbs/Ac/Yr) B: Maintain bounce at or Moderately susceptible to quantity and quality below existing conditions Moderately plus 0.5 foot "Manage 1" impacts; protection is less stringent than Preserve, Susceptible P: Limit loadings to provides protection to maintain their characteristics predevelopment loadings times 2 (0.28 Lbs/Ac/Yr) B: Maintain bounce at or below existing conditions "Manage 2" Slightly Less stringent protection than Manage 1 wetlands; plus 1.0 foot Susceptible maintenance of characteristics is desirable P: Limit concentration to predevelopment concentrations (200 ppb) Wetlands are significantly degraded (e.g., cultivated B: No quantity or canary grass monotype) or lack of wetland Least requirement "Manage 3" characteristics; not typically impacted by runoff; no Susceptible P: Limit concentration to quantity and only limited quality treatment of runoff 225 ppb is required The protection classification for each wetland will be found on the "Wetland Management Classification Map & List" which is hereby adopted by reference, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the city clerk and Page 8 shall be available for public review during all normal office hours. The Min nehaha Creek Watershed District required buffer area widths are based on the four protection classifications. (Ord. No. 28 3rd series, § 1, 8-22-2005; Ord. No. 103 3rd series, § 2, 5-28-2013) DIVISION 2. - GENERAL REGULATIONS FOR ALL PARCELS WITHIN THE STORMWATER QUALITY OVERLAY DISTRICT Sec. 78-1680. - Hardcover restriction zones. Within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level (OHWL) of any lake or tributary, and within any bluff or shore impact zone, no hardcover shall be placed, located or constructed, except for driveways, stairways, lifts, landings and lockboxes as regulated by the shoreland overlay district. (Ord. No. 94 3rd series, § 11, 9-24-2012) Sec. 78-1681. - Driveways, in general. All driveways shall comply with the following minimum dimensional standards: (1) Driveways serving end loading garages shall maintain a width equivalent to the width of all overhead doors extending 15 feet out from the garage doors. (2) Driveways serving side loading garages shall provide a minimum turn around or back up depth of 20 feet, as measured from the garage door(s). (3) Minimum driveway taper ratio shall be 2:1. (4) Driveways shall be at least eight feet in width at the street or private road. (5) A turnaround shall be provided for a driveway with direct access to an arterial or collector roadway, or for a side load garage as determined necessary by the city planner. The minimum dimensions of the turnaround shall be eight feet in width by 12 feet in depth. (6) "Wheel strip" driveways are allowed, but the entire width of the driveway (from outside to outside of the strips) will be considered hardcover. Drawing 1 is included for illustrative purposes. Drawing 1: Minimum Driveway Standards Page 9 Sec. 78-1682. - Shared driveways. Where one or more properties (referred to as secondary property) gain its driveway access from an adjacent property (a primary property) by virtue of a driveway easement, the following shall apply: (1) The portion of the shared driveway on the primary property that serves both primary and secondary property shall be considered hardcover for the primary property. (2) That portion of the driveway on the primary property that serves only secondary property shall not be considered hardcover for either primary or secondary property. Drawing 2 is included for illustrative purposes. Drawing 2: Driveway Easements Page 10 ��.. 8' Backup Apron m (If Required) 85x8' Minirrn.n' Garage 0 6 ko Side Wad E E E Ali Cin Drfth 26' Vi- -End load 4" Rad. (Min) J Minimum Width of Garage Door on Minimum Taper E 2=1 J2 Driveway Width 8 Minimum (20' Ma)dmum} � Driveway Width 1 8' Minimum 5' Rad, 5' Rad. =�rFT_ (20' Mazimum)Edge of Right -of -Way (Lot Une) Minimum Driveway Standards Sec. 78-1682. - Shared driveways. Where one or more properties (referred to as secondary property) gain its driveway access from an adjacent property (a primary property) by virtue of a driveway easement, the following shall apply: (1) The portion of the shared driveway on the primary property that serves both primary and secondary property shall be considered hardcover for the primary property. (2) That portion of the driveway on the primary property that serves only secondary property shall not be considered hardcover for either primary or secondary property. Drawing 2 is included for illustrative purposes. Drawing 2: Driveway Easements Page 10 r-------------------- -----------------� I r—rr rrrT r�--r rrr I C'lT c-tz CRT C1 I � J J IHouse I House I IL'LL/1L1J1L1 �Garage J I 4, Garage L.`LiL11L�1L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Encroached Benefitted Property I Property I I I I I I I I I L------------ --—L-----------------J r -----------------T-----------------1 r: -r rrrr rrr r. -a RT c -ti -c cRT C 9 i r :r House 4 I House a l � rrrrr�rrrr� i �Ls�ccacccc� y I I F1L ll1 L L..lL L! [��� '� I l �Cs213ge i..0 iv 11..L1 i.S I I rt�.ti d I L .sa s.a is I Encroached Benefitted Property i Property L------------------L-----------------J Fxckxbble area- not covered in area n(x, hardcover of encroached lot. Also not added to the hardcover €akulabors for the benefitted property. Driveway Easements Sec. 78-1683. - Standard hardcover inclusions. Page 11 The following hardcover items shall be included in proposed hardcover calculations regardless of whether the noted features are proposed to be constructed at the time of a building permit application: (1) Proof of a two -car garage (detached or attached); (2) A driveway for all garages, a minimum of 12 feet in width, subject to the standards in section 78-1681; (3) A 24 -inch wide sidewalk connecting the front door to the driveway; (4) The minimum stairway or landing at all exterior doors as required by the building code; and (5) Existing hardcover which encroaches (legally or illegally) onto an adjacent parcel or parcels. a. In such cases of encroachment, the square footage of all encroaching hardcover shall be added to the overall hardcover on the subject lot; b. No credit shall be given towards the overall lot size of the subject lot. (Ord. No. 94 3rd series, § 11, 9-24-2012) Sec. 78-1684. - Standard hardcover exclusions. Landscaping with permeable lining shall not be considered hardcover. Additionally, the following hardcover items shall be excluded from hardcover calculations: (1) Roads, trails, sidewalks, utilities and other hardcover encroachments intended for the public's benefit; (2) Hardcover encroachments created by improvements on adjacent property not owned by the subject landowner; a. In such cases of encroachment, the square footage of all encroaching hardcover shall not be added to the overall hardcover counting against the subject lot; b. The land area upon which the encroachment rests shall count towards the overall lot area for the subject lot. (3) Retaining walls; (4) Handicapped ramps with a pervious surface below; and (5) The first 100 square feet of pervious paver patios/walkways or the first 100 square feet of deck with a minimum one -fourth -inch spacing between boards and a pervious surface below the decking. (Ord. No. 94 3rd series, § 11, 9-24-2012) Sec. 78-1685. - Massing standards. (1) Non -industrial zoning districts. Except for parcels zoned industrial, all lots in the stormwater quality overlay district that have a gross acreage of less than two acres shall comply with the following massing standards for structures. a. Maximum total footprints allowed. 1. On lots equal to or greater than 10,000 square feet in area, the total combined footprints of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15 percent of the gross lot area. 2. On lots of less than 10,000 square feet in area, the total combined footprints of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 1,500 square feet. b. Calculation of massing. The following shall be included in the calculation of the total combined footprints by structures: 1. All roofed structures more than six feet above grade level. Page 12 2. Tennis courts, patios, decks, and all similar open structures when partially or fully enclosed by fences, railings or walls which extend more than six feet above grade level (if any portion of such structures extends more than six feet above grade level, the entire structure shall count toward lot coverage). (2) Industrial zoning district. For parcels zoned industrial, the following massing standards for structures shall apply. a. On lots equal to or less than three acres in area, the total combined footprints of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 35 percent of the gross lot area. b. On lots greater than three acres in area, the total combined footprints of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 45 percent of the gross lot area; except that when the total building floor area on a site is contained within a single building, and when the total area used for loading terminals, docks and berths is completely enclosed within the same single building, a lot coverage of not more than 60 percent of the gross lot area will be permitted. (Ord. No. 94 3rd series, § 11, 9-24-2012) Sec. 78-1686. - Variances. Variances to hardcover, if granted on lots within the stormwater quality overlay district, may be subject to mitigation measures deemed appropriate by the city council to offset the impacts generated by the proposed additional hardcover. (Ord. No. 94 3rd series, § 11, 9-24-2012) Secs. 78-1687-78-1699. - Reserved. Sec. 78-1700. - Specific tier regulations. Per the official stormwater quality overlay district map, each property in the stormwater quality protection overlay district is assigned to a protection tier based on its relative distance to receiving waters. This protection tier dictates the specific protection measures that must be implemented. (1) Tier 1 parcels. Hardcover shall not exceed 25 percent of the gross lot area. (2) Tier 2 parcels. Hardcover shall not exceed 30 percent of the gross lot area. (3) Tier 3 parcels. Hardcover shall not exceed 35 percent of the gross lot area. (4) Tier 4 parcels. Hardcover shall not exceed 50 percent of the gross lot area. (5) Tier 5 parcels. Hardcover shall not exceed 85 percent of the gross lot area. (Ord. No. 94 3rd series, § 11, 9-24-2012) Page 13 M. w lle� , r' 4ri► T Previous home shown a W View from the south, looking north �. r _ � - '• _; oal.i - �. tlI �' � _', _ .1 r; -'" �� A` � i �••5. ° � I °r _ ...e �� v fig! , -'* f. 4 $:� '� . u � .$ _r .t r -I. r 1 14. Via! _', r , iM mac, C t ti:.• � I. i Win. > , - p , o _ w f� ' +s � �� ,� � I r _ +* � _- 4� � S dS=,�, jam• r a r a !� I� _ I" 4 -4q..k A 1 I I� ' � I. I. I . - � � .t , � J .-. ■ J,. �� 0.� "IlJ r 11" .1.n ,'. J ,. I' •i. EI� �.'4 'Z T1r �,�� k � '� - j�p '�, �,•" fir'+ �,�� �, �_ ,�J+ �°' _ � •� � T _ / a F J Y yjr — _ .... r f n • � . - � >� 7 v ' r � � . av .- � ` a. F d _ u , I f e , I. P i +e ; I . m 71 lkt . { yr .E. r * 5.� F i _ ° 5 I' �� 'x; tiwf,•n ��`I^' ;�tL�{f "4` �1 r ._. .. ', ,- ., ., � � . � i`�',I � — � �L:S x(R Ula..c�:s. kr.•'" Facing east, toward Lake PG Q(Fftg�T q Melanie Curtis From: Pete Thomas Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2016 8:39 AM To: Melanie Curtis Cc: Luke Beltnick; Elena Beltnick Subject: Orono Lane - Beltnick Variance Requests Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Melanie, This is Pete and Nicole Thomas, homeowners at 1385 Orono Lane. We have lived here since 2001. I wanted to email you to let you know that our new neighbors, Luke and Elena Beltnick, have walked us through their landscaping plans for their new house, and we are supportive of their two variance requests; 1) To move their parking area closer to the house, 2) To build a shed for their pool equipment. Best regards, Pete and Nicole Thomas cell 952-484-6482 Melanie Curtis From: Craig Miller Sent: Saturday, September 03, 201612:52 PM To: Melanie Curtis Cc: Beltnick Luke Subject: Beltnick Two variance requests Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Ms. Curtis, I am writing you at this time to support the two variance requests the Beltnick's are requesting, moving the parking area towards the house, and building a shed. We have met with Luke Beltnick reviewing the proposed site plans and are excited to see all of the new improvements at this sites Sincerely, Craig Miller 1325 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 38 02-117-23 34 0008 KEVIN R KOKESH 1399 ORONO LA ORONO MN 55391 KEVIN R KOKESH 1399 ORONO LA WAYZATA MN 55391 # 3876 RECEIVED SEP2 1201, CITY OF ORONO RUN DATE: 09/19/2016 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM (PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PAGE: 1 38 02-117-23 32 0001 38 02-117-23 34 0010 EDWARD H HAMM TRUSTEE ROGER K & NANCY MCCABE 485 ORONO ORCHARD RD S 1265 SHORELINE DR ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 EDWARD H HAMM ROGER K & NANCY MCCABE 408 ST PETER ST SUITE 434 1265 SHORELINE DR ST PAUL MN 55102 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 33 0002 38 02-117-23 34 0011 S J FIELDS & S H COTTON B M MILLER & C R MILLER TRST 1465 FOX ST 1325 SHORELINE DR ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 STEPHEN J FIELDS MERISTEM SARAH COTTON CIO PHIL STROHM 1465 FOX ST 601 CARLSON PKWH 0800 WAYZATA MN 55391 MINNETONKA MN 55305 38 02-117-23 33 0010 38 02-117-23 34 0012 A HARRISON & I L HARRISON TR LUKE BELTNICK REV TRUST 1410 SHORELINE DR 1380 ORONO LA ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ALFRED & INGRID L HARRISON LUKE BELTNICK 1410 SHORELINE DR 3018 EMERSON AVE S WAYZATA MN 55391 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55408 38 02-117-23 33 0015 38 02-117-23 34 0013 EDWARD H HAMM TRUSTEE W J POPP & T E POPP 1401 ORONO LA 1305 SHORELINE DR ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 EDWARD H HAMM WILLIAM J & TERI E POPP 408 ST PETER ST 1305 SHORELINE DRIVE ST PAUL MN 55102 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 34 0003 38 02.117-23 34 0016 NICOLE MARIE R THOMAS J DIANN GOETTEN 1385 ORONO LA 1385 FOX ST ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 PETER M & NICOLE M THOMAS J DIANN GOETTEN 1385 ORONO LA 1385 FOX ST WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 34 0004 38 02-117-23 34 0020 DOUGLAS C MOEN ET AL EDWARD H HAMM TRUSTEE 1387 ORONO LA 1391 FOX ST ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 DOUGLAS & JUDITH MOEN EDWARD H HAMM 1387 ORONO LA 408 ST PETER ST WAYZATA MN 55391 ST PAUL MN 55102 38 02-117.23 34 0005 38 02-117-23 42 0013 CM3 LIVING TRUST HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUTH 1389 ORONO LA 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 00000 CM3 LIVING TRUST HENNEPIN COUNTY 15407 MCGINTY RD W #28 REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY WAYZATA MN 55391 701 4TH AVE S SUITE 400 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 38 02-117-23 34 0006 NORWEST BK MPLS-NTL ASC TRST 1395 ORONO LA ORONO MN 55391 THOMAS/RE0030297 PDS/TAX SERVICES 1301 BOWEN RD S;0335 ARLINGTON TX 76013 38 02-117-23 34 0007 DANA M WELLS 1397 ORONO LA ORONO MN 55391 DANA M WELLS 1397 ORONO LA WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 34 0008 KEVIN R KOKESH 1399 ORONO LA ORONO MN 55391 KEVIN R KOKESH 1399 ORONO LA WAYZATA MN 55391 # 3876 RECEIVED SEP2 1201, CITY OF ORONO Hennepin County has developed electronic forms of certain property information databases. Hennepin County makes reasonable efforts to produce and publish the most current property information available. The viewer should understand, however, that Hennepin County makes no representation or warranties, either express or implied, or as to merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose regarding the accuracy and/or completeness of the information contained herein. RECEIVE® SEP 212016 # 38 76I O" OF ORONO YC- Qcth e. -r I_ Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map Provided By: Resident and Rea{ Estate Services pate: 9120/2016 Buffer Size: 350 feet 0 120 240 480 ft Map Comments: I I i i l i i i l RECEIVED For more information contact: Hennepin County GIS Office C �1 300 6th Street South SEP' 21 20161 Minneapolis, MN 55487 gis.info@hennapin.us CITY OF ORONO #3876 Date Application Received: 09/21/16 Date Application Considered as Complete: 09/29/16 60 -Day Review Period Expires: 11/28/16 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Jessica Loftus, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner h'1GG Date: 11 October 2016 Subject: #16-3876 - Nate Mitchell- Stonewood LLC; o/b/o Luke Beltnick - 1380 Orono Ln Variances Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting the following: 1. A side street setback variance in order to permit construction of a 76 square foot shed 19 feet from the side lot line where a 50 -foot setback is required; 2. A 0-75' setback, and hardcover variances to permit rearrangement of the pool patio area within the 75 -foot setback resulting in 444 square feet of hardcover where 743 square feet previously existed; and 3. A wetland setback variance to permit encroachment of a 30 foot wide portion of driveway 25 feet from the wetland where a 35 -foot setback is required. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommendations are outlined on page 5. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Proposed Survey/Site Plan Exhibit D. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit E. City Code Excerpts Exhibit F. Aerial Photos —Staff Exhibit G. Neighbor Comments Exhibit H. Property Owners List Exhibit 1. Plat Map Background The applicants are currently constructing a new home on the property. In the process they would like to rebuild an in -ground pool in the existing location however, would like to reorient the pool deck/patio. Portions of the patio are within the 75 -foot setback requiring variances. They have proposed a driveway backup apron to be located within the 35 -foot wetland setback requiring a setback variance to be 25 feet from the wetland. Additionally, a 76 square foot shed is proposed to be constructed within the 50 foot side street setback; a side street setback variance is required. FILE #16-3876 11 Oct 2016 Page 2 of 5 LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-305, 78-1282, 78-1435, 78-1605, & 78-1680 - Setbacks: LR -1A Required Proposed Rear/Street 50' House +300' House 54.3' Side Street 50' in Zone Hardcover Hardcover Shed 19' East Side 30' House 30.2' House 35' Wetland 35' 743 s.f. w/in 75' 10,298 s.f. 444 s.f. w/in 75' Driveway 25' (25 %) House 75' Lakeshore 75' Pool Patio 58' The average lakeshore setback line is lakeward of the 75 -foot Average Lakeshore line; all improvements comply with the average lakeshore setback. Section 78-305 - Lot Area/Width: LR -1A Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres) 200' Actual 144,597 s.f. (3.3 acre) 140' @ 75'/ 115' @ OHWL Section 78-1403- Structural Coverage: The property exceeds 1.99 acres in area; the structural coverage limits do not apply. Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Total Area Allowed Existing Overlay Proposed Hardcover in Zone Hardcover Hardcover District Tier Tier 1 144,597 s.f. 36,149 s.f. 743 s.f. w/in 75' 10,298 s.f. 444 s.f. w/in 75' (25 %) (7.12%) Applicable Regulations: Side Street Setback Variance (Section 78-1435) The new home on the property is being constructed generally in the location of the previous home; the side street setback of the new home is 54 feet. The applicants are proposing to reconstruct the pool in-kind. They are proposing a small, 76 square foot shed to store pool essentials and pool equipment near the pool, within the 50 foot side street setback, 19 feet from the side street lot line. The existing white fence is being removed and replaced with vegetative screening. Wetland Setback Variance (Section 78-1605) The applicants initially proposed a driveway which met the required 35 -foot wetland setback with the permit for the home. However, after reviewing the layout they are now requesting to enlarge the driveway to allow for a 10'x 20' backup apron -type bump out 10 feet into the wetland setback. The site is well below the 25% hardcover limitation. FILE #16-3876 11 Oct 2016 Page 3 of 5 Lake Setback & Hardcover Variance (Sections 78-1281, 78-1282, & 78-1680) The applicants are re -building the in -ground pool in the same location and footprint as the existing pool. They wish to reconfigure the pool deck/patio to reduce the hardcover within the 75 -foot setback and make the patio more functional. Their changes result in a 299 square foot reduction of the hardcover within the 75 -foot setback. Because they are proposing to change the footprint of the patio a hardcover and setback variance are required. Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. All of the proposed improvements are residential in nature, are minimal in scope, and do not conflict with the general intent of the Ordinance. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The requested variances result in residential improvements which are consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; it is reasonable to rearrange the pool patio within the lake yard to reduce the hardcover impact and make the patio more functional; it is reasonable and minimal to permit a small pool shed for the storage of pool chemicals, equipment, and accessories near the pool as well; the encroachment into the wetland setback is reasonable, and does not encroach into the required 25 -foot MCWD buffer; b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The 3.3 acre property contains a wetland which separates the dry buildable land at the lake from the remaining dry buildable land, limiting options for development. Further, the narrowness of the buildable area in the lake yard portion of the property and the floodplain elevations limit usability of the land; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed variances result in a changed pool patio and driveway as well as a small shed for pool equipment within the street side yard. There is currently a fence along the street side yard which will be replaced with vegetative screening. The FILE #16-3876 11 Oct 2016 Page 4 of 5 character of the neighborhood should not be adversely impacted by the proposed variances. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The property is divided by a wetland which separates the dry buildable land at the lake from the remaining dry buildable land limiting options for development, creating a unique practical difficulty for the property. 5. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. This is correct, the immediately adjacent properties do not have similar limitations. 6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The owner indicates that they would like to make driveway and patio areas more functional while reducing overall impervious surface within setback areas. 7. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. The proposed variances will not impair the health, safety, comfort or morals of the public. 8. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The Applicants have indicated that they wish to minimize hardcover by reorienting and reducing the existing nonconforming hardcover within the lake setback; reorienting the driveway. The width of the lot, proximity to the lake, and presence of the wetland on the property make locating a conforming spot for the pool shed difficult. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Septic System Status The property is served by City sewer. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis Staff finds that due to the limiting conditions on the property it may be reasonable to permit the encroachment into the wetland setback for a portion of the driveway; allow for reorientation and reduction of the pool patio hardcover within the 75 -foot setback; and permit the pool equipment shed to be constructed between the side street and the home. The encroachment of the driveway into the wetland setback and the hardcover within the lake setback could be mitigated by incorporating native buffer plants into the drainage ditch/swale from the wetland to the lake; along the shoreline; and/or in the additional space between the driveway pavement and the wetland not within the buffer. Engineer Comments FILE #16-3876 11 Oct 2016 Page 5 of 5 The City's engineer will review the plans, if approved, prior to issuance of permit for the shed and revised permit plan including the hardcover changes. Public Comments Comments from the neighbors were received and are attached as Exhibit G. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Commission Options for Consideration Staff recommends approval conditioned upon the mitigation measures as described below. The Planning Commission may consider the following alternative motions: 1. Approval of the variances as requested; or 2. Approval of one or more of the requested variances; or 3. Denial of the variances as requested. Staff recommends requiring native vegetation in appropriate areas in order to mitigate the additional hardcover within the buffer, and/or lake setback; and recommends requiring vegetative screening of the shed, if approved. Should the Planning Commission recommend denial of any of the requested variances please provide findings which support denial. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: November 14, 2016 ITEM NO: 24 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Jeremy Barnhart ym� Planning Title Community Development Director Item Description: 3907 Cherry Demolition Bid Application Summary Staff seeks Council acceptance of a bid removing the home and contents within at 3907 Cherry Avenue. 3907 Cherry is a seemingly abandoned home, residents have complained as to the junk vehicles, broken windows, open doors, and un -kept nature of the property. Following Court authorization, the Building Official inspected the building and determined that it is structurally unsound, requiring demolition. Staff solicited bids from 4 parties, two responded. The bids ranged in price from $6,500 to $32,625. These bids were attached. In accepting the bids, we noted that the low bid did not include hazardous material testing as required in the bid request. Without disclosing the other bid amount, we have asked for that information to be provided, also attached. The Council may discard the low bid because it was incomplete, or accept it. Regardless, the bid amount is higher than $5,000, requiring Council action. The Council can also elect to re - advertise. Action Requested: Provide direction as to acceptance of a bid, or direction to re -advertise. List of Exhibits: Exhibit A. Received bids Exhibit B. Request for bids oct.30.2016 08:51 AM PridG construction € Exca 9824468882 PAGE. 1/ S Pride Construction & Excavating, Inc. 9450 west Hill Road Watertown, MN 86389 Phone:8152-"84004 R i t Fax: 952.448.9882 p �rideaan9Vglum iIvorn D*W. JOPAMJB Jab KO, CuWo ner OV of omno Name Flocas Dvvmlon' Amaunt Roger Pa Addnm 2750 KGIWy Parkway Proposal Is for damolitkm of house and remowl of all Urns, that O=o, Nils 58368 P tone W2-2494ew Pox ew-242-416 Emd =IWoWororto.mmus J04 Location: U07 Carry Avenue DaeWpWn Flours Amaunt efl � traum and removal &Iit'le and ruts! totm Proposal Is for damolitkm of house and remowl of all Urns, that are HS'W on Melt $00 out from city. 1047-201a d for.wft to be ecrnpie0r d also as stv* by city by 11-30-2016 Included In pmposai oily nwer and water dleconropt at ourb. Mate t,& work IS tqr the Glty sc any permits required will be ocuareat by Ck. To rroNal $ 4,i�0,00 Any sltarvtlan of deAWm from at2ove spedricalms lrivoMng cadre coma, will he amouted upon writlsn ardwe and wail become an exlm strtgb aver and above Um eadmaW This pro axOm 00 days firm praposel data. Payments to be made as fret a m 1 dttt9_ A finance charge of 1.+5% on all o�rar 30 days,. WWEIL Ken VMdWM6,Nft Pres ftna0nre of Aoceptenoe'zw— Pride Construction & Excavating, Inc. 9450 West Hill Road Watertown, MN 55388 Phone: 952-446-9804 Fax: 952-446-8882 kvprideconst2@cimail.com Customer City of Orono Name House Demolition Attn: Roger Peitso Address 2750 Kelly Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Phone 952-249-4600 Fax 952-249-4616 Email Job Location: 3907 Cherry Avenue Date: 11/9/2016 Job No: Description Hours Amount Hazardous Material Inspection for Demolition. Note that this is an additional cost from original proposal of $4,800.00 and that if there would be any major unforeseen disposal of hazardous material to dispose of there maybe additional cost. Total Proposal $ 1,700.00 Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving extra costs, will be executed upon written orders and will become an extra change over and above the estimate. This proposal expires 60 days from proposal date. Payments to be made as follows: Net 30 days from invoice date. A finance charge of 1.5% on all over 30 days. Ken Vanderlinde, Vice President Date Signature of Acceptance Date SW F I A CGA4MfTTE0 To SAFETY October Ze, 2018 To: Mr. Roger Peitso Building Official City of Orono PROJECT: Demolition services for a residential property at 3907 Cherry Ave in Orono Pricing: Remove[ of personal property and waste $14,500 Testing for asbestos containing materials (Third party) $750 House demolition (no asbestos included) $17,375 Work description: Mobilization and permit costs for demolition services • Asbestos testing as an alternate price ■ Removal of internal personal property done time and matarial under allowances provided Utility disconnections at the property line C Installation of sift fence and Inlet protection a Building demolition (house and garage) Removal of basement and foundations a Removal of 4 automobiles, outside construction debris, skid steer, snow plow blades. boat trailer, mobile lift and misc. debris and furniture in the yard it Transportation and disposal costs a Import backfill material, topsoil and stabilize the site Work excluded and project assumptions: t Asbestos and hazardous removal is not including in this pricing and can be done time and materials under allowance pricing Disposal of personal property waste and chemicals will be done time and material under allowance pricing provided Underground storage tank/ fuel line removal is not included in this pricing m Underground utilities In the site will be abandoned in place (not removed) Contaminated soils/ buried debris removal is not recognized in this pricing Rachel Contracting maintains salvage rights to builcing materials and revenues are recognized in lump sum pricing. Salvage vehicles will need legal transfer to Rachel Contracting prior to hauling off site All work will be continuous and performed under one mobilization. T�ank you for the opportunity io provide these services. hesitate to call me. 51nce�, e C Uan sen Rachel Contracting Office: 763-424-1500 1?s stways if you have any questions. please do not REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: November 14, 2016 ITEM NO: 25 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name: Diane Tiegs y"j— City Administrator's Report Title: City Clerk Item Description: Proposed 2017 Official Calendar Attachment: Proposed 2017 Official Calendar Council Meetings Council meetings are scheduled for the second and fourth Mondays of the month at 7:00 p.m. Generally only one Council meeting is scheduled in December. The annual budget hearing will be held at the beginning of the December 11' Council meeting beginning at 6:30 p.m. (Note: This is an early start time) Council Work Sessions Council work sessions are designated prior to the second meeting of the month beginning at 5:00 p.m. No work session is scheduled for December. Planning Commission Meetings Planning Commission meetings are scheduled for the third Monday of the month at 6:30 p.m. January and February are the exceptions because of Monday holidays. In those months, the meetings will be held the following Tuesday. No Planning Commission meeting is scheduled in December. Planning Commission Work Sessions Planning Commission work sessions will be scheduled on an as needed basis and are not reflected on the 2017 calendar. Park Commission Meetings Park Commission meetings are scheduled for the first Monday of every other month at 6:30 p.m. Meeting months are January, March, May, July (Meeting Scheduled for Wednesday, July 5 due to Holiday), September, and November. Park Commission work sessions scheduled for the first Monday of every other month at 1 p.m. The months are February, April, June, August, and October. Holiday Schedule According to the City's personnel policy, the City schedules twelve holidays throughout the year, which include regular holidays and one designated floating holiday to be set by the City Administrator. The regular holidays observed are New Year's Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Presidents' Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day, the Friday after Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. Election Dates The Election dates have been added to the 2017 calendar to help as a reminder although this is an off year, school districts will hold their board elections. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to approve the 2017 Official Calendar. A � January Su Mo Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 161 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 r29 30 31 22 i 24 i - April Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 9 10 11 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 July Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Fr Sa 1 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 171 18 19 20 21 22 2324 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 39 30 31 22 23 October Su Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 39 30 31 22 23 24125 29 LA27128 31 30 31 30 11 CITY OF ORONO Street Address: Mailing Address: Telephone (952) 249-46OC: 2750 Kelley Parkway I P.O. Box 66 Fax (952) 249-4616 Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 �.ai.orano.rnn.us February Su Mo Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 10 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24125 29 LA27128 31 30 31 30 11 May Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22123 201 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 30 31 30 11 August Su Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20'2122 201 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 30 11 November Su Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 201 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 30 11 2017 OFFICIAL CALENDAR March Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20121 18 25 1 22 23 24 25 LA27128 26 27 1 29 30 31 30 June Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Sa 1 2 3 4 �5, 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19,20 18 25 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 30 11 September Su Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 a17 24 18 25 19 26 20 27 21 28 22 29 23 30 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 December Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11* 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Council Meeting, 2nd & 4th Monday, 7:00 p.m. Council Work Session, 5:00 p.m. '(Only One Council Meeting In December with Truth in Taxation 6:30 p.m.) (No Council Work Session in Decemk Planning Commission Meeting, 3rd Monday 6:30 p.m. (No Planning Commission Meeting in December & Work Sessions as Needed, 5:30 p.m.) Park Commission Meeting 1st Monday of the Month/Every Other Month, 6:30 p.m.1 U (Park Commission (Jan., Mar., May, July, Sept., Nov.) Work Session 1 p.m. H Official Holidays REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: November 14, 2016 ITEM NO: 25 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Diane Tiegs City Administrator Title City Clerk Report Item Description: Council Liaison to Planning Commission Meetings in 2017 The following is a proposed schedule for Council Member attendance at the monthly Planning Commission meetings during 2016. Dennis Walsh, PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date Representative January 17, 2017 (Tuesday) Dennis Walsh February 21, 2017 (Tuesday) Richard Crosby March 20, 2017 Aaron Printup April 17, 2017 Victoria Seals May 15, 2017 Vacancy June 19, 2017 Dennis Walsh Julyl7, 2017 Richard Crosby August 21, 2017 Aaron Printup September 18, 2017 Victoria Seals October 16, 2017 Vacancy November 20, 2017 Dennis Walsh COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to approve the schedule for Council attendance at Planning Commission meetings during 2017. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: November 14, 2016 ITEM NO: 25 Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Diane Tiegs City Administrator Report Title City Clerk Item Description: Council Liaison to Park Commission Meetings in 2017 The following is a proposed schedule for Council Member attendance at the Park Commission meetings during 2017. PARK COMMISSION Meeting Date Representative January 3, 2017 (Tuesday) Walsh March 6, 2017 Printup May 11, 2017 Crosby July 5, 2017 (Wednesday) Seals September 5, 2017 (Tuesday) Walsh November 6, 2017 Pnntup COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to approve the schedule for Council attendance at Park Commission meetings during 2017. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: November 14, 2016 Item No. 26 Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section: Name: Ron Olson — . IV MY— City Administrator's Title: Finance Director Report Item Description: Claims/Bills The attached claims for payment have been received by the City. Staff has reviewed the claims and is recommending approval of the listing for payment. The claims will be paid by checks 106328 to 106417, totaling $365,680.71. Noteworthy payments include: COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve payment of the claims list as presented. This payment includes 11 months of bills for radios used by Public Works. The Hennepin County $ 1,998.55 invoices were addressed to our PO box but used our street address zip code. We were not receiving the invoices. Payment for the Brown Road Trail Bituminous Roadways $ 28,745.00 Rehabilitation. Payment for the removal and transportation THN Enterprises $ 3,500.00 to secure storage site of the Big Island Docks. Payment for the Trench Drain installed on Pride Construction & Excavating $ 14,980.00 Baldur Park Road to correct a drainage issue. 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: 10/25/2016 - 11/14/2016 Nov 09, 2016 02:07PM Payee Check Issue Date Check Number Invoice Number Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Amount ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 11/14/2016 106328 316341577 101-41900-413 City Hall Copier 10/20/16-11/20/16 Central Services 1,319.00 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 11/14/2016 106328 316374958 101-42110-413 Police Copier 10/20/16-11/20/16 Police Department 335.40 Total 106328: 1,654.40 ALAN & ANN NETTLES 11/14/2016 106329 16-00988 & 1 101-22205 Escrow Refund -2016-00988 & 2016-01001 2,000.00 Total 106329: 2,000.00 AMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTOR 11/14/2016 106330 S082145515 101-42110-402 tires Police Department 552.60 Total 106330: 552.60 APPLIED CONCEPTS INC 11/14/2016 106331 296827 101-42110-550 Squad Build #246 Police Department 80.20 Total 106331: 80.20 AVENET WEB SOLUTIONS 11/14/2016 106332 39636 101-41900-401 2016 -Gov Office Annl Support Central Services 1,050.00 Total 106332: 1,050.00 BCA TRAINING & DEVELOPMEN 11/14/2016 106333 35459 101-42110-437 Nov/1 6 -BCA Trg Search Warrants-JMcCoy Police Department 75.00 Total 106333: 75.00 BIFFS INC 11/14/2016 106334 W615353 101-45200-415 ADA, Service, HandSani Spe14-Oct 11 Parks 160.00 BIFFS INC 11/14/2016 106334 W615354 101-45200-415 ADA, Service, HandSani Rental Sep 14 -Oct 11 Parks 160.00 BIFFS INC 11/14/2016 106334 W615355 101-45200-415 Regular Unit, Service, HandSani Rental Sep14-Oct Parks 125.00 BIFFS INC 11/14/2016 106334 W615356 101-45210-415 Regular Unit, Service, HandSani Rental Sep14-Oct Golf Course 62.79 BIFFS INC 11/14/2016 106334 W615357 101-45200-415 Regular Unit, Service, HandSani Rental Sep14-Oct Parks 62.50 BIFFS INC 11/14/2016 106334 W615358 101-45200-415 ADA, Service, HandSani Rental Sep 14 -Oct 11 Parks 190.00 BIFFS INC 11/14/2016 106334 W615359 101-45200-415 Regular Unit, Service, HandSani Rental Sep14-Oct Parks 92.50 Total 106334: 852.79 BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC 11/14/2016 106335 C13.111231. 225-45200-590 Brown Road Trail-RFP#1 F 28,745.20 BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC 11/14/2016 106335 RFP#1.BRW 225-45200-590 Brown Road Trail-RFP#1 and Final 28,745.20 Total 106335: 57.490.40 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 10/25/2016 - 11/14/2016 Page: 2 Nov 09, 2016 02:07PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF 11/14/2016 106336 DEC 2016 101-15998 Dec/16- Health insurance 5,391.50 BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF 11/14/2016 106336 DEC 2016 101-21706 Dec/16- Health insurance 44,486.50 BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF 11/14/2016 106336 DEC 2016 101-42110-135 Dec/16- Health insurance Police Department 594.00 Total 106336: 50,472.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 11/14/2016 106337 0194339 101-43280-304 15-3723 Lakeview Addn Special Services 30.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 11/14/2016 106337 0195224 602-16500 2015 -Sewer Projects 372.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 11/14/2016 106337 0195226 225-45200-590 Brown Road Trail 1,216.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 11/14/2016 106337 0195227 101-43280-304 13 -3607 -Bayside Meadows Special Services 517.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 11/14/2016 106337 0195231 101-43280-304 15-3716-3850 Watertown Special Services 100.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 11/14/2016 106337 0195232 101-43280-304 16 -3807 -Orono Preserve Special Services 1,671.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 11/14/2016 106337 0195233 101-43280-304 16-3853-1125 Pine View Special Services 282.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 11/14/2016 106337 0195234 101-43280-304 15 -3739 -Mooney Lake Special Services 76.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 11/14/2016 106337 0195235 101-43280-304 16 -3858 -Crystal Bay Estates Special Services 1,120.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 11/14/2016 106337 0195236 101-43280-304 16-3828-Durhill Preserve Special Services 56.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 11/14/2016 106337 0195237 101-43280-304 3670 Togo Special Services 448.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 11/14/2016 106337 0195238 101-43280-304 16 -33860 -Kintyre Preserve Special Services 1,960.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 11/14/2016 106337 0195239 101-43280-304 16-3847-Shadywood Villas Special Services 280.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 11/14/2016 106337 0195240 402-48057-304 Fox Street Feasability Study/Testing Fox Street 8,800.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 11/14/2016 106337 0195241 101-43170-304 GIS Maintenance Engineering 180.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 11/14/2016 106337 0195242 437-48965-304 2016 Mill and Overlay Brown Road Trail 7,347.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 11/14/2016 106337 0195243 651-49910-304 Drainage Issues Storm Water 896.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 11/14/2016 106337 0195243 101-45200-225 GPS Saga Hills & Highwood Parks Parks 1,310.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 11/14/2016 106337 0195253 601-49400-304 AT&TAntennas Water 4,655.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 11/14/2016 106337 0195254 601-16500 Well #4 11,308.80 BOLTON & MENK INC. 11/14/2016 106337 0195255 602-16500 2016 SCADA 8,029.83 BOLTON & MENK INC. 11/14/2016 106337 0195256 602-16500 2016 Sewer projects 272.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 11/14/2016 106337 0195257 402-48057-304 Fox Street Fox Street 476.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 11/14/2016 106337 0195258 101-43280-304 15 -3723 -Lakeview Special Services 293.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 11/14/2016 106337 0195259 602-16500 LS #2 -Improvements 431.94 BOLTON & MENK INC. 11/14/2016 106337 0195260 651-49910-304 Storm Pond Assessments Storm Water 1,064.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 11/14/2016 106337 0195261 402-48056-304 Watertown Rd phase 2 Watertown Road 10,710.88 Total 106337: 63.902.45 C&C Embroidery 11/14/2016 106338 1853 101-43000-226 Embroider Shirts -PW Public Works Department 160.00 C&C Embroidery 11/14/2016 106338 1853 601-49400-226 Embroider Shirts -PW Water 160.00 C&C Embroidery 11/14/2016 106338 1853 602-49450-226 Embroider Shirts -PW Sewer 160.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 3 Check Issue Dates: 10/25/2016 - 11/14/2016 Nov 09, 2016 02:07PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Payee Issue Date Number Number Total 106338: Description Department Invoice Amount 480.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/14/2016 106339 SEP/156.22 101-41600-307 Council meetings-Sep/16 Law/Legal Services 1,643.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/14/2016 106339 SEP/16 101-41600-307 Election Matters-Sep/16 Law/Legal Services 294.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/14/2016 106339 SEP/16 101-41600-307 General legal & Review-Sep/16 Law/Legal Services 448.45 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/14/2016 106339 SEP/16 101-42110-307 Labor negotiations-Sep/16 Police Department 604.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/14/2016 106339 SEP/16 101-41600-307 data practices-Sep/16 Law/Legal Services 217.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/14/2016 106339 SEP/16 101-41600-307 Council Communications-Sep/16 Law/Legal Services 170.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/14/2016 106339 SEP/16 101-41600-307 PC/Council Work Session-Sep/16 Law/Legal Services 356.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/14/2016 106339 SEP/16.10 101-43280-307 16 -3842 -Orono Preserve Special Services 125.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/14/2016 106339 SEP/16.11 101-43280-307 16-3847-Shadywood Road Special Services 75.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/14/2016 106339 SEP/16.12 101-43280-307 16-3851-2413 Carmen Special Services 75.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/14/2016 106339 SEP/16.13 101-43280-307 16 -3860 -Kintyre Perserve Special Services 1,426.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/14/2016 106339 SEP/16.14 101-41600-307 Azad Land REgistration Law/Legal Services 355.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/14/2016 106339 SEP/16.15 101-43280-307 16-3858 Special Services 200.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/14/2016 106339 SEP/16.16 101-43280-307 16-33848-364 Westlake Special Services 50.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/14/2016 106339 SEP/16.17 101-43280-307 16-3853-1125 Review Special Services 75.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/14/2016 106339 SEP/16.18 101-43280-307 16-3854-2635 Kelley Special Services 75.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/14/2016 106339 SEP/16.19 101-43280-307 16-3856-2380 Shadywood Special Services 125.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/14/2016 106339 SEP/16.2 101-42110-307 Police Matters-Sep/16 Police Department 372.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/14/2016 106339 SEP/16.20 101-43280-307 16-3857-540 OCB Road Special Services 50.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/14/2016 106339 SEP/16.21 101-42400-307 Staff meetings -Sep/16 Building & Zoning 1,147.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/14/2016 106339 SEP/16.23 101-42400-307 B&Z Assistance-SEP/16 Building & Zoning 1,472.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/14/2016 106339 SEP/16.24 101-41600-307 Ordinance Review-Sep/16 Law/Legal Services 1,116.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/14/2016 106339 SEP/16.3 101-41600-308 Code enforcement-Sep/16 Law/Legal Services 326.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/14/2016 106339 SEP/16.4 101-43290-800 Litigation-Sep/16 Special Projects -Contingencies 238.40 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/14/2016 106339 SEP/16.5 101-41600-307 RECORDINGS Law/Legal Services 725.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/14/2016 106339 SEP/16.6 101-43280-307 15 -3786 -Mooney Lake Special Services 175.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/14/2016 106339 SEP/16.7 101-43280-307 15-3774-1700 Shoreline Special Services 924.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/14/2016 106339 SEP/16.8 101-43280-307 16 -3807 -Estate Dev Corp Special Services 300.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/14/2016 106339 SEP/16.9 406-48706-307 HAZ Building -3907 Cherry 1,707.22 Total 106339: 14,870.07 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/14/2016 106340 AE102616 101-43000-437 2017 -City Engineers Assoc Annl Conf Reg -AD Public Works Department 365.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/14/2016 106340 AE110416 234-45680-530 Lurton Park Prjt-Trail Marrina Posts & Post Pounder 1,181.64 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/14/2016 106340 CF101416 101-42110-437 Oct/16-Meal-Nat'l Police Chiefs Conf-San Diego -CF Police Department 25.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/14/2016 106340 CF101516 101-42110-437 Oct/16-Meal-Nat'l Police Chiefs Conf-San Diego -CF Police Department 19.15 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/14/2016 106340 CF101716 101-42110-437 Oct/16-Meal-Nat'l Police Chiefs Conf-San Diego -CF Police Department 21.90 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 4 Check Issue Dates: 10/25/2016 - 11/14/2016 Nov 09, 2016 02:07PM Payee CARDMEMBER SERVICE CARDMEMBER SERVICE CARDMEMBER SERVICE CARDMEMBER SERVICE CARDMEMBER SERVICE CARDMEMBER SERVICE CARDMEMBER SERVICE CARDMEMBER SERVICE CARDMEMBER SERVICE Total 106340 CARTEGRAPH CARTEGRAPH CARTEGRAPH Total 106341: CECE S SIGNS Total 106342: CENTURY LINK Total 106343: CHAMBERLAIN CAPITAL LLC CHAMBERLAIN CAPITAL LLC Total 106344: CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO Total 106345 Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Issue Date Number Number 11/14/2016 106340 CF101816 101-42110-437 11/14/2016 106340 CF101916 101-42110-437 11/14/2016 106340 CF10192016 101-42110-437 11/14/2016 106340 CF102216 101-42110-402 11/14/2016 106340 CF102516 101-42110-437 11/14/2016 106340 CF102616 101-42110-437 11/14/2016 106340 CF10262016 101-42110-437 11/14/2016 106340 DT102416 101-41110-439 11/14/2016 106340 JL110116 101-41300-439 11/14/2016 106341 SIN002293 601-49400-416 11/14/2016 106341 SIN002293 602-49450-416 11/14/2016 106341 SIN002293 651-49910-416 11/14/2016 106342 7183 101-43000-222 11/14/2016 106343 9524731909 101-45210-321 11/14/2016 106344 2015-01198 101-22205 11/14/2016 106344 2016-01333 101-22205 Description Department Oct/16-Meal-Nat'l Police Chiefs Conf-San Diego -CF Police Department Oct/16-Lodging-Nat'l Chiefs Conf-CF Police Department Uber-Nati Chiefs Conf-Hotel to Airport -CF Police Department carwashes Police Department Meals -6 Officers -1 st Responder Trg Police Department Pizza -Responder to Crash on 112 Police Department Beverages -Responders Crash Co. RD 112 Police Department Meal -Council Work Session -10/24/2016 Mayor & Council meeting meal expense Administration GIS -Public Works GIS -Public Works GIS -Public Works Truck #431 Stay Back Sign GC phone/dsl Escrow Refund -2015-01198 Escrow Refund -2016-01333 Water Sewer Storm Water Public Works Department Golf Course 11/14/2016 106345 0014229 101-42110-402 #238 -Oil Change & Service Police Department 11/14/2016 106345 0014242 101-42110-402 #201 -Oil Change & Service Police Department 11/14/2016 106345 0014252 101-42110-402 #801 -Oil Change & Service -Check Engine Light Police Department 11/14/2016 106345 0014256 101-42110-402 #245 -Oil Change & Service Police Department 11/14/2016 106345 0014258 101-42110-402 #245 -Oil Change & Service Police Department 11/14/2016 106345 0014268 101-42110-402 #230 -Oil Change & Service Police Department Invoice Amount 23.41 1,271.65 6.29 10.00 80.52 163.56 15.86 65.30 A - 3,253.30 1,733.33 1,733.33 1,733.34 5,200.00 65.00 65.00 220.39 220.39 2,500.00 2,500.00 . — nn 95.69 112.69 421.29 45.79 45.79 552.43 A f7J CO City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 10/25/2016 - 11/14/2016 Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Payee Issue Date Number Number CITY OF MEDINA 11/14/2016 106346 00005776 101-42110-437 First Responder Trg-5 Officers Police Department Total 106346: CITY OF MINNETONKA 10/31/2016 106141 CM101316 101-34460 PLAN REVIEW OVERCHARGE Total 106141: CITY OF MINNETONKA BEACH 11/14/2016 106347 2315 HUNTI 101-34460 Refund -Plan Review Overcharge Total 106347: City of Orono Utilities 11/14/2016 106348 142700000.0 101-41900-382 PW 3rd Qtr UB Central Services Total 106348: CITY OF WAYZATA 11/14/2016 106349 3RD OTR 20 602-49450-387 3rd Quarter water/sewer Sewer CITY OF WAYZATA 11/14/2016 106349 3RD OTR 20 601-49400-387 3rd Quarter water/sewer Water Total 106349: CORNERHOUSE 11/14/2016 106350 SPD16 101-42110-319 2017 Forensic Interview Svcs Police Department Total 106350: CULLIGAN 11/14/2016 106351 OCT/16.1010 101-45210-403 softener exchange service Golf Course Total 106351: DAVE KLITZKE 11/08/2016 106210 DK110816 101-42110-221 Remiburse-MDC for PD -Accidently put on personnal Police Department Total 106210: DAVE KLITZKE 11/14/2016 106352 DK102116 101-41900-322 Remiburse-Box Shipping Return -Display Adapter Central Services Total 106352: David Goman 11/14/2016 106353 DJ102916 101-43000-226 Saftey Boots Public Works Department Page: 5 Nov 09, 2016 02:07PM Invoice Amount 11.35 175.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 10/25/2016 - 11/14/2016 Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Payee Issue Date Number Number Total 106353: DELTA DENTAL 11/14/2016 106354 NOV/16.0037 101-21709 003722072 Nov/2016- Dental DELTA DENTAL 11/14/2016 106354 NOV/16.0037 101-15998 003722072 Nov/2016- Dental Total 106354: DEPUTY REGISTRAR 11/14/2016 106355 752MHC 101-42110-402 Tabs Renewal-V#1C4RDJAG4EC301552-14 Dodge Police Department Total 106355: DIANE TIEGS 11/14/2016 106356 DT110316 101-41410-221 Remibursement-Epoll Book Reciept Boxes Elections Total 106356: Douglas & Diane Waldoch 11/14/2016 106357 2016-00351 101-22205 Escrow Refund -2016-00351 Total 106357: EARL FANDERSON &ASSOC 11/14/2016 106358 0112739 -IN 101-43000-224 street signs Public Works Department Total 106358: ECM PUBLISHERS INC 11/14/2016 106359 422080 101-41410-340 General Election Ballot Elections ECM PUBLISHERS INC 11/14/2016 106359 422081 101-41410-340 Public Accuracy Test Ad Elections ECM PUBLISHERS INC 11/14/2016 106359 422082 101-41900-352 legal ads Central Services ECM PUBLISHERS INC 11/14/2016 106359 424616 101-41410-340 General Election Ballot Elections Total 106359: Eric Truskoski & Bridgette Hambli 11/14/2016 106360 2016-01060 101-22205 Escrow Refund -2016-01060 Total 106360: G & K SERVICES 11/14/2016 106361 1006133977 101-43000-226 unreturned uniform rental Public Works Department G & K SERVICES 11/14/2016 106361 1006145160 101-45210-404 mats Golf Course G & K SERVICES 11/14/2016 106361 1006156253 101-43000-226 uniforms Public Works Department G & K SERVICES 11/14/2016 106361 1006156253 601-49400-226 uniforms Water G & K SERVICES 11/14/2016 106361 1006156253 602-49450-226 uniforms Sewer Page: 6 Nov 09, 2016 02:07PM Invoice 175.00 2,090.50 484.00 700.00 163.57 163.57 29.80 542.36 89.40 3.85 21.50 21.51 21.51 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 7 Check Issue Dates: 10/25/2016 - 11/14/2016 Nov 09, 2016 02:07PM Payee Check Issue Date Check Number Invoice Number Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Amount G & K SERVICES 11/14/2016 106361 1006167468 101-43000-226 uniforms Public Works Department 64.99 G & K SERVICES 11/14/2016 106361 1006167468 101-43000-221 Shop towels Public Works Department 2.63 G & K SERVICES 11/14/2016 106361 1006911836 101-43000-226 credit -Uniforms Returned Public Works Department 611.47 - Total 106361: 198.24 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 11/14/2016 106362 337200 101-43000-402 Battery Public Works Department 296.30 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 11/14/2016 106362 338322 101-43000-489 Truck Cleaning Supplies Public Works Department 22.97 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 11/14/2016 106362 338417 101-43000-489 Truck Cleaning Supplies Public Works Department 21.42 Total 106362: 340.69 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 11/14/2016 106363 6100625 601-49400-489 locates Water 303.75 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 11/14/2016 106363 6100625 602-49450-489 locates Sewer 303.75 Total 106363: 607.50 GRAINGER INC 11/14/2016 106364 9230587223 101-43000-386 Clamp Meter Public Works Department 241.88 GRAINGER INC 11/14/2016 106364 9249484651 101-43000-240 Broom, Broom Handle, Magnetic Sweeper Public Works Department 77.64 Total 106364: 319.52 Hennepin County 11/14/2016 106365 1000063534 101-43000-414 HC Radio Fee Public Works Department 47.73 Hennepin County 11/14/2016 106365 1000065555 101-43000-414 HC Radio Fee Public Works Department 47.73 Hennepin County 11/14/2016 106365 1000067798 101-43000-414 HC Radio Fee Public Works Department 47.73 Hennepin County 11/14/2016 106365 1000069977 101-43000-414 HC Radio Fee Public Works Department 55.74 Hennepin County 11/14/2016 106365 1000073691 101-41900-319 Network Support -3/16 Central Services 50.00 Hennepin County 11/14/2016 106365 1000073991 101-43000-414 HC Radio Fee Public Works Department 55.74 Hennepin County 11/14/2016 106365 1000075438 101-43000-414 HC Radio Fee Public Works Department 55.74 Hennepin County 11/14/2016 106365 1000076414 101-43000-414 HC Radio Fee Public Works Department 55.74 Hennepin County 11/14/2016 106365 1000077546 101-43000-414 HC Radio Fee Public Works Department 55.74 Hennepin County 11/14/2016 106365 1000079634 101-43000-414 HC Radio Fee Public Works Department 55.74 Hennepin County 11/14/2016 106365 1000080842 101-43000-414 HC Radio Fee Public Works Department 55.74 Hennepin County 11/14/2016 106365 1000082152 101-43000-414 HC Radio Fee Public Works Department 55.74 Hennepin County 11/14/2016 106365 1000083409 101-41600-309 Jail Booking Charges Law/Legal Services 478.75 Hennepin County 11/14/2016 106365 1000083787 101-41600-309 Jail Booking Charges Law/Legal Services 880.69 Total 106365: 1,998.55 HULBERT, JAY 11/14/2016 106366 2016-00981 101-22205 Escrow Refund -2014-00981 2,500.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 10/25/2016 - 11/14/2016 Page: 8 Nov 09, 2016 02:07PM Payee Check Issue Date Check Number Invoice Number Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Amount Total 106366: 2,500.00 JACKIE YOUNG 11/14/2016 106367 OCT 2016 101-41300-319 CC meeting 10/10, 10/24, Planning Commission Mt Administration 595.00 Total 106367: 595.00 John Leppla 11/14/2016 106368 4040 DAHL 999-10015 Refund-OvrPmty-UB Bill 1,318.17 Total 106368: 1,318.17 KENNETH N POTTS PA 11/14/2016 106369 100616 231-45650-307 Forfeit 2008 Toyota 300.00 KENNETH N POTTS PA 11/14/2016 106369 OCT 16 101-41600-306 prosecution services-Oct/16 Law/Legal Services 3,000.00 Total 106369: 3,300.00 KUSSKE CONSTRUCTION 11/14/2016 106370 C13.110197. 651-16500 RFp#2F Kelley Ave Storm Sewer 15,721.16 KUSSKE CONSTRUCTION 11/14/2016 106370 C13.110197. 651-20600 RFp#2F Kelley Ave Storm Sewer 3,208.07 Total 106370: 18,929.23 L-3 COMMUNICATIONS 11/14/2016 106371 0246715 -IN 101-42110-550 Build -Squad #246 Police Department 85.00 Total 106371: 85.00 LANDSOURCE LLC 11/14/2016 106372 2016-01520 101-22205 Escrow Refund -2016-01520 2,500.00 Total 106372: 2,500.00 LANO EQUIPMENT 11/14/2016 106373 03-396846 101-43000-402 Filters Public Works Department 181.84 LANO EQUIPMENT 11/14/2016 106373 03-399929 101-43000-402 repair Wiper on door Public Works Department 40.73 Total 106373: 222.57 LOGIS 11/14/2016 106374 42381 101-42110-310 police records -9/16 Police Department 6,017.00 LOGIS 11/14/2016 106374 42381 101-42110-329 internet-9/16 Police Department 194.50 LOGIS 11/14/2016 106374 42381 101-41900-329 internet-9/16 Central Services 194.50 LOGIS 11/14/2016 106374 42381 101-41900-319 back -ups -9/16 Central Services 980.00 LOGIS 11/14/2016 106374 42517 101-41900-401 Contigure Wireless Access Points Central Services 275.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 10/25/2016 - 11/14/2016 Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Payee Issue Date Number Number Total 106374: LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 11/14/2016 106375 B360513 101-41900-489 Windex, Zip it anchors Central Services LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 11/14/2016 106375 B360572 101-41900-404 Extension Cord, Sealant Central Services Total 106375: LUBE TECH ESI 11/14/2016 106376 8440602 101-43000-212 Automatic Trans Mission Foild/Truck Equip Wash Public Works Department Total 106376: MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 11/14/2016 106377 802843 101-43000-212 Fuel Public Works Department MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 11/14/2016 106377 802844 101-43000-212 Fuel Public Works Department Total 106377: Mark & Anita Litecky 11/14/2016 106378 2016-01489 101-22205 Escrow Refund -2015-01489 Total 106378: Matt & Jamie Hanson 11/14/2016 106379 2015-01560 101-22205 Escrow Refund -2015-01560 Total 106379: MEDIACOM 11/14/2016 106380 0004327.NO 101-42110-329 internet-11/16 Police Department MEDIACOM 11/14/2016 106380 0004327.NO 101-41900-329 internet-11/16 Central Services MEDIACOM 11/14/2016 106380 0004327.NO 614-49840-329 internet-11/16 Cable Franchise Total 106380: MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTA 11/14/2016 106381 W016 601-49400-441 Sewer Availability Charge -2016 Water Total 106381: MIDWESTAQUACARE 11/14/2016 106382 101916 101-45210-404 2016 -Fee -Pond care Golf Course Total 106382: MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 11/14/2016 106383 171163660 101-42110-221 oxygen Police Department Page: 9 Nov 09, 2016 02:07PM Invoice 7,661.00 4.59 9.58 2,591.95 10,000.00 296.75 296.75 593.50 890.00 890.00 40.50 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 10 Check Issue Dates: 10/25/2016 - 11/14/2016 Nov 09, 2016 02:07PM Payee Check Issue Date Check Number Invoice Number Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Amount MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 11/14/2016 106383 171163661 101-42110-221 oxygen Police Department 5.10 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 11/14/2016 106383 20001872 101-42110-221 oxygen Police Department 91.53 Total 106383: 137.13 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 11/14/2016 106384 L11330 101-43000-403 chainsaw repair Public Works Department 36.43 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 11/14/2016 106384 L11331 101-43000-403 Pole Saw Repair Public Works Department 235.15 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 11/14/2016 106384 L11385 101-43000-403 chain saw repair Public Works Department 32.58 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 11/14/2016 106384 P51029 101-43000-403 Back Pack Blower -Repair Public Works Department 46.28 Total 106384: 350.44 MINT ROOFING 11/14/2016 106385 62337 101-41900-404 Citty Hall Roof Maint Central Services 509.00 MINT ROOFING 11/14/2016 106385 62338 101-41900-404 Police Station Roof Maint Central Services 330.00 Total 106385: 839.00 MN CITY COUNTY MGMT ASSO 11/14/2016 106386 050116-0430 101-41300-433 16/17 -Membership Renew-MCMA-J Loftus Administration 108.00 Total 106386: 108.00 MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATIO 11/14/2016 106387 P00006524 402-48056-590 material testing -Watertown Road Watertown Road 602.90 Total 106387: 602.90 MN NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS 11/14/2016 106388 67321116 101-21710 Pera life 11/16 224.00 Total 106388: 224.00 MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGE 11/14/2016 106389 MAR/17--CS 601-49400-437 2017/March-WastewaterTrg Reg-CSchumann Water 345.00 MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGE 11/14/2016 106389 MAR/2017.13 601-49400-437 2017/March-WastewaterTrg Reg-BRathun Water 345.00 MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGE 11/14/2016 106389 MAR/2017.S 601-49400-437 2017/March-WastewaterTrg Reg-SOberaigner Water 345.00 MN POLLUTION CONTROLAGE 11/14/2016 106389 MAR/2017-R 601-49400-437 2017/March-WastewaterTrg Reg-RRice Water 345.00 Total 106389: 1,380.00 MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGE 11/14/2016 106390 BRATHBUN2 602-49450-437 Collection system operator Cert Renewal-BRathbun Sewer 23.00 Total 106390: 23.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 10/25/2016 - 11/14/2016 Page: 11 Nov 09, 2016 02:07PM Payee Check Issue Date Check Number Invoice Number Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Amount MOUND TRUE VALUE 11/14/2016 106391 139264 101-42110-404 Screws to Mount Retracable Cords Police Department 2.80 Total 106391: 2.80 MUNICIPAL CODE CORPORATI 11/14/2016 106392 00277498 101-41900-319 code updates Central Services 5,214.00 Total 106392: 5,214.00 NAVARRE HARDWARE 11/14/2016 106393 297966 101-43000-240 Shop Supplies -Clip Rail Public Works Department 8.49 NAVARRE HARDWARE 11/14/2016 106393 298274 101-41900-201 Light Bulbs Central Services 21.98 Total 106393: 30.47 NEWEGG INC 11/14/2016 106394 1202178103 101-41900-416 Adobe Licenses Central Services 2,694.00 NEWEGG INC 11/14/2016 106394 1202215550 101-43000-221 Asset Mgmt Display Adapter Public Works Department 78.79 Total 106394: 2,772.79 NORTHERN STAR COUNCIL 11/14/2016 106395 EXPLREG-O 101-42110-229 2016 -Explorers Post 3776 Renewal Police Department 238.00 Total 106395: 238.00 O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 11/14/2016 106396 OCT/16.ORO 101-42110-402 OCT/16-Car Washes Police Department 60.50 Total 106396: 60.50 O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 547 11/14/2016 106397 OCT/16.ORO 101-42110-402 Oct/16- Car Washes Police Department 174.75 Total 106397: 174.75 OFFICE DEPOT 11/14/2016 106398 8682620260 101-42110-201 office supplies-paper,tape,pens, batteries Police Department 100.91 OFFICE DEPOT 11/14/2016 106398 8682621460 101-42110-201 office supplies -notebook Police Department 24.24 OFFICE DEPOT 11/14/2016 106398 8733025400 101-41900-201 offices supplies -paper, staples, clips, plates, bowls Central Services 66.38 OFFICE DEPOT 11/14/2016 106398 8733027720 101-41900-201 supplies -Napkins Central Services 54.29 Total 106398: 245.82 PIRTEK 11/14/2016 106399 52369577.00 101-41900-404 Pressure Washer Hose Central Services 193.12 PIRTEK 11/14/2016 106399 S2369577.00 101-41900-404 Credit -103780 Central Services 69.45 - City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 10/25/2016 - 11/14/2016 Page: 12 Nov 09, 2016 02:07PM Payee Check Issue Date Check Number Invoice Number Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Amount Total 106399: 123.67 POS PAPER 11/14/2016 106400 37993 101-42110-201 ticket writer paper Police Department 202.20 Total 106400: 202.20 PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC 11/14/2016 106401 4592 101-45200-404 Park Prairie Maint. Parks 280.00 Total 106401: 280.00 PRIDE CONSTRUCTION & EXCA 11/14/2016 106402 BALDERPRK 651-16500 Balder Park Road Trench Drain 14,980.00 Total 106402: 14,980.00 QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC 11/14/2016 106403 32680 602-49450-406 Symcom Float Controller-LS#6 Sewer 598.18 QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC 11/14/2016 106403 32746 602-49450-406 Replacement-Pump-LS#6 Sewer 15,300.00 Total 106403: 15,898.18 R.D. & Associates Specialized Ser 11/14/2016 106404 103094 101-43000-408 Tree Triming-East side of Casco Public Works Department 1,545.00 Total 106404: 1,545.00 RANDYS SANITATION INC 11/14/2016 106405 12416813.0 101-45200-404 Oct 16 -Service Garbage Parks 197.21 RANDYS SANITATION INC 11/14/2016 106405 12416813.0 101-45210-404 Oct 16 -Service Garbage Golf Course 197.21 RANDYS SANITATION INC 11/14/2016 106405 12416813.0 101-41900-404 Oct 16 -Service Garbage Central Services 197.20 RANDYS SANITATION INC 11/14/2016 106405 12546924.10 101-45200-404 Nov16- Service -Garbage Parks 25.06 RANDYS SANITATION INC 11/14/2016 106405 12546924.10 101-45210-404 Nov16- Service -Garbage Golf Course 25.05 RANDYS SANITATION INC 11/14/2016 106405 12546924.10 101-41900-404 Nov16- Service -Garbage Central Services 25.06 Total 106405: 666.79 REED WHOLESALE/OFFICE CO 11/14/2016 106406 9248 101-45210-093 concessions Resale Golf Course 28.50 Total 106406: 28.50 RYAN, STEVE 11/14/2016 106407 2014-00759 101-22205 Escrow Refund -2014-00759 2,500.00 City of Orono 18.87 18.87 Central Services Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Police Department 1,608.94 2,338.60 Check Issue Dates: 10/25/2016 - 11/14/2016 44.20 Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Payee Issue Date Number Number Total 106407: SELECTACCOUNT 11/14/2016 106408 38292733 101-21719 10/19/16 -FLEX SELECTACCOUNT 11/14/2016 106408 38298472 101-21719 10/31/16 -FLEX Total 106408: SHERWIN WILLIAMS 11/14/2016 106409 5160-3 101-43000-403 paint Total 106409: SIMPLEX GRINNELL 11/14/2016 106410 79012044 101-41900-404 PW Fire alarm monitoring 2016 SIMPLEX GRINNELL 11/14/2016 106410 79012145 101-42110-404 PD Fire alarm monitoring 2016 Total 106410: STAR TRIBUNE 11/14/2016 106411 1913693 101-41300-208 2016/2017 subscription acct 1913693 Total 106411: STEVE & SALLY TWELVES 10/31/2016 106188 10192016 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND 2016-00625 Total 106188: STEVE & SALLY TWELVES 11/04/2016 201300 #2016-00625 101-22205 Replacment Check#106188-Escrow Refund Total 20130079: TESSMAN COMPANY 11/14/2016 106412 S235506 -IN 101-45210-223 herbicide, fertilizer Total 106412: THN ENTERPRISES 11/14/2016 106413 1804 101-45200-404 Big Island dock Transport Total 106413: Timothy & Joan O'Donnell 11/14/2016 106414 2015-01001 101-22205 Escrow Refund -#2015-01001 Page: 13 Nov 09, 2016 02:07PM Department Invoice Amount 2,500.00 279.60 249.88 Public Works Department 18.87 18.87 Central Services 729.66 Police Department 1,608.94 2,338.60 Administration 44.20 Golf Course 752.56 752.56 Parks 3,500.00 3,500.00 10,000.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 10/25/2016 - 11/14/2016 Page: 14 Nov 09, 2016 02:07PM Payee Check Issue Date Check Number Invoice Number Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Amount Total 106414: 10,000.00 TOUCHPOINT LOGIC LLC 11/14/2016 106415 4207 703-49960-379 Amplifier/Council Chambers Audio 855.00 Total 106415: 855.00 TOXALERT 11/14/2016 106416 18507 101-41900-404 2017 -Service -Gas Detection System Central Services 136.00 Total 106416: 136.00 Void Check 11/04/2016 106207 Total 106207: .00 Void Check 11/09/2016 106328 Total 106328: .00 Void Check 11/09/2016 106329 Total 106329: .00 Void Check 11/09/2016 106330 Total 106330: .00 Void Check 11/09/2016 106331 Total 106331: .00 Void Check 11/09/2016 106332 Total 106332: .00 Void Check 11/09/2016 106333 Total 106333: .00 Void Check 11/09/2016 106334 City of Orono Payee Total 106334: Void Check Total 106335: Void Check Total 106336: Void Check Total 106337: Void Check Total 106338: Void Check Total 106339: Void Check Total 106340: Void Check Total 106341: Void Check Total 106342: Void Check Total 106343: Void Check Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 10/25/2016 - 11/14/2016 Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Issue Date Number Number 11/09/2016 106335 11/09/2016 106336 11/09/2016 106337 11/09/2016 106338 11/09/2016 106339 11/09/2016 106340 11/09/2016 106341 11/09/2016 106342 11/09/2016 106343 11/09/2016 106344 Page: 15 Nov 09, 2016 02:07PM Description Department Invoice Amount .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 City of Orono Payee Total 106344: Void Check Total 106345: Void Check Total 106346: Void Check Total 106347: Void Check Total 106348: Void Check Total 106349: Void Check Total 106350: Void Check Total 106351: Void Check Total 106352: Void Check Total 106353: Void Check Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 10/25/2016 - 11/14/2016 Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Issue Date Number Number 11/09/2016 106345 11/09/2016 106346 11/09/2016 106347 11/09/2016 106348 11/09/2016 106349 11/0912016 106350 11/09/2016 106351 11/09/2016 106352 11/09/2016 106353 11/09/2016 106354 Page: 16 Nov 09, 2016 02:07PM Description Department Invoice Amount .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 City of Orono Payee Total 106354: Void Check Total 106355: Void Check Total 106356: Void Check Total 106357: Void Check Total 106358: Void Check Total 106359: Void Check Total 106360: Void Check Total 106361: Void Check Total 106362: Void Check Total 106363: Void Check Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 10/25/2016 - 11/14/2016 Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Issue Date Number Number 11/09/2016 106355 11/09/2016 106356 11/09/2016 106357 11/09/2016 106358 11/09/2016 106359 11/0912016 106360 11/09/2016 106361 11/09/2016 106362 11/09/2016 106363 11/09/2016 106364 Page: 17 Nov 09, 2016 02:07PM Description Department Invoice Amount .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 City of Orono Payee Total 106364: Void Check Total 106365: Void Check Total 106366: Void Check Total 106367: Void Check Total 106368: Void Check Total 106369: Void Check Total 106370: Void Check Total 106371: Void Check Total 106372: Void Check Total 106373: Void Check Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 10/25/2016 - 11/14/2016 Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Issue Date Number Number 11/09/2016 106365 11/09/2016 106366 11/09/2016 106367 11/09/2016 106368 11/09/2016 106369 11/0912016 106370 11/09/2016 106371 11/09/2016 106372 11/09/2016 106373 11/09/2016 106374 Page: 18 Nov 09, 2016 02:07PM Description Department Invoice Amount .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 City of Orono Payee Total 106374: Void Check Total 106375: Void Check Total 106376: Void Check Total 106377: Void Check Total 106378: Void Check Total 106379: Void Check Total 106380: Void Check Total 106381: Void Check Total 106382: Void Check Total 106383: Void Check Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 10/25/2016 - 11/14/2016 Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Issue Date Number Number 11/09/2016 106375 11/09/2016 106376 11/09/2016 106377 11/09/2016 106378 11/09/2016 106379 11/0912016 106380 11/09/2016 106381 11/09/2016 106382 11/09/2016 106383 11/09/2016 106384 Page: 19 Nov 09, 2016 02:07PM Description Department Invoice Amount .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 City of Orono Payee Total 106384: Void Check Total 106385: Void Check Total 106386: Void Check Total 106387: Void Check Total 106388: Void Check Total 106389: Void Check Total 106390: Void Check Total 106391: Void Check Total 106392: Void Check Total 106393: Void Check Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 10/25/2016 - 11/14/2016 Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Issue Date Number Number 11/09/2016 106385 11/09/2016 106386 11/09/2016 106387 11/09/2016 106388 11/09/2016 106389 11/0912016 106390 11/09/2016 106391 11/09/2016 106392 11/09/2016 106393 11/09/2016 106394 Page: 20 Nov 09, 2016 02:07PM Description Department Invoice Amount .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 City of Orono Payee Total 106394: Void Check Total 106395: Void Check Total 106396: Void Check Total 106397: Void Check Total 106398: Void Check Total 106399: Void Check Total 106400: Void Check Total 106401: Void Check Total 106402: Void Check Total 106403: Void Check Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 10/25/2016 - 11/14/2016 Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Issue Date Number Number 11/09/2016 106395 11/09/2016 106396 11/09/2016 106397 11/09/2016 106398 11/09/2016 106399 11/0912016 106400 11/09/2016 106401 11/09/2016 106402 11/09/2016 106403 11/09/2016 106404 Page: 21 Nov 09, 2016 02:07PM Description Department Invoice Amount .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 City of Orono Payee Total 106404: Void Check Total 106405: Void Check Total 106406: Void Check Total 106407: Void Check Total 106408: Void Check Total 106409: Void Check Total 106410: Void Check Total 106411: Void Check Total 106412: Void Check Total 106413: Void Check Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 10/25/2016 - 11/14/2016 Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Issue Date Number Number 11/09/2016 106405 11/09/2016 106406 11/09/2016 106407 11/09/2016 106408 11/09/2016 106409 11/0912016 106410 11/09/2016 106411 11/09/2016 106412 11/09/2016 106413 11/09/2016 106414 Page: 22 Nov 09, 2016 02:07PM Description Department Invoice Amount .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 City of Orono Payee Total 106414: Void Check Total 106415: Void Check Total 106416: Void Check Total 106417: Wooddale Bld, Inc Total 106417: Grand Totals: Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 10/25/2016 - 11/14/2016 Page: 23 Nov 09, 2016 02:07PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Issue Date Number Number Amount 00 11/09/2016 106415 .00 11/09/2016 106416 .00 11/09/2016 106417 .00 11/14/2016 106417 15-00570/15- 101-22205 Escrow Refunds -2015-00570 & 2015-01052 10,000.00 10,000.00