The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-25-1994 Council PacketAGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JULY 25, 1994, 7:30 P.M.ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA(*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the CityCouncil under the Consent Item* on the agenda, memos regarding each of the Agenda items areavailable in the Public Packet which may be obtained upon request from the Recorder.ROLL CALL ^0(fi 'Ju, '%>.*1. CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. Regular Meeting of July 11, 1994 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) POLICE CHIEF RB’PORT ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT *3. ^l^t/Steven P. Wirtjes and Margo M. Wirtjes, 3085 Watertown Road - Final Subdivision Resolution 4.^1913 Greg Truchinski, 1580 Fox Street - Conditional Use Permit/Variance - Resolution 5.#1922 Robert Melamed, 1(X)0 Old Crystal Bay Road South • Final Subdivision - Resolution 6.#1938 Douglas and Karen Olson, 537 Park Lane - Variance - Resolution 7.#1943 Sam and Joyce Marfield, 2455 Scotch Pine Lane - Variances - Resolution MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT ENGINEER REPORT 8.Bid Award North Brown Road Reconstruction CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT 9.Computer Replacements for Finance Department 10.Personal Water Craft Regulation 11 .Request for Refund of Park Dedication Fee 12.Subrecipient Agreements Community Development Block Grant Program 1994 CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT 13.Tandem Properties Review of Subdividers Agreement and Security Deposit (*I4.) LICENSES (•15.) BILLS Y,JULY 25,1994,7:30 P.M.VAY,ORONO,MINNESOTA ed uponby onemotionby the City dingeach of the Agendaitems are St from the Recorder. h.. i AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JULY 25, 1994, 7:30 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 07/20 - Information meeting regarding North Brown Road reconstruction 7:00 p.m 07/25 - Council meeting 7:30 p.m. 08/01 - Council Work Session 8:00 a.m. 08/02 - Park Commission 7:15 p.m. 08/04 - County Road 6 Committee meeting 7:00 p.m. 08/08 - Council meeting 7:30 p.m. 08/15 - Planning Commission 7:00 p.m. 08/17 - Highway 12 Policy meeting 5:30 p.m. 08/22 - Council meeting 7:30 p.m. 08/23 - Highway 12 Mediation meeting 3:00 p.m. WatertownRoad-Final Subdivision- se Permit^Variance -Resolution th -Final Subdivision-Resolution ace -Resolution •Variances -Resolution <Grant Program 1994 -Resolution id Security Deposit ,-i^ r'i'Jn 1 r, _____ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETE HELD JUXY 11, 1994 5 1994 ROLL 07V Of The Council met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Edward Callahan, Jr., Councilmembers J. Diann Goetten, Charles Kelley, JoEllen Hurr and Gabriel Jabbour. T»je following represented staff: City Administrator Ron Moorse, Building & Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, City Attorney Thomas Barrett, City Engineer Glenn Cook and Recorder Lin Vee. Mayor Callahan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. (*#1) CONSENT AGENDA Hurr requested that Approval of Minutes be removed from the Consent Agenda. Jabbour requested that Item #7 be added to the Consent Agenda. Mayor Callahan added Item #8 and removed Item #3 from the Consent Agenda. It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Jabbour, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#2) APPROVAL OF .MINUTES Hurr asked that the statement in the third paragraph of page 5 which reads "Hurr stated that the charter boat at Lakeside has been leased four times this summer and is presently parked at Crystal Bay Service." be changed to read "Hurr stated that the charter boat at Lakeside is presently parked at Crystal Bay Service and has been used several times this summer." as she had no knowledge of the number of times the boat was leased. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Kelley, to approve the Minutes of the June 27, 1994 City Council Meeting as amended. Ayes 5, nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS There were no comments from Alex Vongries, the Park Commission representative. Goetten inquired about the status of the Park Survey. Moorse responded the survey is in the process of being completed and results should be available by the end of August. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Sandy Smith, Representative. There were no Planning Commission comments. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY II, 1994 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public commenis. ZONING ADMINISTRATORS REPORT (#3) a. /^1903 ERNEST LEMMERMAN, 1297 WILDHURST TRAIL - SUBDIVISION OF A LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT - RESOLUTION NO. 3448 b. <^1911 ERNEST LEMMERMAN, 1297 WILDHURST TRAIL/4620 TONKA VIEW LANE - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION NO. 3449 Mr. and Mrs. Ernest Lemmerman were present. Mayor Callahan explained that the reason he removed this item from the Consent Agenda was because he received a letter from the neighbor and felt this should be commented on prior to approving the resolutions. Mabusth commented that she had asked the neighbor to write this letter prior to the Planning Commission meeting in May because the neighbor had several concerns relating to the proposed lot line rearrangement. Mr. Lemmerman had hoped to do a lot line rearrangement with Mr. Hickey but was unable to reach an agreement between the filing of the first sketch plan review and the completion of the current application, approximately five years. Mabusth noted the new division runs along the natural topographic boundaries. The northern lot has limitations because of bluff areas. The Planning Commission felt they could not deny the application on the basis of the bluff issue because they had encouraged Lemmerman to proceed with his plans prior to knowledge of the bluff impact. They thought it would be better to wait until an application for a building permit was received, knowing there would most likely be a need for variances for encroachment into the bluff area, and they could then consider approval of a building envelope. Mabusth reviewed the conceptual approval granted by Council before discovering the bluff impact issue. The southern elevations are more consistand with the elevation of applicant’s homestead parcel leaving the remainder as a building site to the north. Kelley added that sewer had been assessed to the northern lot and Council had been fairly consistent with allowing sewered lots to be buildable. Hurr noted this was a tax forfeit lot and normally a substandard lot would be required to be combined with an adjacent lot. Mabusth responded that was the policy before the City Attorney advised that when lots are sewered, they should be dealt with separately. ¥ r ^ * MEVUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETLNG HELD JULY II, 1994 (#3) /if1903 & #1911 ERNEST LEMMERMAN (CONTINUED) Mabusth confirmed with the City Attorney that the City, when dealing with lot area variances, could not condition approval on granting no future variances. Mayor Callahan noted that the resolutions would put any future owners on notice of the restricted building envelope. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Mayor Callahan, to adopt Resolution No. 3448 approving the lot line rearrangement of the properties located at 1297 Wildhurst Trail/4620 Tonkaview Lane and to adopt Resolution No. 3449 granting a lot area variance to permit construction of a new residence for Lot I of the Lemmerman Addition for Ernest J. Lemmerman. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#4) #1937 ERIKA AND HERBERT F. KAHLER, 2725 RAINEY ROAD - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION NO. 3450 Mr. and Mrs. Kahler were present. Mr. Kahler asked Council to consider the alternative resolution for a variance to build a full size tennis court. Mabusth explained that the City Engineer has reviewed the revised grading plan and confirmed that drainage will be directed to the northeast and away from the toe of the mound. Stephen Weckman agreed that a 10’ setback would not be required if the drainage were directed away from the toe of the mound making a 7'/i’ setback acceptable. These revised grading/drainage plans were not available for the Planning Commission to review, therefore they recommended the 10’ setback with a smaller tennis court. Kelley asked the applicant about his plans for moving heavy equipment across the septic drainfieid. Kahler responded they have permission from the neighbor to the east to cross their driveway. A motion was made by Hurr, seconded by Goenen, to adopt Resolution No. 3450 for Herbert F. and Erika Kahler which grants a variance to permit construction of a full-size tennis court to be located IW from the side and rear lot lines of the property located at 2725 Rainey Road. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#5) #1922 ROBERT AND ELIZABETH MEL/».MED, 1000 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH - FINAL SUBDIVISION - RI.SOLUTION Mr. Melamed was present. Mayor Callahan stated the only issue remaining to be discussed was the park dedication fee. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY IL 1994 (#5)#1922 ROBERT AND ELIZABETH MELAMED, 100 ROAD SOUTH - FINAL SUBDIVISION (CONTINUED) OLD CRYSTAL BAY Melamed explained that he had initiated discussions with the City regarding the purchase of the property at l(XX) Old Crystal Bay Road South with the intention of having two sites because he planned to build a home for himself and one for his mother. The Purchase Agreement took approximately 60 days to develop with last minute negotiations regarding the right to subdivide immediately instead of the City’s requirement to wait for five years to proceed with subdivision. There were also delays with the Met Council in obtaining the sewer stubs. In order to commence construction in the fall. Melamed chose to proceed with the purchase of one lot from the City rather than wait for a subdivision which would create two lots. He would then apply for a subdivision of the lot in 1994. In these discussions, costs were discussed but there was never any discussion relating to park dedication fees. Melamed stated that although he is a contractor, he has not worked with creating subdivisions a . was surprised to receive a letter from the City requiring a $12,000 park dedication fee to complete the filing of the subdivision. He asked that the City consider setting aside this fee on the basis that if a more orderly, relaxed purchase of the property had taken place, the City would have sold the Melameds two lots instead of one. If the City had completed a three lot subdivision, selling the Melameds two lots, there would have been no park dedication fee. He added that approximately $58,(X)0 had been spent on restoring the property to its natural habitat. Moorse confirmed that the City had offered to create two lots instead of one for the property to be purchased by Melamed, but at that time the application for a subdivision of one lot had already been initiated. A six week delay would have resulted if the subdivision was to be created as two lots instead of one because of the requirement of re-publication. Mayor Callahan agreed that negotiations had been long and delayed by Met Council. However, the original discussions required the creation of one lot with a five year waiting period to further subdivide. Although he had no recollection of discussions relating to park dedication fees, he did not see the justification for waiving the park dedication fee. If the property had been sold to a developer, he would have been expected to pay the park dedication fee to further subdivide. Jabbour commented that Council deals with issues involving applications, engineering, permit and park dedication fees on a daily basis and did not feel notice had to be given to each applicant about all fees involved. Melamed thought the City would have sold him two lots if he had not been in a hurry to begin construction. Jabbour and Mayor Callahan disagreed stating they were not in favor of creating two lots in the beginning of negotiations. Hurr questioned the amount of the park dedication fee. Mabusth explained that the Assessor does a search of comparable properties in their undeveloped condition to determine an average and arrive at a fair market value. The Assessor arrived at the value of $150,000 for this property in its undeveloped state. Hurr compared this to the park dedication fees for the Coffin/Dickey subdivision and felt there may be some discrepancy in arriving at fair market values. r (#5) MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 11, 1994 #1922 ROBERT AND ELIZABETH MELAMED, 1000 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH - FINAL SUBDIVISION (CONTINUED) Goetten thought that in the resolutions and memos previously sent to the Melameds the park dedication fee was mentioned. Mabusth concurred. Melamed asked if there was an opportunity to contribute additional land for parks in lieu of monies. Mayor Callahan explained it was a matter for Park Commission consideration and not up to the individual developer. It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Goetten, to adopt the resolution approving the Plat of French Lake of Orono 2nd Addition. There was further discussion by Hurr regarding the determination of the value of the property. She did not feel fair market values had been arrived at consistently. Mabusth compared the Lund two-lot ibdivision in which there was a $25,000 park dedication fee. She added that there was an appeal process available to Melamed to work with the Assessor and outside appraiser in determining the market value. Melamed asked if he could delay the subdivision. Mabusth explained that if the application were tabled, preliminary plat approval would expire one year after the date of Council approval. After that time period, a new subdivision application would have to be made. Barrett stated the purchase contract would have to be reviewed to determine if there were any complications in delaying the subdivision and that there is always the risk that zoning regulations could change. Mayor Callahan withdrew his previous motion. It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Kelley, to table Application #1922 for Robert and Elizabeth Melamed, 1000 Old Crystal Bay Road South, for final subdivision approval at the applicant’s request. Ayes 5, nays 0. (#6) SHORELAND ORDINANCE - AMENDMENT OF SECTION 10.56 ORDINANCE NO. 127, 2ND SERIES Gaffron explained that the amendment was basically housekeeping revisions to the Shoreland Ordinance including: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 11, 1994 (#6) SHORELAND ORDINANCE - AMENDMENT OF SECTION 10.56 ORDINANCE NO. 127, 2ND SERIES (CONTINUED) - revisions to statutory references, - revisions to the definitions of steep slope (18% to 12%) and water-oriented accessory structures to include lockboxes, - adding the bluff impact zone to areas where live tree cutting and intensive vegetation clearing is prohibited, and - removing the French Lake North Basin and Sewage Lagoon from Natural Environment Lake status back to Protected Wetland status. Mayor Callahan expressed his concern that it was difficult to enforce tree and intensive vegetation cutting. Gaffron responded that public education was the key to protecting vegetation and without an ordinance with restrictions, there was nothing the City could do. Hurr felt the ordinance was important to have in place and requiring inch-for-inch replacement may influence owners who wish to do extensive clearing. Jabbour was in favor of the Shoreland Ordinance adding that other cities seemed to have more flexibility. Gaffron stated staff would welcome input on enforcing the tree ordinances. Jabbour thought lake area realtors should be better informed about Orono's rules. Kelley commented that the large parcels of land that are left on the lake are the ones that may be subdivided in the future causing major problems as they attempt to create clear views to the lake. He agreed witn Hurr that the Shoreland Ordinance should be in the code. There is always an opportunity for property owners to apply for variances. It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Goetten, to adopt Ordinance #127, Second Series, An Ordinance to Amend Certain Ponions of Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56, Shoreland Management. Ayes 5, nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT 1.Mayor Callahan reported he would not be at the work session/committee meeting of July 13 regarding County Road 6. He thought it appropriate to discuss proposals regarding Townline Road and the intersection of Hwy 6/12 with the cities of Maple Plain and Independence. Goetten agreed. At this time, Orono is basically giving the County permission to proceed with their plans for Townline Road. Kelley added that affected property owners should also be notified. Since options are still being discussed, those affected homeowners should have an opportunity for input. r' 2. 3. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 11, 1994 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT (CONTINUED) Jabbour suggested the City Administrator draft a letter to Maple Plain and Independenr.c advising them of scheduled meetings and asking for their comments and concerns. Othei members agreed. Hurr was excused at 8:37 p.m. Mayor Callahan expressed concern with Highway 12 traffic counts being conducted since Orono was not involved in choosing the experts conducting the test and interpreting the results. Moorse explained that Barton-Aschman would be providing the City information to review. Mayor Callahan suggested drafting a letter to Mn/DOT stating the City’s position. Mayor Callahan questioned a citation that was issued on Tanager. Gaffron explained that the property owne>® were issued a citation. They have silt fencing in p.-ice. will be re^ grading back to the original grade and will provide a restoration/refoiestation plan for replanting on the bluff. Although there have been no permits issued and no double fees, Gaffron thought there would be court fines to pay. Restoration will be costly and will far exceed any double fees that City could impose. Members expressed frustration with granting variances to preserve trees only to find them cut down shortly thereafter. Gaffron thought the homeowners may propose a restoration plan that is less than staff feels appropriate and they may have to appeal to City Council. Jabbour suggested the next newsletter include an article relating to tree cutting. Kelley thought the City should be pro-active instead of re-active to tree and vegetation cutting. Gaffron explained that new homeowners in the City are given a packet of information when they homestead which includes tree cutting information. Kelley thought a packet should be designed with the most important information clearly defined. Kelley suggested inviting area realtors and landscape contractors into the City to discuss regulations. Mayor Callahan asked about the status of the parking lot at the Crystal Bay Post (Office Moorse responded the lot was proposed on the south side of the post office with six parking stalls. It would also provide parking for the park on weekends and evenings. As pan of the lease with the US Postal Service, the City is to provide the parking lot If the parking lot is placed on the south side, a setback variance from the roadway would be required. The cost of the lot will be approximately $3,000 with additional trees planned for screening from the playground. A plan will be provided for the parking lot layout at a later date. Jabbour commented that staff should be sure "Confidential Attorney/Client Privilege information is not available to the public. Moorse stated that information was only provided to the Council as information. 4. 5. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD JLXY 11, 1994 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT (CONTINUED) Jabbour also expressed his gratitude and commended Moorse ^or the way he handled a recent issue with a contract city. 6. 7. 8. Mayor Callahan referred to a recent letter he received from an Orono resident and commended Officer Tomcheck for services he provided while on duty for the Orono Police Department. Mayor Callahan and Goetten requested that action be taken in the near future regarding selection of the City Attorney. Mayor Callahan suggested this topic be the first item on the Agenda for the work session of July 18 or the following work session. Mayor Callahan stressed that notices for work sessions include all topics to be discussed and reminded Councilmembers to discuss only those items published to stay in compliance with the Open Meeting Law. ENGLNEER REPORT City Engineer Glenn Cook has no report. CITY ATTORNEY ’S REPORT City Attorney Thomas Barrett had nothing to report. CITY ADMINISTRATOR ’S REPORT 1. 2. Moorse suggested scheduling a work session to discuss the 1995 Budget on Monday, August 1, 8:00 a.m. Members agreed. Kelley asked to see 1994 revenues and expenses- actual vs. budgeted at the next Council meeting. Moorse stated the expenses would be available but revenues are still being compiled. Kelley asked what the goal would be for having these figures available at the close of the quarter. Moorse thought they should be available oy the 15th of the following month. Moorse stated Minnetonka Beach is advertising for a Clerk/Administrator and inquired if Council felt Orono should look into any further cooperative/sharing of ser/ices. Kelley did not favor contracting any additional services until the City could verify that the internal costs incurred in providing services are being recovered. Mayor Callahan did not object to offering some help during this interim period. He added that Minnetonka Beach had inquired about a water tower some time ago and this issue could be revisited. 8 COUNCIL MEETING Moorse ^or the way he handled a I'ed from an Orono resident and led while on duty for the Orono aken in the near future regarding tied this topic be the first item on owing work session. include all topics to be discussed •se items published to stay in 5 the 1995 Budget on Monday, «e 1994 revenues and expenses- 5e stated the expenses would be ' asked what the goal would be :r. Moorse thought they should MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY IL 1994 CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (CONTINUED) (*#7) STEP INCREASE OFFICER JAY DEMBOUSKI It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Jabbour, to increase Officer Jay Dembouski’s salary from $18,826 per hour to $19,391 per hour as of April 6, 1994, as per the 1994 LELS contract currently in effect. Ayes 5, nays 0. (*#8) POLICY REGARDING THE RETURN OF A POLICE OFFICER TO DUTY DURING A TEMPORARY P.ARTIAL DISABILITY It ws moved by Hurr, seconded by Jabbour, to accept the policy of the ORONO POLICE GENERAL ORDER - RETURN TO WORK DURING TEMPORARY PARTIAL DISABILITY dated July 11, 1994 and effective July 11, 1994. Ayes 5, nays 0. (•#9) LICENSES It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Jabbour, to approve the following license: Special Event Permit: Four Mile Foot Race, Com Days August 7, 12:15 p.m. - 1:00 p.m. Ayes 5, nays 0. (*#10) BILLS It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Ayes 5, Nays 0. erk/Administrator and inquired toperative/sharing of services, until the City could verify that ig recovered. uring this interim period. He ■ tower some time ago and this I.V.' r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD JULY 11, 1994 ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Goeiten, seconded by Jabbour. to adjourn at 9:09 p.m. Ayes 4, nays 0. Edward J. Callahan, Jr. Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk V ti REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ITEM NO.: ^^0 Department Approval: Name Jeanne A. Mabusth Title Building & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #1821 Steven and Margo Wirtjes, 3085 Watertown Road - Final Subdivision Resolution List of Exhibits A - Preliminary Plat Resolution #3301 B - Final Plat Resolution - draft C - Resolution Covenant for Lot 1 D - Final Plat The applicants have fulfilled all conditions of preliminary subdivision approval including payment of all fees. The City Attorney has reviewed the restrictive covenant to be filed against the chain of title of Lot 1 advising of the need to install a new well at the time the alternate septic site is to be installed. The 14’x26.4’ addition to the rear of the accessory structure wiUiin Lot 1 has been removed. The structure at 627.9 s.f. will be located 10 from the east lot line. The final plat approval resolution has been drafted by staff for Council’s review and action. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: To adopt or amend the enclosed approval resolution. •i r L A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF WALNUT CREEK FILE NO. 1821 WHEREAS) the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS) the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS) tV C Council has considered the application for a subdivision of a two lot plat by Steven P. Wirf^v: anu Margo M. Winjes, principals of Wheaton Construction, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, (hereinafter subdivider); and WHEREAS) the subdivision has been found to meet standards of the RR-IB, Rural Residential Zoning District, finding that each lot is of a size and configuration that will allow its use as a single family residence to be fully developed without the need of any variances; and WHEREAS, the City has approved a lot width variance for Lot 2 based on the following unique findings; A. Lot 2 can be platted so that required lot width can be met. B.The division has been defined along the meandering drainage way that intersects property from east to west. C. Lot lines reflect functional use areas for each lot. WHEREAS, the subdivider has completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the City, including: 1. Completion of the requirements of Orono Resolution No. 3301. Dedication on the plat of right-of-way for a public road shown as Watertown Road. Page 1 of 3 r 3. Creation of a new private driveway shown on the plat as Outlot A created for the exclusive use of Lots 1 and 2. 4. Dedication on the plat of drainage and utility easements. 5. Dedication on the plat of a minimum IS’ drainage easement along west lot line of Lot 1 to protect principal and alternate drainfield sites. 6. Execution of a restrictive covenant to be filed on the chain of title of Lot 1 that advises current and future owners of need to install a new well at the time the alternate on-site septic system is to be installed. 7. Removal of a I4’x26.4’ addition to the accessory strucmre on Lot 1. The structure shall remain at a 18.2’x34.5’ or 627.9 s.f. in area. 8. Payment to the City of a park dedication fee in the amount of $4,224.00. 9. Payment to the City for the legal review and filing of the plat easements and covenants in the amount of $200.00. 10 Payment to the City of the final plat application fee of $175.00. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the plat of Walnut Creek, Hennepin County, Minnesota, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. Prior to the development of Lot 2, future owners shall be responsible for staking principal and alternate septic test site areas. Owners shall also be responsible for providing the necessary hydraulic information to support the sizing of culvert for driveway to serve Lot 2. Improvements to shared drive must be installed to west side of driveway Outlot in an attempt to minimize impact upon existing development to east. Page 2 of 3 IT. 3. The afores;.4 plat shall be filed by the City of Orono with either the Hennepin County Recorder’s Office or Registrar of Tides Office on or before January 25, 1995 together with a certified original copy of this resolution and executed copies of easements and covenants noted above. The approval granted by this resolution shall expire if the plat has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Dated this 25th day of July, 1994. ATTEST: Edward J. Callahan, MayorDorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 25th day of July 1994 by Edward J. Callahan and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 3 of 3 rf i A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF WALNUT CREEK FILE NO. 1821 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the application for a subdivision of a two lot plat by Steven P. Winjes and Margo M. Wirtjes, principals of Wheaton Construction, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, (hereinafter subdivider); and WHEREAS, the subdivision has been found to meet standards of the RR-IB, Rural Residential Zoning District, finding that each lot is of a size and configuration that will allow its use as a single family residence to be fiilly developed without the need of any variances; and WHEREAS, the City has approved a lot width variance for Lot 2 based on the following unique findings: A. Lot 2 can be platted so that required lot width can be met. B The division has been defined along the meandering drainage way that intersects property from east to west. C. Lot lines reflect functional use areas for each lot. WHEREAS, the subdivider has completed all requirements of the platting regulations of the City, including; 1. Completion of the requirements of Orono Resolution No. 3301. Dedication on the plat of right-of-way for a public road shown as Watertown Road. Page I of 3 1 3. Creation of a new private driveway shown on the plat as Outlot A created for the exclusive use of Lots 1 and 2. 4. Dedication on the plat of drainage and utility easements. 5. Dedication on the plat of a minimum IS’ drainage easement along west lot line of Lot 1 to protect principal and alternate drainfield sites. 6. Execution of a restrictive covenant to be filed on the chain of title of Lot 1 that advises current and future owners of need to install a new well at the time the alternate on-site septic system is to be installed. 7. Removal of a 14’x26.4’ addition to the accessory structure on Lot 1. The structure shall remain at a 18.2’x34.5’ or 627.9 s.f. in area. 8. Payment to the City of a park dedication fee in the amount of $4,224.00. 9. Payment to the City for the legal review and filing of the plat easements and covenants in the amount of $200.00. 10 Payment to the City of the final plat application fee of $175.00. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the plat of Walnut Creek, Hennepin County, Minnesota, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. Prior to the development of Lot 2, future owners shall be responsible for staking principal and alternate septic test site areas. Owners shall also be responsible for providing the necessary hydraulic information to support the sizing of culvert for driveway to serve Lot 2. Improvements to shared drive must be installed to west side of driveway Outlot in an attempt to minimize impact upon existing development to east. Page 2 of 3 Vr- 3. The aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City of Orono with either the Hennepin County Recorder’s Office or Registrar of Titles Office on or before January 25, 1995 together with a certified original copy of this resolution and executed copies of easements and covenants noted above. The approval granted by this resolution shall expire if the plat has not been filed by the date specified above. In that event it will be necessary to file a new application with the City of Orono for subdivision review. Dated this 25th day of July, 1994. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 25th day of July 1994 by Edward J. Callahan and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 3 of 3 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 8 01 r A RESOLUTION GRANTING: PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF A CLASS m TWO LOT PLAT OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3085 WATERTOWN ROAD - FILE NO. 1821 l! * WHEREAS, Steven P. Wirtjes and Margo M. Wirtjes, (hereinafter "subdividers") on April 21,1993, filed a fonnal subdivision application with the City for approval of a two lot Class in residential subdivision of property legally described as follows: See Exhibit "A" ar^ched (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Stanjtes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono’s Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held public hearings on May 17 and June 21, 1993, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on July 12, 1993, the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of the subdividers noting the following findings of fact: 1.The property is located within the RR-IB Rural Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of two acres of contiguous dry buildable land within each newly created lot. The property contains a total of approximately 5+ acres. The proposed plat contains two lots each exceeding the 2 acre minimum lot area requirement. Access has been approved via a shared driveway at the existing curb cut that currently serves the residence on proposed Lot 1. Page 1 of 6 r i: S.'J CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCILo ^NO. o . 5.hacli lot has been found to have suitable area for on-site septic use with both primary and alternate sites. 6.The existing structures within proposed Lot 1 meet all required setbacks and proposed Lot 2 can be developed without the need of future variances. 7.Proposed Lot 2 does not meet the required width of 200* at the rear of the 50’ front setback as division line has been proposed along an irregular drainageway that divides the property. Approval of lot width variance is ba.scd on the following findings: A. Lots can be platted so that required lot width can be met. B. Shared lot line has been defined along the meandering drainageway that intersects property from east to west. C. Lot lines reflect functional usage area for each lot. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon either one or more of the findings noted above, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the preliminary plat application for Steven P. Wirtjes and Margo M. Wirtjes per survey dated 10-27- p, revised 3-25-93, by Mark S. Gronberg of Coffin and Gronberg, Inc., subject to the following conditions: I.Prior to final subdivision applicants shall complete the following: A.E.xecution of a restrictive covenant to be filed on the chain of title of Lot 1 that advises current and all future owners of need to install a new well at the time the alternate on-site septic system is to be installed. B.Applicant shall remove 14x26.4 addition at south side of c.xisting acce.ssory structure on proposed Lot 1. Structure shall remain at I8.2.X34.5 ’ at a total 627.9 s.f. Page 2 of 6 t * % CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.3^ weeks prior the month: -Hvcway ^ accessory to sou*eas. side of Lo. 1 where ouUot can be reduced io a 25 w.dth. Shared drive to serve both Lots 1 aud 2 shall be installed to western side of ouUot toTa^mpt ^minimize impact upon existing development to east. a • ... .nd Utilitv Shall be taken along all perimeter property t««-»i» !■. “.ffs." zrs width. Applicants- engineer shall provide the necessary hydraulic information to support sizing of culvert for driveway servmg Lot 2. 1 Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies and one (1) copy reduced to 1" = 200 ’. Drawing to include: A. Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by and Gronberg dated 10-27-89 most recently revised 3-25-93. B. Dedication of "drainage and S^^d be property lines (note lot lines platted at easiest fra^geway shown as drainage easement at minimum 20 to Page 3 of 6 r«i»i0es ai«ftw • ^CITY of ORONORESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCILNO. - i\ i- 3. C. Designation and dedication of a drainage easement within Lot 1 as noted in condition 04 above. D. Dedication of 33’ of right-of-way for Watertown Road. E. Naming of plat. Legal documents required: A Tide opinion addressed to the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. B. The applicants must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. Fees to be paid: Total due: $375.0Q_ A. Final plat fee = $175.00 B. Legal review and filing fees ~ $200.00 CITY if OliOt^Q f l^AriCE OFFICE 1^384000000 12 f'fiii 4224.Oi- CHECK It 4224.0C HtCElPT-THM YOU 4308980 cool 801 Tit- 07/15. *Upon Council ’s approval of preliminary plat, the plat shall be referred to the City Assessor for the determination of the fair market value of the property so that a park dedication fee can be determined at S% of the fair market value. You will be advised as soon as the City is in receipt of his findings. Park dedication fees must be paid upon the filing of the final plat application. “TTv nc nonxjn u i # t Ul UMU'ltW uVMkirc rsLCjrr I T“*Vi r* / rryi?uit rLxri; u-l yre ,v I wf• VV 7Tk .V \J I ^ 9 W 7 DT_Tu;ji;.V ynnnuchal * I cu Ti 1 0 “VifV»ni F.h)i TfnJvwfv'V ,“i7 /i .• \t % f Page 4 of 6 rMMOS Oueftw V •• oo CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ■■■ ^ ^ - ■ Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 12ih of July, 1993. ATTEST: >orothy M. Ij in. City Clerk Iward J . Call^n, Jr.,Mayor' : i STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 12th day of July 1993, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. NOTARY^PUBU(f‘- MWNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY ^ My exciros 8-12-96 kn> _____f Pace 5 of 6 UHONOJ THE CITY COWtOLB 5 : M0* MInnriomi t fBgyiy M ^ -U m bit me on this 12iti day of July or * CiQf Clefk of die City of was execumd on behalf of the m ft lift! Iff '! I^v- i p-ft.: ^ mftva.'Jp cmr of ORONOXILunofi or THE cmr councilwo. _ a:^ - BXHXBXT *A* UlSIlNri iCnAL UCSCRlPItON: tliet peit (If till* NurUiMesl Oiiditer of iiie Northwest Quarter of Section 4, township Iff. Nange 23. ilrscriheil as follows, to wit: Beginning 4i rods CBt3 feet) Cast of the Northwest corner of said Section 4; • thence Cast in mds (297 feet): thence South 44.44 rods ( 733.24 feet); thence West IN rods (297 feet); thence North 44.44 rods (733.26 feet) to beginning.* That pert of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 4. Township 117 North. Range 23 West of the Sth Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at a point In the North line of said Section 4 distant 60 rods (990 feet) Cast of the Northwest corner thereof} thence east along the North line of said Section 4. 33.5 feet to the Northwest corner of the Cast 100 acres of the Northwest Quarter of Section 4; thence Soutralong the West line of the Cast 100 acres of the Northwest Quarter a distanr* nf 44.aa rods (733,26 feet); thnnee West parallel with the North line of said Section 4. 37.53 feet to a point M» rods (990 feet) Cast of the Nest line of said North- west Quarter of Section 4; timncn rintih parallel with the West line of said Section 4. aa.ia rods fnei) to the point 0/ heginnitig. •for purposes of this d«sr r ipi I^ti. t |,a J|,„| y,j,, ahove deMflbed properiv ha.e boon a-.r.incd to he tines drawn parallel with the fast Into of tho riorthw..t» guarier of said Sertlon 4; further clarif icrttlon of the al.ov« IovmpMoo nay have to he accomplished thriiin|li a lorrens acti«*n. Page $ of 6 ■Vi-' ' \K'- y'-«r 13 0^ % t --r.T" '!‘n» :ITY of ORONOloumoN or THE cmr GOUNCiL IT "A* r the Horthwest QutrUr of Stcllon as rollons, to wit: Btyloiilng hwcst corntr of Soctloo B; ce South 44.M rods (733.26 ftit); CO Morth 44,44 rods’ (733.26 foot) f tho Horthwost Qusrtor of Soctlon t of tho 5th Prlnclpsl Morldlon. ,1 point In tho North lino of Sold East of tho Northwost cornor I line of sold Soctlon 4, 33.5 foot too acros of tho Northwost Quartor ► wost lino Of tho Cast 100 ocros of 44.44 rods (733.26 fOOt)i lino of said Soctlon 4, 37.53 East of tho Most lino of said North- iiit'i parallol with the WOst lino •, -i?fi foril m tho point of ho0i»»nln<|. »h»» East and Mes* linos of tho aMOO*1 to ho linos drawn parallel thtatior of said Sort I on 4; further ioii may have to ho acconpl I Shod |o 6 o£ 6 ■ai' ■•a J U.L. — 12 — •».* TUC •-tr* f* r- E...: «!#■ ■■■ fssa a- ■ PSv' l'I • <sS-:'?-. -4- If;.. rfel .opteUMATSOH or MmzCTXVt COVIMIliTThin Ooclorotioa, aodo thin doy of July« 1554 by WhootonCoAOCructioBv ZBC.» horoinoftor roforrod to •• "Docloront*. mmilAS, Dooloroat la tho owner of eortoia rool property located la tho City of Oroao, Hoaaopin County, Miaaooota, which io lopally doicribod an Lot l, iloek 1, walnut Crook. NHtRIAt, Oaelaraat ia dooiroua of protoctiag tho value and dooirability of tho real property deteribod above, 3I0W« THmrOM, Oeclarant hereby deelareo that the above- daacribed property ahall be held, told and eoavoyod oubject to the follewlag reotrietive eoveaaat, which it for the purpote of pretectiap the value aad deoirability of, aad which ahall run with, the real property aad be binding on all partiea having any right, title or iatereet ia the above-deacribed property or aay part thereof# their heira, aucceaaora aad aaaigaa, and ahall iaure to the benefit of each owner thereof, 1 We altmraate oa-aite aeptic ayatea ahall be iaatalled on the above*deecribed real property uatil auch tine aa a aew well ia ->■ iaetalled oa the above-deoeribed real property. Xf aay party ahall violate or atteapt to violate thia covenant, it ahall be lawful for Declarant or aay other party entitled to the protectioa provided hereia to proaeeute procaedinga at lav or io equity agaiaat any party violating or atteapting to violate aaid covenant aad to either prevent auch violation or to recover damaget for auch violation. I- “I ■IEl fi iff Hm 1 -■:11s 4 m -i- 'M IM? MI I ■vS j.- J .t. . r-} I — 12 — TUIII WXTlitSS HHtlieor, th« uadersigned has eausad thesa presents to ba axoctttod in its eorporata aasia as of tha day and yaar firstioboiro vrittoa*NKBATOM CONSTKUCTXOit, XKC. •y* ■ Its: •y» • it; . -• j! , jr\ j, ^ •■■ A' xt«> •;Sv-p*,: ..’VT,r> 3. , tnttt o» M >v. comm ^ .- ' - ■ thlo mm >»• ICfXfl) ■ ■ t %■ V «*r i t j■4 *! al#:-'day of Joly, 1194 boforo «o a Votary Vttblie V -■ ^ ii' ■ vitbia aad for said Coaaty* porsoaally sppaarad 1§„p--aad !?R'^sV:%fcv iii'C" ■■ ■= : . - ^ -... . .^ ^ to as parsoaaUy baooa# who boia# by aa #■ daly avora, did atato that thay wara tha and -. •'■ - - - of ifhoatoB CoastructioB* lac*# tha amryatatioa aMad ia tha foragoiag laatraaaat aad that said iaatraaaat «aa aigaad oa bahalf of said corporation by authority of ita board of Oiraetors, aad said - aekaowladgad said iastrunant to ba tha frao act aad daad of said corporation. ioEaryTRSBIIc ieStaMl*rM«rl« HI--':; IjV X f- 5IS?i mm V» • i'i *'.®i K- t- !*'• p-rf-. REQUEST fm COUNCIL ACTION ^ 5 1994 DATE: *il^!T4M®RR ITEM NO.: AdtaWilrator Reviewed: 7jmytg tanii/Varj Resohi * 1 H 1, 1 1lUte “V - ** I • »IS* Subd. 3 (A) (Review Seetkm 10.20, Subd. 3 (K)] • AppUcaoc must fiist obiiia lusefwnntebefoRiiistiUinganiiidepeiidettttmfcr/amemMStniciiiie. Stiuctuiewu dme to the fidl of 1993 sad was noied by staff duriiv a buildi^ inyietiAn for an adjacent propedy. The stiuctuie is curiemly at 85* and will be aheied to 75* at the request of neithborim peopeny owner. Original Pioposal - 85* Amended Proposed « 75* Vatianoe « 43* or 57% - I • I w I «The 10.75. Sdbds. 1 A 2 • The above referenced section Umiti height to 65*. Hie code would allow incieaKi of hei^U above 65* by applying fer a conditioiial use permit. u as long as lequiied setback is met.does not limit hei 10.03, Subd. 9 (D) - No deta ched garage or ofoer accessory building shall be located rer the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot.f Section 10.28, Subd. 3 (A) - Requiies that an i to or supportive of principal use. The tower may «■ m antenna tower must be subordiiMe be clauified as an accessory structure. I I - I H 4 • 4 V 1 1 M I List of Exhibits A - Application B • Addendum C - Property Ownen List and Certificatj D-PlatMap E - Survey • Existing F - Survey - Proposed G • Elevation of Tower/A H - Amateur License of Renotification ^ *•* 1; ■ii ;^,r. ■ r?-" \r< ; 'V' ir Ib'^, rt- '•*** 9T- K t*-’ H: i. ■ e'-' f'i' : s ' II'if I E^-r' • P- ^?1V ‘ r,i l^■ It ; f. iT i. y Request for Council Act! pm2cf3 hOy 21. 1994 Zonii« File #1913 ill I - I II'I*imkations Effectiveness*1 - Afticle Entitled "Aims Heiglit and O I • Specifkations - Unhreml Towers K-Neigtibon’ Petition of Approval L - Before Uniied Stties Cowts of Appeals for the 8th Circuit M - David MacMlIan Letter to Applicant Agnehif to 73* Height N > Robert Miicliell Letter. Attorney for David MacMillan. 6/20/94 O - Covcnaat Not To Sue. David MacMillan P - Hold Harmless Agreement Whitney MacMillan Q • Stamuoo Memo 7/lSm R • Chy Attorney's Drafts of Hold Harmless Agreements and Covenant S • PlamiiM Coimnissioo Minutes 4/18^ AppUcant has an independent tower/antenna stiuctuie at an 83* height without the benefit of a building permit and the required conditional use permit. The anaemia, tower and base were installed by applicant. The strucnne was observed by the inspectors sometime in October of 1993. A^icant was advised of the need to apply for a conditional use permit. Review Exhibit E. it is both the applicant's and owner's preference to have the structure at 73* height approved at a 32* setback requiring a setback variance. A copy of applicant*s amateur radio license has been submitted confirming the use as solely for private and hobby use. Applicant resides in resideiiee on property as required by ordinance. The use is subordinaae to or accessory to the priiKipal residential um. The propel is owned by Whitney MacMillan and Mr. MacMillan has sifoed the application as owner. Review Exhibits D. F and K. the property to the immediate cast is owned by David MacMillan. Please note the petition was not been signed by David MacMillan. It is David MacMillan*s property to the east that receives the most impact as structure would be located 32* ftom his west lot line. Review Exhibits M and O. smee the Planning Commiasioo review. David MacMillan hu submitted written confirmation that he would approve a maximum antenna height of 73* at the present location. The applicant has advised that he would agree to altering the antenna to meet the 73* height requested by David MacMillan. Mr. Ttuchinski's tower could be placed on the property meeting all required setimeks if it was moved to the higher elevations to the north and west. Placement of the structure on the higher elevations would have an increased visual impact on all surrounding properties. In feet, the more nothem location would have a greater impaa <mi the David MacMillan properQr than it would in its presem I m i ;I ^ ik.I te'.It"p:*te»i i% m ■.Vf- . I Request for O mociI Acti pate3of3 July 21, 1994 Zooiiv File #1913 » If iM The PtoiBiiv Commisiion did not have the benefit of David MacMillan's final conunenis and agweew^ to afipiove the present locatioo. The Planotng Commissioa cooditiooed approval on both David MacMillan and Whitney MacMillan executtog Hold Harmless Afreements releasing the City of any liability should the stnictuie coUapse and resuk in physical damage to the properties. David MacMOlao's anoney in his lener to the City (Exhibit N) suggests that the City's ofdioMioes and its imeiprciatioo of past court actk»B may need to be revised or As we have agreement betufeen all parties, staff has not asked the Cky Attorney 10 aqy Anther but Council may wish to direct the City Attorney to provide more clarifkaiioo on Review EiMbto Q and R, Mr. ^——**** has amended the forms of the Covenant Not To Sue and the Hold Harmless Agreement to be executed by David MacMillan, Whitney MacMillan and now, Greg Trtichimld. Copies of the amended exhibits have been sent to the applicant and property owners. I « • - «Review ExhMl S, tte Plannmg Commissioo unaniinously approved the applicaiion as prop subject to the City beu« released from all liabilities and gta^ the setback variance baaed on the finding that if the tower was to be placed in a conforming setback at the higher elevai' this would exacerbate the visual impact of the tower. To adopt or ^n»e!Bd the approval resohitioo as drafted by staff per the Planning Commission teconmieodatioo siAject to the executkm of Hold Harmless Agieenients by Whitney MacMillan and Greg Truchimki and a Covenant Not To Sue by David MacMUIan. Conditiooal use permit qiecifically notes that permit will expire at the time Mr. Truchinski no longer resides on die property and diat he will be reqwnsiMe for the compleie removal of the structure; or To deny the variance application and to grant a conditknial use permit based on structure meeting die required sediack from all lot lines. ch ! J ' (tef,1^'' W f-.^-t1;^: K-. ■' i A IBSOUmON GRANTING A VARIANCE AND CONOmONAL USB PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION IRA SURDmSiON 3 (A) PILE NO. Ifl3 WHEREAS, Gin ^ TiudiiadD (tefcinitfler die *a|iplkam*) fftidn at 8 |No^ owned by WliilKp MkMIIIm (iKRMIer die "owner”) loGiied at 1580 Pox Street wkliin the Chy of Oiono (herehnller "Ci^") and teplly deacited as: Lot 1. Block 2. MacMiUan Addinm "pfopefty"); and Hennepiii Cooaiy,oca (hereinafter WHEREAS, the wpScanthaa applied for an after«die-CKCconditk)aal use permit and varianre appikreion per Minieipel Zoohif Code Sectioa 10.2S, Siibdivisioa 3 (A) to permit an existiiw tower/stmctuxe intaUed wkhout the benefit of a building permit to remain on the property re a niaxiomm 75* height lo be iocaied 3r from the west lot line iniaead of the required 75*. NOW, T1 I M 1 :>< i.1 E, BE rr RESOLVED by the Chy Council of • TmTTT i' I Thisn was reviewed as Z File #1913 The property is locreed in the RR-IB Rural Residereial ZoDin two acres in area. The property consists of 2+ acres. District lequiring The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this applicition on April 18,1994 and recommended approval of the proposed conditkmal use permit and variance baaed on the following unique findings aiui hardi All affected property owners have approved ansenna/tower structure. locati -rr^—-rnyi Page 1 of 5 ♦ *r 1 j’:r m P: K'': fe- ro-'f 'IfIp:,/ k»s”fo' ■ Ml'- 'A. C. Tlie structure could be placed sedMck from aU lot lines. If smictufe was to be placed in a confonning locatioa on the higiier elevatkMis to die nofth a^ west, tower would have greater visual impact on the adjacent residential pro per^. The owner of the property and the adjacent proper ty owner have agreed to execute agreenena that would release the City Ikom any ii«i>iijrigT should the structure in its present nonoonfonning location collapse and result in property damage. The City Council finds that the conditioos existing on this proper ty are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this aoning district; that granting the varianoe would not adversely affect traffic conditioos, light, air nor pose a fire haxard or other danger to neighboring properties; would not merely serve as a coovenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a detnons traMe hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicam; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. ; > ; i.' The City Council finds that granting s conditional use permit to allow a 75* ancenoa/tower smicture to remain in its present location will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfere of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other dan^ to neighboring properties, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level oi use of die property will be in keeping w^ the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Compreh ensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit and a variance to Municif^ Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 3 (A) to allow the antenna/tower stmcnire u> remain at a 32* setback fttmi the west lot line requiring a 43 ’ oi 57% variance and grants a conditumal use permit for an independent antenna/tower smicture to be at a maximum height of 75*. subject to the following cooditkHi Page 2 of S I __A 1 <11 r. ' ;£ ■». 1 • ■ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) day of . 199___. before me a Notary Public whhinandforsaidCouiiOr.perioiially appeared_______________________________^ known to me to be the penoo(s) deicribed in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. i .**' STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. day of Notary Public , 199__, before me a Notary PublicOnthis_________________ within and for said County, personally appeared_________________________ known to me to be the pei^s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrv acknowledged that be (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Vi STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) this day of ss. , 199___, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally ^)pcaied_----------------------------—^--------------- known to me to be the pei^s) described in and who executed the foregomg insttument. and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notai>' Public Page 5 of 5 i m =^/?/3 cmr OF ORONO • general land use appli PROPERTY LOCA'npN Sife Addicn lSSQ__ Type of AppUciWio be Filed_____ Property Ueoiificaiioo Number (P.I.D.) #1913 APPUCANT Nam e/:;i?FA ^ A i Addiem^on R?x ________ Pho« _____Flw» (wwlOfiCl i * C/ ty. W^c'^ cay o^uO____ Zbyc 3 ct / OWNER (if differemihuappUcmt) Fhooe(homeX Phone (worldly Addnm 1 cay Date Property Acquired____________________ I (do) (do not) also own cbe adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDmONAL USE PERMTTS - _____$ 50.00 For each variance request with CUP appUcatioi] Residential Accessory Use Instiiutioiial (church, school, etc.) Guest House/Guest Apartments Duplex Credit/Bldg Commercial/Industrial Use Land Alteration Gradinf and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and fiUmg -101 cu. yd. or mote Gradu^, seawall, retauung walls within 75’ of laheshoie (mondi/year) i III I PRD/PID • see Fbe Schedule $100.00 Renewal Fee (no chai^ from original application) After>the*Faa Fee • Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPUCATIONS Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) Vacation Easement Vacation Easement Vacation With Subdivision Rezoning (PUD • refer to fee schedule) Comprehensive Plan Amendment App^ • tii:! t 111 • Other - see Fee Scl I PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District_____ Pteser: Use of Property Residential Other (specify). I V; •^1 IHiK' i Kr fi i REQUIRED SUHMTITALS 1. Compleied Applicatioo Fonn. Docribe request in detail. \y Certified Property Owners List of ownen within 350’ (you can obtain this lit Heuepin Comny Department of Finance, A-603, Goveimnent Cemer, 348-3271) 2. I M t y/ Plat Map. \/ Cbrtificatt of Survey (sii information. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal "«■»*« (include marital satus) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include oame(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements) 10. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of aiiy other persons you wish notified of this iqq]**^ ir* I YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (ir X 17” OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The AppUcant and Property Owner must sign this applkatkMi. nease remember that your applicff«>n is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application u o Initialsof Clerical Staff:__________________ -Date •j n I» APPUCANT S SIGNATURE . The applicant hereby to provide all information required or reque^ by the Zoning ^Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fre payment) and/or««"««««»expenses incurred in review of thb application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. j 1' OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this plication and Airther authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and CouncU members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s signature 5 - ( w - -t y miwt All piKmiHAJ* iain the City offieet M dayi hefinw the PIlMlilie COOimiliioa MecdlU. Conniisioo Meetiafs are IwM 00 tte Oiicd Mooday Of each oMNUh. Ai^Ucain naut b« picsait ac aU Kbedulcd tcvitw ■«—*««|* of the Plamuoi CommiuuMi and Council. If ao applkani ia unable lo attend aicbeduled aieeang. pictte make amofenianti to have an authoriaed agent attend in your place and advise the Buildinf A Zooiaf of this change prior to the meeting. ■■ij M •i i Oct 26,1993 Greg Truchinski 1580 Fox St Wayzata Mn. 55391 476^1 H. unlisted 621-5185 P4ger. Dear Sirs: TMs is to let you know I «rish to cooperate with you fully on the matter of my existif^ antenna structure. I of course am hopeful that you will allow me to keep the system up as is. Included in my permit appUcation arc photo's from the neighbors house's. Plus photo's of odier prominent antenna installations. As you can see in the photos, even with all the leaves fallen, my antenna installation is completely hidden from myneiglter’s. With leaves on, you have to drive in front of my house to see it. When Fve climbed to the top and stood on the top rung of the support structure, you cannot see any man made buildings when leaves are on the trees, and only some outline of my two closest neighbors house's with leaves gone. Both house’s are more than 350 ft. from my house, on anybody. Please, if you could, lake a look at the document "Antenna Hnght and Communications Effectiveness" that Fve included. Prepared by the American Radio Relay League. Abo included b a drawii^ of die support structure, the three important antennas, and their heighto. Thb b all I do, other than a little hunting. 1 work, and then talk to the world. I have a large sum of money tied up in thb sc^hbticated antenna system. The antenna system b the heart of my hobby. Thb b more than just a hobby. The Fedral Communication Commission is very jMO'amateur radio because of our overwhelming public service recoM. Induded widi thb af^licatkm are 38 examples of that, which b just the tip of the iceburg. As of 1985 the FCC requires state and local govermenb to use the least restrictive means avaUabte to meet legitimate zoning purposes. Sincerel* V, V-*^sV*“*. •---'iiiiMi Mi/fir; r »1 • • ’ .1 4 nON SVSTtNMommUSTk &V >•*■»<>. •’ '‘' i'(tt *m •m-u n 9mr 9m srMftmn m tan.‘ ’Hhti*llMt Bt Mti MS M U'UT’U It MM IBM MRSr MUSTS Ml tlBIS PM trs ■ s s UPB PM Bf MVMfs Ml Bnn • • • ’ V 'V. jKi- . • . Bt BBBSr ‘k! ------------- - - Ef. y.a iH« ijSjfeSSSk.:;S3nL*r BB BB-U7-BB M BBBl BB BB-117*IB M BBBt BUM PM BT ii ' V •',< .< k‘^'' * '■/“»*V , (Mnrim mi BMtt SBBBCUIBB TBN BBPT BB V rr *1M £S r • B • B BBS BBBBf • '.y<, .* V- if.i ' ' ^ { . « • *. • • i i '•v ! ** • ■: ^ 'i '-a: , *,,, /■• li •• I CMTIPT TMT TMB PSCTB rSTlM BP ' ^ ' i. » i. •I , V. ‘M t';-..;-.-.-71" > ? / t • *' ’ i . i t * ‘ ^ » . •7^ . V<r : :r A-. MBiV/'' r.^ : ' w;. • * 7.- -.■=4» - -^r-• --•■/.-■-j. •* •'- \ '•. .V*f * Jf,...-J ___ _ -' rxr:,T:•^ rIt ir II- m K.-Vv M-'liv" m 33-/n-a3-@ II- Wlr ^ !l?‘ iti !. HI*---------S^»»??:• ?*T ■OT:! •17 M 3*^ 6 , 1 \ \. I-®:'' r.-'. i #1894 . i • •'. i -pt i:-v:^ C§- s ;» % rwm MfVi (SI 3'1i>^b3@) ■W «L L_._>_______•« . •«? i : m HofcH lintC*** Sh€«4 »nvoor Hat*M'4t*'W x?IV» • • • • ^ v\ n •»,.• •- • ^H€ cornmr of 6«e. Z . ^>»9 UJl/t according ‘ Vii^itu/ay S.Un«oTlK«^ ^ NW.VlAot Stc '^M.lin* of^.U4>ot Ao%*5:r ■9 • •so. «» •» w £ J> 2 'S J |-*' I r i* • ^ r/i I • • • A V\ !'•) ■ *- cornmr of 6«e. Z, lormiu/l/c «iecorilina hi^Kwoiy rs« Pmm 5. Vin« oQh# ''—^'N.lin* of ^.tKe- '?5 4^ S ii gl*? cf«-*^ "i-S rfiti w 0 41 41 I * ti ! • II ".): o •m ♦ ' •_• ^ •* ^ ^ * •• • • • . * ^ ^ 1 • . • f. - ■ •/*• • ' ' ’ - . .* •'*/■.■^ «i« ^ . % V *-.C >•«*■ t .r.-;'::.*'. - •> ; • r. • .• • >•. -'• *. • ?.■-'< . ... 1-. . ■.••••■.- fe** *? J- •'„•••..•"•*• ■•■.V,.*r jj-itf:'/.. ••—V • ■ ■■: !*«'• V wV'. - •.^■s. V.V'-* !-> V ••• V ••■ »y-...-.- ■ •• UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION AMATEUR RADIO LICENSE NV#P t •. •• V*. ^ ... ’ 1 . •? • i? / • .* • V *;•••' ■ v» ' •GREG U TRUCHINSKl 1580 FOX ST WAYZATA - r F ►^^rr f >r^r; ■m '' i'vl EXECUTIVE SUMMARY '■■’S' Amateur Radio communicatione between two diatant points on the earth rely on signals propagating throuf^ the ionosphere. Acting as somewhat of a mirror at heights in ths order of 150 miles, the ionosphere retu ns signals to the earth a thousand or more miles away. The vertical angle of radiation is the key factor in dstermining effsctive communicMions distances beyond line of sight. For the greatest possible communications distance, the energy from the transmitter must be radiated at angles dose to the horizon. For this to take place, a horizontal antenna must be placed high above the ground in terms of wavelengths. The length of a radio wave is inversely related to its frequency. A beam type of antenna at a height of 70 feet or more will provids greatly superior perlbrmance over the same antenna at 35 feet, an other factors being equal. To a distant receiving station, a transmitting antenna at 70 feet will provide the effect of approximately 3 to 4 times more transmitter power than the same antenna at 35fset. Depending on the level of noise and interference, this performance disparity is often enough to mean the difference between making distant radio contact with fairly reliable signals, and being unable to make distant contact at all. Thus, the antenna at 35 feet is un satisfactory, while the same antenna at 70 feet is quite satisfactory. The 70-foot height is used only tor the purpose of illustration, however, and should not be construed as the optimum height tor antennas. Heights above 100 feet win give signHieantty better performance than at 70 toet. If an amateur operator is restricted to the use of low antennas, tt is reasonable to assume he wfll Obtain more powerful transmitting equipment to compensate tor the loss of antenna eftoctiveness. For example, he might increase his transmitter power from 500 watts to 1.5 kilowatts, to compensate tor a three-told toss i.i antenna effectiveness because of height limitations. This increase in power, in turn, increases the possibilities tor his sHjnal to overload nearby television and radio receivers, cieaiing intsrferenoe tor viewers and listeners. A high amateur antenna provides a greater degree of immunity from television interference than does a low antenna. The sole source of radiated RF energy from the Amateur Radio station is its antenna. Raising that antenna to an increased height, well above the level of existing antennas tof television reception, will reduce the possibility of interference to television reception from fundamental overload. i Antenna Height and Communications Effectiveness By Gerald L Hail KITO Associate Technical Editor quite K the ot be lights tence The purpose of this paper is to provide general information about communications effectiveness as related to the physical height of antennas The performance of horizontal antennas at heights of 35 and 70 feet is examined in detail. Vertical arrays are not considered here because at shon-wave frequencies, over average terrain and at low radiation angles, they are less effective than are horizontal antennas. lofiospheric Propagation Frequerteies between 3 and 30 megahert': (ab* breviated MHz) are often called the short-wave" bands In engineering terms this range of frequencies is defirted as the high-frequency or HF portion of the radio spectrum. HF radio communications between two points that are separated by distances of more than about 15 to 25 miles depend almost solely upon propagation of radio signals through the icviosphere. The ionosphere is a region of the earth's upper atmosphere which is ionized by ultraviolet rays received from the sun. The ionosphere has the property that it will refract or bend radio waves which pass through it. However, the ionosphere is not one single “blanket" of ionization. Instead, for reasons not fully understood, a few discrete layers are formed at different heights above the earth. From the standpoint of radio propagation, each ionized layer has distinctive characteristics, related primarily to different amounts of ionization in the various layers. The ionized layer which is most useful for HF radio com munications IS called the F layer. The F layer exists at heights varying from approxi mately 130 to 260 miles above the earth's surface. Both the layer height and the amount of ionization depend upon the latitude from the equator the time ot oay. the season of the year, and upon the level of sunspot activity Sunspot activity vanes generally m cycles that are approximately ll years m duration although short-term bursts of activity may create changes in propagation cont^dons that last for less than an hour. The ionosphere is not homogeneous, and is undergoing continual change. The F layer disappears at night in periods of low and medium solar activity, as the ultraviolet energy required to sustain ionization is no longer received from the sun. The amount of bending that will be imparted to a passing radio wave is related directly to the intensity of ionization in this layer, and to the frequency of the radio wave. A triangle may thus be used to portray the cross- sectiortal path of ionospheric radio-wave travel, as shown in Fig 1. The base of the triangle is the surface of the a c ■« ••C. l ‘Via ts**- Fig 1—A simplHied eress-eectional repfesentation ot toAMphehe prepagatton. TypieaPy the F tayer exists at a hei^ of 190 mHes above the eaifh at mid-tatihidea. The distance between the trananiHler and the receiver may range from a few mHes to 2900 miles under normal conditions. earth between two distant points, and the apex of the triangle is the point which represents ref^’action in the ionosphere. If all the necessary conditions are met. the radio wave will travel from the first point on the eanh ’s surface to the ionosphere, where it will be bent suf ficiently to travel to the second point on the earth, many hundreds of miles away. Of course the earth's surface is not a flat plane, but instead is curved. High-frequency radio waves behave in essentially the same manner as light waves —they tend to travel in straight lines, but with a slight amount of downward bending caused by refraction m the air. For this reason it is not possible to communicate by a direct path over distances greater than about 15 to 25 miles in this frequency range. The curvature of the earth causes the surface to “fall away" from the path of the radio wave with greater distances Therefore, it is the ionosphere that permits HF radio communication to be made between points separated by thousands of miles. The range of frequencies from 3 to 30 MHz is unique in this respect, as ionospheric propagation is not consistently supported for any frequencies outside this range. One of the necessary cortditirns for tonospnenc communications is that the radio wave must encounter the ionosphere at the correct angle. This is illustrated in Fig 2. Radio waves which leave the earth at high angles above the horizon may receive only very slight bending, and are then lost to outer space. For the same fixed frequency of operation, as the radiation angle is lowered toward the horizon, a point is reached where the bending of the wave is sufficient to return the wave lONirtC LAVf* iiwiiinhl Tlw to tho oarth. At succtssivaly lowar angles, the wave returns to the earth at increasing distances. N the radio wave leaves the earth at a radiation angle of aero degrees, iust toward the horizon (or just tangent to the earth's surface), the maximum distance that may be reached under usual ionospheric conditions is approximately 2500 r.iiles (4000 kilometers). However, the earth itself acts as a reflector of radio waves. Quite often a radio signal will be reflected from the reception point on the earth into the ionosphere again, reaching the earth a second time at a stiN more distant point. As in the case of light waves, the angle of reflection is the same as the angle of incidence, so a wave striking the surface of the earth at an angle of. say. 15* is reflected upward from the surface at the same angle. Thus, the distance to the second point of reception win be approximately twice the distance of the first. This effect is also illustrated in Fig 2. where the signal travels from the transmitter at the left of the drawing via the ionosphere to Pomt A. in the center of the drawing From Point A the signal travels via the ionosphere again to Point B. at the right. Signal travel from the earth through the ionosphere and back to the earth is called a hop. Under some conditions it is possible for as many as four or five signal hops to occur over a radio path, but no more than two or three hops is the norm. In this way. HF communications can be conducted over thousands of miles. With regard to signal hopping, two important points should be recognized Tirst. a significant loss of signal occurs with each hop. Lower layers of the ionosphere absorb energy from the signals as they pass through, and the ionosphere tends to scatter the radio energy in various directions, rather than confining it in a tight bundle. The earth also scatters the energy at a reflection point. Thus, only a small fraction of the transmitted energy reaches a distant receiving point. A^n refer to Fig 2. Two radio paths (heavy lines) are shown from the transmitter to Point B. a i-h^ path and a 2>hop path. Measurements indicate that although there can be great variation in the ratio of the two signal strengths in a situation such as this, the signal power received at Point B win generiNy be from five to ten times greater tor the i-hop wave than for the 2-hop wave. (Tf>« terrain at the mkFpath reflection point for the 2-hop wave, the angle at which the wave is reflected from the earth, and the condition of the ionosphere in the vicinity of all the refraction points are the primary factors in determmiftg the signal-strength ratio.) Signal levels are generally compared in dedbeis. abbreviated dB. The decibel is a logarithmic unit. Three dec^tels differertce in signal strengths is eguivalent to a power ratio of 2:i: a difference of 10 dB equates to a power ratio of 10:1. Thus, the signal loss for an additional hop is about 7 to 10 dB. The additional loss per hop becomes significant at greater distances. For a simplified example, a distance of 4000 miles can be covered in 2 hops of 2000 miles each or in four hops of 1000 miles each. For illustration, assume the loss for additional hops is 10 dB. or a 1/10 power ratio. Under such conditions, the 4-hop signal will be received with only 1/100 the power or 20 dB below that received in two hops. The reason for this is that only 1/10 of the 2-hop signal is received tor the first additional (3rd) hop. and only 1/10 of that 1/10 for the second additional (4th) hop. It is tor this reason that no more than four or five propagation hops are useful; the received signal becomes too weak to be heard. » TaM* 1 —Propagation Oistanct vartus Radiation Anglo (Data oxtraetad from Fig 3) 500 5n»8i.t «*0* 0<lT*».Ct ~<M ItMt***' tad tranamitaiaa) tor tfio nomina l rango of virtual ttoighta for tlio f and P2 loyora, and for tha FI layar. Tha sacond important point to ba racognizad in multihop propagation ia that tha trigortomatry of tha first hop ganaraHy astablishas tha trigonometry for all succaading hops. And it is tha radiation angla at the transmitter which sets up tha trigonometry tor tha first hop. Solving a propagation triangle is simplified with tha aid of tha graph in Fig 3.' In this graph the radiation angle in degrees is given on tha left, and tha singla-hop distance foi tha affective layar height along tha bottom. Tabia t shows tha optimum propagation distance tor various radiation anj^. Tha data tor this table was read from the graph of Fig 3. based on an assumed F-layar height of 131 miles. From Table 1. if the radiation angle from a given transmitting antenna is concentrated at 30**. tha first and succaading hops in radio propagation will span about 650 miles each. With a usable maximum limit of five hops under the best of conditions, one can protect that the greatest distance tor optimum communications for a 30* wave angle is five times 650 miles, or 3250 miles. For affective communications over greater distances, it would be necessary to lower the radiation angle at the tranamittar antenna site. As will be discussed s.honty, this can ba dona only by increasing the height of tha horn zontal transmitting antenna. Although the discussion in the preceding para* graphs has bean in terms of a transmitting antenna, the same principles apply whan tha antenna is used for recaption. A high antenna will receive low-artgle signals more effactivoly than will a low antenna. The point of these several paragraphs may be summarized briefly: Tha vertical angla of radiation is tha key factor in determining affective communications distances beyond line of sight. fisastion Angie. Dtignn 2 4 8 10 IS 20 30 40 Optimum PfOppgMon Distanet. Mips 22SO 2100 1650 1S00 1200 1000 650 450 Scientists and engineers recognize that mode other the" signal hopping account for the propagatic of radio waves over thousands of miles. Howeve studies of actual radio propagation in which the write has participated have dieplayed signals with as many e 5 hops, so the hopping mode is one distinct possibility Whatever the propagation mode, there is unanimou agreement that the most effective communications at H most often accompany the lowest radiation angle. Horlaental Antennas A simple antenna that is commonly used for H communications is the horizontal half*wave dipole. Th dipole is a straight length of wire (or tubing) into whic radio-frequency energy is fed at the center. Because i its simplicity, the dip^ may be easily subjected t theoretical performance analyses. Further«4he result of proper analyses are borne out in practice. For thes reasons, the half-wave dipole becomes a convenier performance standard against which other antenn. systems can be compared. The dipole antenna, whe: viewed from one end. radiates an equal amount of powe in all directions. Because the earth acts as a reflector for HF radi waves, the directive properties of any antenna art modified considerably by the earth unMrneath it. if dipole antenna is placed horizontally above the earth most of the energy radiated downward from the dipou is reflected upward The reflected waves combine witr the direct waves (those radiated at angles above th^ honzontal) in various ways, depending on the height o the antenna, the frequency, and the electrical character istics of the ground under and around the antenna. At some vertical angles above tne horizon, the direc and reflected waves may be exactly in phase-~that is the maximum signal or field strengths of both waves arr reached at the same instant at some distant point. In thr. Trom The APRL AnUnna Book, 14th edition. Chapter 1 . Fig 12 >HP baexscatier studies by Raytheon Company under contrac with Rome Air Oevekipment Center. Gnffiss AFB. NY. A par of this study was done at Raytheon's South Dartmouth Mass, field site. Jan*Jun. 1960. 1 {toraiMfi Nfw). CM« lh« rttultant fi#W strtngth is equal to the sum of the tvw components. At other vertical angles the two waves may be completely out of phase at some distant point—that is. the fields are maximum at the same instant but the phase directions are opposite. The resultant field strength m this case is the difference between the two. At still other angles the resultant field will have imermedlate values. Thus, the effect of the ground is to increase the intensity of radiation at some vertical angles and to decrease it at others. The elevation angles at which the maxima and minima occur depend primarily on the antenna height above ground (The eiecirical characteristics of the ground have some slight affect.) If the earth is considered to be a perfect reflector, straightforward tngonometnc calculations can be made to determine the relative amount of radiation intensity at any vertical angle for any dipole height. Graphs from such calculatioos may be plotted as circular or polar diagrams, called radiation patterns. Fig 4 shows the vertical radiation pattern for a dipole antenna positioned one^ wavelength above the ground, viewed from one end. and Fig 5 for a height of one wavelength. The radiation from the dipole if in free space is shown by the broken lines, and appear as semncircles In the plots of Figs 4 and 5. the radiation angle Table 2—Electrical Heights For Amateur Bends below 30 MHa Frequency 1.8 MHz 35 7.0 101 140 18.1 21.0 24.1 28.3 35 bet phytKl tmgM 0 06 wavelength 012 025 0.36 050 0.64 0.75 0.89 1 00 70 feef physical height 0 13 wavelength 025 050 072 1 00 1 29 1 49 1.77 1.99 above the horizon is represented m the same tashion mat angles are measured on a protractor. The concentric aretes are calibrated to represent ratios of field strengms. referenced to the strength represented by the outer circle. The circles are calibrated in decibels. Diminishing strengths are plotled toward the center. Antenna heights are usually discussed in terms of wavelengths. The reason for this is that the length of a radio wave is inversely proportional to Its frequency. There'ore a fixed physical height will represent different electrical heights at different radio frequencies. For example, a height of 70 feet represents one wavelength at a frequency of 14 MHz. But the same 70-foot height represents only ^/z wavelength ter a frequency of 7 MHz. Foi physical antenna heights of 35 and 70 feet. Table 2 shows the electrical heights In wavelengths for all the amateur bands below 30 MHz. The lobes and nulls of the pattern of Figs 4 and 5 illustrate what was described earlier, that the effect of the earth beneath the antenna is to increeae the intensity of radiation at some vertical angles and to d^rease it at othart. At a haiQht of Mi wavalanfllh (Fiq 4), tha radiated energy is strongest at a radiation angle of 30*. sn angle which was determined earlier to provide a maximum effective communications distance of about ■yean miles under the conditions assumed. The pattern of Fig 4 represents the radiation from a dipole ter 14 MHz at a height of 35 feet. As the horizontal antenna is raised to even greater heights, additional lobes are termed, and those that exist move closer to the horizon. But yet the maximum amplitude of the existing lobes is not diminished. As may be seen from Fig 5. ter an antenna height of wavelengm. the energy in the lower lobes is strongest at 15* And Table l indicates that the optimum propagation distance per hop for 15* is 1200 Under the very same conditions as before, 5*hop propagation, one may see that the optimum communication no*' is 5 * 1200 or 5000 miles. The pattern of Fig 5 represents a i4-MHz * height of 70 feet. Thus, ter the conditions assumed, the optimum communications distance has been extend^ fr^ 3250 miles to 6000 miles, merely by raising the r I fk fI' th r'- r compass dirsctions. as a solid tins. The broken line in Fig 6 showrs the pattern of a haif-waveiength dipole, for comparison. Fig 7 shows the elevation plane or vertical- profile pallem. This pattern is that seen from the ends line again repieaents the Vagi, and the broken line the dipole, that‘‘perfact cede** which was mentioned earlier. Performance of most other Yagi-type arrays with three or four elements will not be significantly different from the patterns shown here. Another oflan-used type of becm antenna is the quad array. TypicaNy. a quad is constructed with two or more wire alemama in the form of a square or a diamond. The conducting wires are usuaNy supported by X-shaped frames of wood or fiberglass material. For the same number of elements and spacing, the performance of a quad beam is generally similar to that of a Yagt beam. The vertical patterns of Figs 4 and 5 were calcuiaied by assuming the earth is a pertsct reflector, an unrealistic situation. Actual earth does not reflect all of the radio- frequency energy striking it: some absorption takes place. Over real earth, therefore, the patterns wiN be slightly different, depending upon the electrical con ductivity and dielectnc constant of the soil, and upon the radio frequency. Computer programs are available to take these factors mto account, and reliable relculations of patterns over real earth may be made. Yagi patterns over real earth are shown in Figs 8 through 14. These patterns were calculated with an Apple He personal computer.* “Average” soil conditions were used for these plots, that is. a conductivity of 5 miHisiemens per meter arKl a dielectric constant of 15.« These patterns compare the performance of Yagi arrays at heights of 3$ and 70 feet. In Figs 8 through 12. the broken line is the plot for a 35-foot height, and the solid line for 70 feet. For 24.9 and 28 MHz. Figs 13 and 14. it is helpful to present the 35- and 70-foot patterns in separate graphs, tor clarity. Otherwise the multiple lobes become indis tinguishable. commercisHy avaiiabie software program. ANNIE, was used to calcuiaie ail patterns presented m this paper *$uen soil conditions may be considered typical (or the central part of tne United States, such as the Ohio and Mississippi river valleys. •C Fig S—Vertica l profile pattern of a 7-MHz Yagi beam over average earth at a height of 70 feet (solid line) and at 35 feel (broken line). ^0 at 70 feel (aoNd haa) and at 38 feat (brekan Nna) Fig 10—Vertical profile patiam of a i4-MHa Vagi beam at 70 feat (solid Hno) and at M foot (broken Kne). Fig 11—Vertical-prefilo pattom of an ig.l-MNz Yagi beam at 70 feet (solid line) and at 35 foot (broken lino). Fig 12—Vortlcai<^rofilo pattern of a 21-MHa Yagi beam at 70 feet (solid line) and at 35 feet (broken line). 1 f II & t ■ K ■i:., |c i,:> |h:,,m k \ i‘ '-■ antenna from 35 to 70 fee* Evan grtater heights would provide stiN greater communications distances unoer the same conditions The radiation angle of the lowest lo&e for a hori zontal antenna above the ground may be determined mathematicaHy: $ > sin-I 0.2S where 9 « the wave angle or radiation angle h a the anter^na height above ground in w»v9i9ngths (see Table 2) In short, the higher the horizontal antenna, the lower is the lowes* looe of the pattern. Therefore, the higher an HF antenna can be placed, the farther it will provide effective communications because of the resulting lower radiation angle. This is true for any horizontal antenna Electrical Charaderisttcs of HF Antennas As mentioned previously, a dipole antenna, when viewed from one end of the cortductor. radiates an equal amount of power in all directions. The plotted radiation pattern is a perfect circle, if the dipole is vertical, this circle represMts the azimuth coverage, with an equal amount of power radiated m every compass direction. For point-to-point communications, however, it is bene ficial to concentrate the radiated energy into a beam which is aimed toward a single distant point. An analogy can be made by comparirtg the light emanating from a bare electric lamp to that from an autorm^ile headlight. For illuminating a distant point, the headlight is far more effective. Antennas designed to concentrate the radiated energy into a beam are called beam antennas For a fixed amount of trartsmitter power fed to the transmitting anMnna. beam antennas provide increased sigrtal strength at a distant receiver. In radio communications, the use of a beam antenna is also beneficial during reception, because the antenna pattern for transmission IS the same as for reception. A beam antenna helps to reiect signals from unwanted directions, and in effect boosts the strength of signals received from the desired direction. The increase in signal or field strength which a beam antenna offers is frequently referenced to a dipole antenna by a term called gam. Gam is commonly expressed in decibels. One type of beam antenna is a Vagi, named after one of its Japanese inventors. Different varieties of Yagi antennas exist, each having somewhat different characteristics. Many antennas erected for television reception are a form of multi element Yagi beam. Subsequent discussions in this paper refer to a 3-element Yagi array, one having a driven element, a parasitic director and a parasitic reflector. The parasitic elements are not fed any power directly; instead they are excited through mutual coupling to the driven element, and in turn also radiate power. Each parasitic element is spaced 0.2 wavelength from the driven element, and r-o Fig a Compmar cslculalaa azUnuth-plaiie ra diaW en panel Nne). Fig 7—Compyier-calculated eievation-plaiie or vertical- profile patiem of a horiaomal Vagi arr^, solid Mne. and for a campariaen dipole, broken line. These panama are those seen from the ends of the alemerMs with the antennas in free apace. the theoretical gam of this array, determined through computer analysis, is 7.2 dB over a dipole. This means that for the same transmitter power, the effective radiated power of the Yagi in its favored direction is 5.2 times that of the dipole in the same direction. The theoretical front- to-back ratio of the Yagi antenna is 12 dB. meaning the power radiated in its forward direction is. 15.7 times that radiated in the opposite direction. Values for a practical antenna of this type are quite close to theordticai. Computer-calculated radiation patterns for the horizontal Yagi array are presented m Figs 6 and 7. Fig 6 shows the azimuth plane, the response in various |htsvnaneeme*Kitwii )5 feet. I. thOM g over w Yagi h Yagi. yagi at hrough hrough mataur ibla 3. 70 feat for all It. This ness at I lower infield that the propa* tronger e same Kodtice luperior s being erence, re often [distant I unable I'i: V small antennas »that they nBessino radio waves, and are therefore less effwtiw mSSI?up incominO•fficieney. Pickup elliaency isto transmitted signals as wen asobtain higher pickup efficiency and therefore greaw oommumcations effectiveness, many antenna elemeritt SrjIowwmd^HF and UMF. The elements are usually SiSS^ multiple booms. even at ei.veied he«ht*. are ineffective beyond a few mHes at these frequency ranges. This is true because of low pickup efficiency and becau» of tfw omnidirectional characteristK; of ttw »wked Vertical ndiHors if# iCKt>tlifTi#s us0d to obtoin Qiin wit omnidirectional coverage. .Lim* Although iooospheric propagation does sometimes occur at the lower *id of the VHF range, prop^non at too MHi and above is almost always over« sight path. Undar usual conditions* signals at these frequencies encounter very little refraction in air. Ther^ fore It behooves a person using these frequencws to his antenna as high as possible, so it can see farther. Certainly the antenna must be above sur^ rounding objects, such as dense foliage and man-made structures. Such objects absorb radio-frequency energy in this portion of the spectrum, and therefore » block the signal from propagating. Objects such as hills, steel structure* and many commercial or industrial buildings wiH block VHF signals to an even greater degree, creating ••shadows ” behind them. At VHF and UHF. the lowest lobes for Yagi arrays at 35 and 70 feet are only a few degrees kb<)ve the nonzontal. However, for Hne-of-sight cortwnunicati^s. the radiation angle should be zero, if possible, wnles* one ¥wshes to communicate with airplanes or objects in outer space. Even more desirable are negative angles from high localions. so the antenna can "look down on the terrain. At VHF and UHF the radiation angles for 3S-foot heights are twice those occurring for the 70-foot heights. Therefore at VHF it is also beneficial to place the antenna as high as possible, and in the clear from surrounding objects. Amateur Radio operators w<shir>g to contact other amateurs at great distarices use a time-worn but true expression. "For the best results, put your antenna as high as you possibly can.*' Many amateurs in various parts of the world put their big antennas atop 120-foot towers, and enjoy communications with amateurs in foreign countries when rwighboring amateurs with much lower antennas cannot even hear the foreign signals. Concluaion The preceding information has dealt with antyi^ height and communicatioos effectiveness, it ha* been shown that for aM amateur frequencies, high horizontal antennas will outperform low antennas. Information has been developed to show a consistent power gain of the higher antennas over low ones, that is. at 70 feet and 35 feet. The 70-foot height was chosen only for the purpose of illustratior and is not inte..d*d to be construed as the optimum height for antennas. Heights above 100 feet will give significantly better performance than at 70 feet. I* is reasonable to assume that if an amateur operator is restricted to the use of low antennas, he will obtain transmitting equipment with a corresponding incrtiM in powtf output to cofiiptnoilo tor the loss o antenna effectiveness. For example, he might increase his transmitter power from 500 watts to l .5 kilow atts to coTTtoenaato for a three-loW toss in antenna effective^ because of height limitatioos. It should be realized that this increase in power, in turn. Increase* the posaibilitxw for his stronger signal to overload nearby television and radio receiver*, creating interference for viewer* and listeners. There is one further consideration concerning amateur antenna height with regard to television and radio interference. In essence, the sole source of radiated RF energy from an Amateur Radio »**J[^*'*• antenna. Raising that antenna to an »ncre^^ght. far above the level of existing antenna* reception, will reduce the possibility of intertemnce to television reception from fundamental overload. ler than iquency the ultra irs 30 to lOMHz. that HF degree. I to that tndUHF ntennas iptimum Hysically r— ' I tvmateur radio emergency serviceSPONSORED BY THE ABERICAN RADIO RELAY LEAGUE____________ AMsr ifiT • caufonii rm r*r««t rir«, itflktiiifit. - t • *• *»•••• —* ** 4«€l«r«4 • MirfMtf. V.9. f*r*«t s«r«l«« ■■•ifwrtw, •€ «a4 ** h*«« ji««4 tiMir ««ii mtrn •r^r’ ••fit t« •••!•% tlM t.SM 9*^u «li« Im4 t# ••••••t# tMIr !»••••• MAltli Mii ••••■f «*«r« ••n« («r tiM US ——iw In tM M4 cw Sa«t««r r«4t« •!•«• t—4. «h«ii tMf ••rwi*t «««4«4 f*r vrIcrttT flw . Mmn iw - im nruiiN TtvM. iffttfi* • t«ii ktllM tKr«« •i»4 tMrtf— ■••• fr««S4*4 ««MNMl««tl«fM (•r 4*4 Cr««« 9—f *t r««p«. CM14r«a«. A««rlll« aaS StchlU r«ll* lata th# 4taaatar araa.• tM rolk Cmmntt mmmrttmr 41r«atar an4 tM •••••"4 faat> imn iiii - Mil 4raiita Paaa« Orataa - Tha valMr Hawitaln lira raaalta4 la aatakUaMat a M4 Craaa aaaaM* tlaa aaatar* at Nartta. iaaa llnka4 tM aaatar, M4 •ctar aa4 tM Jaaa»hlaa Caaatr •••rfaaay aaar4laatar» l***atf Maa 4aaata4 144 Mara af aar- •laa. imait ifN • ttuui wtm l^aalaaaa. SlaMaa - aa4a 4aatr«ira4 taalaa Maaa^ 4a«ata4 atMra. Ml atilt-* tlaa <alla4. M4 Craaa a<4ia4 far aaataar ra41a aaalataaaa with Caa4 aaralaa aa4 aMltar taaaa. Caaaaalaatlaaa aara aatMlIaM •4 Mtaaaa ■■aaaaS Maaa aaS tM aaaaataa ***** ralatlat ta aa4ialaa« faa4. aMltar. atataa •f alatlaa aa4 ralatlvaa Mtnw iMi * uiiius. fw* istiTH. tmiisii mum Savara ifcanlaratacaa and tar- nifr-. aitk M4 MM ataSa. htlla« •la vaarl*« l«J»ra4 IS« and laft Aaataar ITS aalfara lira atatl< tM afaaant aant Nan* ur itii * cu. TUI cut ofimua •aharaflald. Callfamfa * Pit* rallraad tank cara avartumad and bafan laakini a valatlla taxi* aaMtaaca. TM Mlflt acMal and a haarltal aara avacaatad. Naa radla aparatar* aara callad for aaaltnnanta to varlowa eaaaunlea' tlon poota atth tM fir* and pol*- Ica dopartaanta. mr llfl * lOIA TIAIIS CULIPI Altoona, lo*»a - Two frat«ht train# collldaO. Two klllad. Cara containing denatured alcohol overturned, crestlnc roieibllltv of lar^c eiplcelon. 1.iOO tc lofioit iwi - TMTictt noli inn 4alf Caaat of Plorlda - Star* aaartamad a traatar^rallar rif carrylMf aathpl bronlda fa*. Cal liar Caontp M«* aada r*41* •antact alth -Chaotraa- far tM fir* *M*f. CMatraa 1* a ***** lal aaarfanay aantar aatabllaMd bp tM CMnlaal Tranapartar* Aaa- aalotlan. TM Maw o**4 ^aata- yatah* t* alloa tM ahlaf ta •paak 4ir**tlp to CMatraa a€f- iclala. (TM naaraat pMn* t* th* accldant aaana «•* thra# alia* awar.l ^ Tha acaldant acattorad It l.SOO pound cpllndar* of tM danforoua f**. S 1**4 rafulrad araa a*aauatlon. TM haao **t up radla eantaet batuaao th* aaor- fanap oparatlona aantar and tM •aMol atraaMlloo aantar. aatab- llahlnf anothar autopateh link. lOTUSCt iTii * iici< iiuTics ritt Conooo*. Hlchlfan • Plr* In a plaatloa aanufaaturlnp plant, fiumod Ub*lo proeont*d idantld- catlon. dOO local raoldenta -ere evacuated, Tho radio aaataore operated at the fir* halt, c«n- ♦ral dlepetch and the dleaater . . - • a, • f 1 rnntd»r. d*partn*nta. IM A«4 Crau* and tM Saluattan Atop u«ra pravldad radla caaaonlcatlana bp IM haaa. *• lira f ifhtara aM tuu aoataur radla aparatar* uar* traatad far Tha aaataur* aantactad fal- lau hau. uM 1* a raaaarah *Mo- lat far Mu Chanlaal Carparatlan. In Midland. uM uaa ahl* ta Idan- tlfp tM aMalaala and ft«u *d> ulc* abaat^aapandfnf. ulci im * turn Himu LaCranda. drapan - A aara- alalbllttp bllaaard. ulth M MM uind*. atraadad oatarlat*. «*■* pravldad aaooanlaatlan* far tM anarpanep uanapanant afClaa. tM Salvatlan Arup, tM aaarfanep ap- aratlan* aantar. tM charch **ae- uatlan alt* and CM aaarch-and* raaca* taaaa nannlnp tha raad alaaura*. iniK im - unin-iiiiiiou ruu Part*. Marth OtMta t* Mar- haad. Hlnnaaata - Alaar araatad la-faat abav* flaad atapa (tMlr uaroc flaad af thia cantarpi. Th* aaataur radla aparatar* par* tialpatad In -fkpuam*'. far tM Aatlanal vaathar Aarvlc*. nannlnt tM aaarpancp aparatlana aantar. tM diaaatar aarviaaa praup*. tM aaaauatlan aantar. tM Amp Carp* af Knplnaar*. Aad Craaa and tM aaontp aoarpanap' aaardinatar* alanp tM flaad raat*. Th* haaa *1** aanliarad laakp dlka* and Mlpad aaardlnat* aand* Mpplnp aaaMnldatlana far tM Amp Carp* *f Mpinaara. Thirty haaa part 1*1 pot ad In tho thr*o- do| ac.lattp. jm lilt ' UllSIMt TOUllo dreooo Toto, Loulolono - A vlalont tornado dootreyod ooo- Chlrd of tho toun, bllllnp tuo and Injurlop aanf. Tho hano uolnp tho Aootdalo ropoator aeundod CM alara, notlfplnp tho atot* Patrol, A*d Croo* and olhor dloaetor proape. Th* Baton Aoupo woather bur**u h*d not dotoetod th* tornado prior to th* hao radio alari, uithln 90 nlnutoa tha haaa were iraoaolttln^ eaerponcy and welfare *eeea9ee for thalr con- eunliy. Ae the tornudo moved to- I r«port« toth« w#«th«r hrnvum irh«i» th« l9«tion«l til*to •••t«t thoo oitd tK# loo ooforcoooni oCCfololo. A%oot 00 oootoor ro4U o^otoro holr* o4 dortfif tho 4loootor«mi im' «iiMi loutr riitHartUMCtani Or«t«« “ t.MO %tT9 fir*«r«r««t tf«c«« r«4i« m» «w««klr •v«rl««4«4 Mitli frM th« Mur •ttar <lr« Tti« r*r««t t«rvf<« tin mmtftrt «a«4 r«4i« to tH* Wm cmm In th* fir« •r«M< C*ln«14MU«llT* tiM r«rt«t t«lh t« th* Puerto R1««im «boutth» 4«o«9« •••••■oont roperte.Scyt. lUI - flrfli liUt4iM|n4o In oiicooo of ttO MPR. 9 o«om klllo4 In 4t. Crolv* ulth of th* honoo 4*«tr«r*4. to- tuoon to «n4 tS hono octtvRlr op«r«to4 4urlnf Itio otom.f«rt. I1-J4 - Htrto IICO «M* llnk«4 tiMt OTM ultk tto «nlto4 Ontlnno ntotlon* In 0«u T«rk CItf. *n4 nitk tk* too**’*” M«t of 0ofono«« In VnaMntton. t.C.« t# rkfort nn th« «st«nt «C civil 4lMr4tr. tt. CpoI« In • vcatv «f anarchf, with j«tl ^iMncro IOM«. —pcknnto Im14- Inf invlvr*- kt fvn foint *n4 Inckl follo* ***(’• rvportlnf f«r 4irtf. tlilfl Mn <nffllv4••rvicv M4 fivvn tiM nnat fvrnimlan to tot *0 thvlP "4»ont mf«rn«tlon« 0r«ol4«nt liMk «r- Sfrlnfc* rctootor. «t tfca S.SOO- rcfnlor tony irtof* •••< font Ittol In tto tlto MwnUlnc. to-St. Crnlx tn rootnrv Tiilo rofootor. otooMo •( tktov ^tor. ton rn4i« Iwn41«4 tto m- •t«to ontocnfo# ••• ooni for tto ano tM 4«ol*lnn«. ionv fire oonnwnltotlonk, Ito fcn*- tncln4*4 In tto tor** Inna yvar tto tono tolfc^ «ltli toM«. Into tto 4I mii« tto T«to* totto firv. (ar «lt««« to Mtokllvn aOOItton- •1 cMMinlMttnn*. ■ana ototlnna atoar4 tto Vto Val4a«« nlilali «aa at tto toarta I.rt • Mth of aooth on4 4v- M«o" toval laaa. too41a4 tlJ lUTi* iViViTaWY. ViTaTr "alS anoa In tto ttatoa. ton ro4lo 1989 - CALIFORNIA QUAKETho third lor^ooi oorth^ooko to hit tho coiillfioiltol Ufiiooo $lotoo thlo eoffiturya on Ootohor ITtha ItM# Momrlny 7«t on tho Rlchtor ocolOo honr dood« tnjar- od ond honoiooo.In donto Cnfi Coynty« 4d nlloo oouth of Son Froncloooa Sft tioooo ooro dooiroyodf 2040 onfforod hoooy dooofo oad fltO ninor don* OfOv 440 nohilt hoots osrt dos- troyod or rooolsod oo>or dooofOn lOfOOO stools ooro hooslooof «lth SfOOO of thoo rsoolfiiiif hooslsoo two oortho of tor tho foolio. Tho s«oko ooo contorod ot Sonto Crot ond tho dooofs oroo ovtondod froo tho Ooklond/Son rroficlooo oroo# on tho north sod# to tho OolOlotor/Sollfioo oroo# on tho oootha Tho o^oko lootod IS 1969 - HQRRICAIIE HUGO Tto Santa Cmt araa Ianca4 all4aa, 4anaya4 krl4faa, clnaa4 r#a4a an4 laaa af panar an4 talapfcanaa. Many ra41a caaavniaatlana circat'ta fallaS- Ona Santa Crvt toapital rv- falra4 avacvatlan aC patlanta to attor toapitala* 4aa ta atntetwr^ at 4aaafa. Tto toaa caar4lmta4 aabalancaa an4 hallcaptara. SInca lha hallaaptara 414 nat toaa ra4ta cantkct 4lraatly altli tto toapltata aaataar ra4la «aa aaa4 ta ralay tto lanStny altaa. Sana alaa rapartaS paa laaka* brakan vatar an4 aavar llnaa. Saaa vara aaalpnaS ta aaarah-an4- raaewa taana ta tolp trappaS vlc- tlaa In callapaa4 bull4lnfa. Of tka 310 aaataar ra4la aalantaara abavt kalf af than vara aaaIfnaS baan« Una. Sanaa an4 nalfhtortoaSa .ririlkil' vara tarna4 Into ratola. Tka ••• £2 11?- lilittlirillkaaa aarva4 favarnnant ani val- •••tt CtfOlIM far# apanctaa. locla4lnp Clall Saaaiva Saatrvctlon. I3S HPS Oafanaa, tka Sa4 Craaa an4 tka vlnSa, pavar llnaa an4 traaa 4avn satlanal toari. a"4 raafa callapalnp. Tka kaaa Safara tka atara kit, bapln- bapan praparlnp far tka atara an ninp Saptaabar Utk, aaataar Saptaabar IStk, arpanltlnp aan- ra41a nata vara aat vp’an 30 bara an4 raaaaraaa. Ttoy raaaln- aatara ani aparataS aantinaaaaly a4 aatlat far tka na«t 10 4aya, Swty v|tk tto Sad Craaa 4vrlnp far tto nait nlna 4aya. Offlalal llnkinp aarlaua aatrpancy apara- afpkt-4ay parla4. paaariiaant aaaaapaa, 4aaapa ra- tiap aaatara far tto Oapartvant yka Oaklan4/San rranclaca araa parta, valfara Inpalrlaa an4 of Snarpancy Prapara4naaa, tka aaffaraO laaa 4aaapa tkan Santa Sa4 Craaa# satlanal Oaatkar Str- alaa# toapltala# Satlanal 0var4 an4 tka lacal pallca atatlana fvkan pavar an4 pkanaa vara 4avnt. VI tk aoaa atatlana and antan- atkar Infaraatlan vaa It and I laf apanalaa and far 4tflaaatla alaa tana lacatad la Waaklaplaa# o.c. Saaa In Trinidad# St. Lacla# Ooainlca# St.‘-vineant and otkar loaatlana nada aantaat vltk atataalda kana vka paaaad tka kaaltk^and-aalfara aaaaapaa ta ralatlvaa ani frianda in tka V.S. Tka aaataar radta *Svrrlaana vatak* nat abt*lnad aataoralapl- cal raparta fraa kaaa In tto path of tka atara, Includlnp ona kaa Mkeaa baat anaaeactar vaa raadlnp 170 MPN wind#. Thaaa raportc vara paaaad rapularly to tha Nat ional Hurrleana Cantar# In Mlaat, Florida. Tha Acarican Radio Ralay Laa9u« haadauartara atatlon, viAW, In NawJnctcn, Connecticut, prowldad .‘'panlah-apaaklng haita to Crvs kvt it kod tto proatoot looa of Ufa vkan tto ona alia atratak •C tka Slnltt Praavay a#llapoad on caro ualnp tka lavor tavol. Part of tha 1-00 Bay Bridpa alao collapaad. Tvanty-tvo of Oak- nao daatroyad# and vltk tk# Mpk i«nd*a larpaot bwiidinpa avffarad •anpovor drain on local kana# aBovt 390 nllllen dollar# In dan- volvntaar kan oparatora c#m to Bovtk Carolina fro* naarby otataa Fifty kana aaalaiad tto nany to oaalot. In addition to kaaay •Baltara oporatlnp tn San fTan- tnarpancy traffic# tka kaoa elaeo, vltk nany acvlnp froo aa tondlad aoMunlcatlona eeordlna- tlnp tka dlatrlbvtlon of food, vator# ctothlnp and othar aaaan- tlal Itaaa Fraparad by N7JCH. Iroa In- forvatlon condanaad froa tha aora datallad raporta which appaar aonthiy. In tha -Public Sarvlca” coluana of OST aapailna, which 1* publlahad Dy tha Auarlcar Radio Pf»liiy L#ec\i«. fsr ssiif hslp. 4S OrsfoA snS / ■•■•-V ■■ ,- V •■i?r-PPI^T • / »\0jr^' - Iaam^'M m. ' ?T^.vv • >r '■;' ■'■*•>''< ■• • W<v '>•> • |-k- •■'‘N>, .i .:. < , ,^4'-s.' •■'• 1-^.’ .f-:<4.*.<.-^f ■ V^■;-r -^ .' - • ; -'-v. -t- V Mmm. WMXXMM ' ' 6i *S» \ ^ a Ml®lil ’ -<«>»- .^4i ■>. '"‘''' Hi <4 : <'• • , 4 •' ••? *<*^- . 1 ;•.■;* '■-■ / *■> ■■*'■ W \ % ' ik k ^ ^P i #' •'«. m fX^titer '" -w .■-. r% '>i;» r.4«i :^^ :^ - -Vs-?':v ■^:;.-'iAH-. . ■..'». ....■-•<-1.-i! Pf -■^^ry .■Si* CSBasB^” ■-«3'W .4 ■. # "5^ fv-j j;r_:; ' ,;s"> V^*" i A 5 ] X’A m^m$m .utSSKkm ■iiX'X'-h.: X:-M ■ '■• ' X ’ r - i • r;«. ;•; ;<- I p 'f rSsS^ W I IMS' iklk* \% %.l m f W J >m* . ir^ /OA Universal Manufacturing Co. 43900 Groesbeck Hwy Clinton Twp.. Ml 48036 (3131 463-2560 FAX (313) 463-2904 FREE STANDING ALUMINUM TOWER No need for unsightly and space consuming guy wires lightweight-RUST FREE-EASY TO ASSEMBLE-RUGGED STRENGTH FOR TV - FM • HAM RADIO - INDUSTRIAL INSTALLATIONS • FIRE - POLICE - MARINE -CB CHOOSING THE PROPER TOWER Tower 4*500€t€rmln« the projected tree of the entenne thmt you Intend to eount* This figure le often In the lltereture thet coaee vith the encenne. Standard T.V. antennea are about tvo equere feet in area; 6 & 10 seter beama and large T.V. antennae utilize 3 eq. ft. aodela; 20 & 40 Mter beaM utilize 9 aq. ft. aodele; large 20 4 40 aeter beeaa or aultlple antenna arraya utilize 18, 22, 26 aq. ft. aodele. Aleo take Into conalderatlon when ualng a rotator add 1 aq. ft. plua 1 eq. ft. for aaer to vhaterer elte antenna you Intend to uae. Decide on the tover height thet you vent. Unlveraal tovera era aade you aany poaaible alzea and the ability to add aectlona later. in 10 foot acctiona to glee Chooae the tower aodel that la recoaaended for you. The aodcl nuaber la aerely the vlnd loading followed by the height alze. For exaaple, if your antenna calculation reaulted in a tower dealgned for five aquare feet and you wlah it to be 50 feet high, the eodel you want ie 5-50. The table on page 5 %rlll tell you about your tower. It la reconended that you do not exceed 6 ft! above top of tower with any antenna configuration. example, * f V j-.: j-'k ^ / ^\ wm ' V 80ft. roof mounfed guyed tower. . r Model 5-50 Tower 11 Top 14 Top 14 Sir rn 18 Top I • u I 18Str VAR^TTY: I'nlvy..! To«.r. .r. .arrut.d .Mln.t d.f.ctlv. u(«rUl or vorluun.hlp and are Pvtar'fron^purchaal bv rtplacement onlv If failure reaulta from these factors within .. P*‘* ''•*■'^•1''' not eatend to an* jf our producta which have been .ubiected to ^hlch havriir1'* ‘»«*llattoo or application, nor ,h.U It -..tend to ..nlta of ItrnLr eubatantlall, altered out.lde of our factor*. Thla warranty la In*aeu of all other werrantlee expressed or I-^pl!ei. 0 B18 \RY 1990 heavy duty TOWERS > in squar* faat) 4 SQ•f^ 4 8 sq.ft. 9 sq.ft trl If 's. ‘O i.ft.sq.ft H.D. 40 Ft. \35-40 lieie H.D. 50 Ft. V'-A / » L-50 , ..-724 H.D.9-60 16-60 21-60 60 Ft.$1808 $2176 $2294 H.D.8-70 12-70 17-7021-70 70 Ft.$2034 $2519 $2749 $2864 H.D.8-80 9-80 11-80 12-80 16-80 80 Ft.$2603 $2716 $3085 $3090 $3317 H.D.4-90 8-90 11-90 90 Ft.. $2710 $3198 $3666 H.D. 100 Ft. 4-100 8-100 PBICCS SuaJfCT lO CHANG! WITHOUT NOTICE NOTi: Abova pncts do not includa occMtorias. ■■■ ’ $3630 $3884 1 1 1 1 30”! tapered section ACCESSORIES 30" straight section $670.00 Flat Roof Mounts RFM - 30 - $186.52 For Guyed Towers BEARING $90.70 l-5/8"SC 4-B , , , $116.522-3/l6"SC 4-B •1r ( «s 4 • j > • a ►'0 Hole for the B-30 Tower, - 5*x5‘x6* deep, with 6 cu. yd. concrete. The B-30 base should be bolted to the bottom Tower section of your particular configuration This will insure correct equilateral spread of base. While concrete is setting up, base can be leveled by using a carp enters level on the upright section used to keep the base spread. Allow concrete 3 to 4 days to set up, before erecting balance of tower. WOTt; aw Wntt sKawia w» mawwi •! cucrf fwtwiwwaad. CAIITtON no MOT VOID VOU« WARBAMTV TOP PLATE Flange Bearing Mount- $2124 This plate to be WELDED to Top Section, (as shown below) Iheight ■ A WfINO LOAD safT IWCIGHT] C ■ Lts SECTIONS MHtCH COMPRISE TOl^R ISif Str«i^i Tap Tip0<I^Top BASE %fA lb -al '/A U.90 90 U.36 8-90 90 7.20 H.D, U-90 90 10.79 j • SB H.D. U-100 I 100 I U.36 H.D, 8-100 100 7.U9 |h.d.35-Uo 1 Uo [3U.50 1 1 30 Tap. 26 Tap. 22 Tap. l8Top j B-30 | Ih.d.21-50 50 21.08 1 1 190 30 Tap. 26 Tap. 22 Tap.^8Tap.j I Ih.d.9-60 60 9.29 202 30 Tap. 26 Tap. 22 Tap. l8Tap. | lU Tap. llTy[B-30 1 1 H.D.16-60 1 60 16.37 237 30 T^. 26 Str. 26 Tap. 22Tap 1 « y) I 18 Tap lUTop 1 1 1 H.D.21-60 60 a.o8 1 1 256 30 Str. 30 Tap, 26 Tap. 22Tap.| I 18 Tap. lUTop II 1 H.D.8-70 70 1 7.07 1 1 30 Tap. 26 Tap. 22 T^. l6Str.| B-3oH 18 Tap. lU Tap. UTop J 1 H.D.12-70 70 U.91 1 30 Str. 30 Tap, 26 Tap. 22Tap. _ ^ 1 18 Str. 18 Tap. lUTop ®“30 1 1 H.D.17-70 70 16.37 303 30 Str. 30 Tap. 26 Str, 26Tap.l | 22 Tap. 18 Tap. lUTop | | 1 H.D.21-70 70 121.08 322 30 Str, 30 Str. 30 Tap. 26Tap. B-30 | 22 Tap. 18 Tap. lUTop | | 1 H.D.8-60 80 7.27 283 30 Tap. 26 Str. 26 Tap. 22Str.| b-30 | 22 Ttp, 18 Tap. lU Tap. UTop | | 1 H.D.9-80 80 T9.29 1 1 30 Str. 30 Tap.26 Tap. 22Str. « ^ | 22 Tap. 18 Tap. lU Tap. UTop 1 H.D.11-80 1 80 10.79 337 30 Str. 30 Tap. 26 Str. 26Tap.| | 22 Str. 22 Tap. 18 Tap. lUTop | | 1 H.D.12-80 80 |u.91 1 1 351 30 Str. 30 Str. yi Tap. 26Tap. 22 Tap. 18 Str. 18 Tap. lUTop I 1 H.D.16-80 80 15.7U 369 30 Str. 30 Str. 30 Tap. 26Str. - - 26 Tap. 22 Tap. I8 Tap lUTop | | 296 350 U03 U13 U35 .z, L w ^ mm II * 1 0 a ^ •F" 30 Tap. TO OW. TO lap. 22 Tap. 18 Tap. lU Str. lUTap.l UTop ' 30 Str. 30 Tap. 26 Str. 26Tap.| b-30 22 Str. 22 Tap. I8 Tap. lUStr. lUTor 30 Str. 30 Str. 30 Tip. 2^tr., 26 Tap. 22 Str. 22 Tap. l8Tap.l _________________lUTop * 30 Str. 30 Str. 30 Str. 26 T*. 22 Tap. 18 Tip. lUStr. ® ^ lU Tap. UTop 30 Str. 30 Str. 30 Str. ^ J -. 26 Tap. 22 Str. 22 Ta>. If lU Str. lU Tor' B-30 UNIVERSAL TOWERS I.) Check the instructions for your particular base to dig proper size hois* Place each ten-foot tower section end to end in correct order of asseoblyi start by putting the bottoa section at which place the tower will stand. Mike sure enough clearance exists so that the tower can later be walked up to its upright positio.i without overhead interference. 2.) Bolt the U>tton 10 feet of tower to the base and place it in the hoie. Be sure tilt direction is coounon for all base legs and positioned proper ly as concrete is poured. 3.) Getting bottow section plunb is very iaportant. While concrete is setting up, base can be levelled by using a carpenters level on the up right of the section used to keep the base spread. 4.) Allow 3 to 4 days for concrete to set up. 5.) Remove one bolt from each front; leg and three bolts from rear leg as shown. Tilt bottom 10 ft. sec tion to ground and connect reaain- ing to««r sections into the final assembly. Attach all wiring and fit antenna to tower. 6.) Walk up tower to its upright posi tion, replacing boits in the base to secure the tower. i f. i i ^ 4 --------- r n V : f 1 Universal Manufacturing Co. 43900 Groesbeck Hwy. Clinton Tvyp., Ml 48036 (313) 463-2560 FAX (313) 463-2964 ALUMINUM TOWER Mi • tt ■ V** n I ;• ♦ 4 ! 1 11 • i •It ti i,/ I \ m iBI m > ' .^5 ‘Tti t- '''\n mmm PR\-^ / >1 !>•' ' V- ^ t • ■ » % ¥; ■f<:- • • 'T '■«* t3 - • If; in^ •> ^ » ♦ K K. r •I'pym ........v»* KE NO OBJECTIONS TO HIM •• •• y-i •: * . v..:■ , . • ;= ; :t . , >• ;■• •^ .,-f ;-V.'Aft;-. .■•.••-• ;• * '■ *, ; '•' .' .. X •..' • « . . ; rV . :• *-V ' ;. /{ .' ■ -y: :V' ■ :.■■:■ ■■:T' ''-. r/ :‘v-- ^ .^ . ;•'H' uy-':-}' :v ‘ - :■>: .-.y y ■•r ■■■■:>r -T ''' nyimpyy' yy/f - ' • ppy ’'-^'-'^ m :y. ' • ' 'Piyy•.. V • • i ■ . • . ■■■ ^-yyyy-'yp:ypy.y i-: ^ : ■.. : ••• ••• .• V •: .- >:7v:^ :- : ^ V'- ^ ; ■■ . ■.■■■■.■'.■ -■: ■ ., V'-"" *■ ■" ..'•-.viLiti -1: •.•:■••• ‘ :.-r-=• .^'■» VV..,;; :*' y . *•: A ■•^•- ■'♦•y V: ' s' J- * ■■.’ , y.-: yyyy-y::: -..777.'^ •V » . v. ; y'-. .;,. • ^ 7%’:^^' .■ ^... : :,.:p :,-;:y:.:y,iyy y,n- -T - .7-.: -v7-irr:-.-^='- ■•• 7 • ‘ ■'<■ ijii 7 • : - 'Vv7 J'-’: . ■; .- 7 '■•■■•:■ •'"j iV : 1 ■ \- ' ' ...:•• H->-my yyrK".yy--*yS>i- ::0\ V ^ '.vft y'yy^m ■-.yy-y.:yry.-■■■'■':. 7>-^p' :'^y:ph^\-r *;A7; - .Pi'Sk t .:^ ,\,.p ‘\--L- mmm V ■.7;v..;. 7^ ■■• ^7.; . ;V.^ ; . '. •* y^jiy .' ^ : I. •• .- • ■; ;^.--7': - • i ' ^•■.: ■' . r -. •:-- : ;--,'7; /,••••.;;7-1 T '. ■ ■ ;'7-7- .. . •;-J ■'"yyy'jp ■: ■ ■...%:■ :• .' '■-■y ''''y:y»X. y-y -.■- ■ : ,-,7 7- r' ^^-7 -7*7y y ■ ^^py-.y p _ . ' ,;::;.; 'V7'm'7v rv^T i \ * . •.*••. •'• * • ■■’• • •*♦• -■ m. * ■^pyypppppyyy-:- "' ■ "P:^'y-p ■; . • A-.:-- ■ : yy- c '. •■■•;•■■ .,... V •.:■'■ •• .PyP-.J\ .-y. ■:--y'*»’. ': yp.. P-A -P' ■.■:?;{ - p.-P:yyp/yr>'f.>^yyy^^ ;-:aa.•7-:-;:,v- •.'v - ,;. ■•■: ::-x '=•<: ■■♦•. . -A- ■^%y\ ■■■■.>: : ••■ C'/ ;7 = ''.'.t- ■ 7 • E 7 <7.:p.^^r y\:y. ■::^.,y.p,-pwmm . ^ -:^-7 7--.-T; 7:7 " /;Tv;\>-. V ---;: • ■ ; ' 7.;-' . ;77 v '- 7T7: •■.. "■■:A'.- 7a ■ 7... ■: ■■ 7. 77;,' :; ".A : ^..;7 ; ; • ' . ' • !,'•. ■■ :»P P.P .-i. ■ ■•V*s : - • ■•■■ . v' ■' . -V*:;.. ;’ .' ’,. . '.:vATv77:--'7.;77J; ,’7 ■ -'vj **»■'■••• ** - *. . • * ' • • ' ■■' A .■•■ 7-:.'7; .7' •; :■-.. ; ,. . ■.***',' ■• .• • 7'.. i v 'A». ^'A-7': . • A A: : m.-.:r'' .7 ■••■:•-'v,. .a;.'7 A/7- -Ev,.7■;■."• A.: 'A. ■•-■ 7- v' ’. " A •, ;y . ; - y yypp'^y^^ . ■-. 7 '. :: v ’. A. *•' . 7fe-7777:- ;7'/7y7;v.^^77^; s :ymp: ym-p pyyi:p '-^-pp : P pP pp 'yrppppp. yy’: 7v7-^;y^^f ''^'7 ■■■ -y-^p-y. - r-My yy..- •' ::•■/.■ 7.V7^7^aa ^-.7-;.^ •.: / V-- .• ■■ .■: p^^^yypM^yym^y , ■ y A •-.•%■-. 7:-7;7;M»’y H;:^ - : V- y' PP^- ''PS-P:P- -iV. • ; ;■ •■:' . .. '' ■ •: ^PP-:^-PP. ^ >, K PPpi.-P. P- ... ,:?;'■■• ‘ : -Pp-.:.:;^p / . ,>• ? A ■■'r./;:.: ■'r‘:yPWP .Pr 7 .A " ■ ^,.: ■ P p PP f <t^.jPPPPP V io: ■;777'--M>il;'-:'. ■ . PPPP,-PMi-P: -- yy ■rnypppr^Mpp "p ':p^.p-^^^p :7.x - ■ m ymymymiy^ ;-VX ; . .• •■-. • - ' • «:. ;7^7V.;T7.:xA • - '..:• • . ■,:p^yppyyy "v • *' \ . «7i ■,A- ..^A yp y y^^ypMyyp ... .x ‘7 .•>''^7'7aa ' P. pP:pMp • -p-':rpr> : -X /■■.>,'-y p-p-y.i yyyyy pyy^y... .AX • <.. <p ••^ /••:^vA . :. . . : ..■;«■ •-.■ . •• 77 ,.:'A^;^^X7 '^A-.7>A:7A1^A ■ ■ •> .• rv .•„, .•••■ ^ 7 vA;i,v^;A::^.^7'^'7A ; w -• •>; > *^j-.A ,-A ♦•■ ■ A'-- ■-■■■ - X ;■ "■■ ■■ ■"• /r;'‘7A-7 7.'A 7A.X X v* =-■'.-•y -- ■ .: -.7 - ; ■■•' ■ ■-:■ .:ypmy..y'y-y'y. ..•••. . ^ . ■; ■■;.■ .' • A--7 :.7;.' ''A-A: >;. y V/'- vvy; ’ ■ X. .r^yv.’•^7 yy"7:'.py ■.■■" '7;’*.>'i my my p ^'vm »*■■:«. :i! ■mm liK :s% * *9 ■ ■■•'■• *' t ■77A7.X . :aV>A..'a'; ■ X- , A‘- ■; ■;4 ;■■'•> J.‘. ■■ •'.■y:0pyy- ' ^^yy/ppp pyyp pp X 7A 1 >.'■'■ A’* '. ■ > '%•“ .* * V y-'p >■. < ■•., ■ . •' 7»t-- A’' <7-7y7-"J;'A A x y ;:A.C^ •^■ yyy-y >:Y= A'-a 7 ‘-VA ■’"•“ -■- V . V. .u *. •*.• ••• •:. , ■ : X "•.V-.VA: » -A- xT. XX •• XXv , vi,...; 4 V. »«■’•■- .•■■.' .■ »7-- ■ il^MI-K''. ■;.-X.: Vi' 7a ^^|^777VAI.' ..........•••■*!•;. .. .: T ; • •••.; •' V • •• ■■■* •;*' ; ^'*Ax:’ X. A-'X ■ A'V"^T^7 7 x*.''7:-:A_ -i*x • 7^' ■:pwyy p,mi»^y -A77pvx|, . pyp'yy *?P^ --A.;X-.:yXV...4:A:;x7V X ■ ♦ y .. x: X-* •• •;■ '. • ■• •w-7*V- >7 ’v,<:. .i ./•• -.y:.: p\-. * A;- y;'j;L‘>%A V ^ A* ' 7 ■: * 4 '7'».x • , X .y.,y;AV :;7 ■ 7^'!'* "•'■ -"••'X'-':XX ' -'7 A '• V.:v- • - ■______ ■. ./♦■..;■•• A- A-.X.: ,:.....VA : , .rx^.vy ••• A 7‘- ■'Ax^xxi:^^., X :- ■ . .*xT A'-' yi.-*7 . '•** * ■ : VA ;x.x ■• x;.x* *4 XX XA',XA7;' fe'A'7Ai7-- 7''A^»' ■ K;;;^-yx. . y-i ‘yy:>^ pp O A.V-- .--x-'; '•.x'-r;-- -x ■. --x' .'xx-..' y X V';;^ ■ ;.';;7V;xx *-yy''^:^y:iy :.y' -'.'.yfyy- yyypmypy mmyy''' ■' A^via A7'\<x .•^Ca -jx‘Xv -vv JA'A ‘ •. - \ .>*■ r- 7A .^ , X. -0\A •5 * • i m.-.-------- ’.' ^ Jf AAft ^ -y A :vj.- 5!X ‘.'^ iA^:7 %,7.7AA; -v, > ■ - \T .X v, ; i>.v : * < -ATA A^S lAi7 xA *: .NV^ ' - A i k^:-yy.M..yhy ym-yyy ^xr1 iV^TX - 'T 1} ♦. X . V* ^‘yry ,:; . . ‘. A' A*. 1 .7-X 7i. .‘ *' 7*, 'V'A A* . * !• ■■f-r v.'Axr "La '4 ?■ ir i« ■w S-A t -xy iw ‘ ■yB i |a V ^ - tA' 7V • \y - ' ^.xV • V"'-' 7^' '^x ’V --■'■ '."X‘ '* .-'•^ .. ■>■• ‘ -.yy"-^r ':‘ '.p .aa ^ ■ rX. ';‘-r*A-.x. » ^.* • 4 ^ , !7 ,A7-7:".' ' A X r~tr .dnMl-'** ..x>1 &r A ^V ‘ .. 7A V ' ■' X L:;7 7, . ''7'' ■. -'^yfpp. ■' . '■ ^ y. L.-* ■' ■.-7. 7T^7-7 "777:^^:>:• 7a /H"'-a • -v-t;A7;A-7 yy ■*/; . > ;■■ •; ■■ .••■• ■- . . A - A^r-AX r . t ( ( United States Court of Appeals /_ FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 93-1026 Sylvia Pentel, Appellant, V. City of Mendota Heights, Appellee. ♦ it * * it it it it it Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Submitted: October 13, 1993 Filed: January 18, 1993 Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges BOWMAN, Circuit Judge. Pursuant to its zoning ordinance, the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, denied Sylvia Pentel, an amateur radio operator, permission to erect a 68-foot radio antenna tower in her yard. Pentel then sued the city, claiming that the zoning ordinance wor preempted by a Federal Communications Commission ruling known as PRB-1, which requires the city reasonably to accommodate her amateur communications. The District Court granted summary judgment to the city, and Pentel appeals. Because we conclude that the city did not reasonably accommodate Pentel when it limited hr>r to the continuing use of her ineffective 56.5-foot antenna, we reverse and grant summary judgment to Pentel. /I. th« Unit«d net Court trict of Pontol is an aaatour radio oporator who uses radio communications to serve the public interest. After 8h<> was licensed by the FCC in December 1988 to operate an amateur radio and a station from her hone, she installed on her roof a vertical radio antenna that reaches a height from the ground of 56.5 feet. Over the next two years, Pentel was unable to establish reliable radio communications with other amateurs across the United States, and she was able to establish only one international contact. Pentel concluded that her existing antenna thus was not adequate for domestic, much less international, communications. 1 >3 I Judges Accordingly, Pentel began preparing to install a more sophisticated antenna. The replacement was to be a retractable steel tower that measured 30 feet when lowered and 68 feet when fully extended. This tower, which Pentel planned to have installed professionally in accordance with its manufacturer's specifications, was to have mounted on its top two directional aluminum antennas.' ef Mendota Height * radio operator, tewer in her yar' ff-iffcg ordinance -- ,c- ruling itnown accommodate her f% granted summa r we concliide thai It limited $-foot antenna, we Pentel was unawara whan she installed her original antenna that she was violating the city's zoning ordinance, which limits all structures, including radio antsnnas, to a height of twenty- 'Pentel'a proposed antenna would be more affective than existing set-up for two ressons. First. Pentel's current vertical antenna diasipates signals in all directions, whils her proposed directional antonna would concentrate and collect signals, thus increasing hsr ability to transmit and receive in a specific direction. Second, an antenna's effectiveness inersases with its height. Pentsl's existing antenna is blocked by trees. Itor taller replacement antenna, when extended, would be at or near the tops of nearby trees, thus isprovimi her siqn%. transmission and reception. II.W« r«vi«w d« no/o the district court's grant of sunnary judgiwnt. nnn-.d st.f« «x r«l. Claw Y. HumfllUtf. Inn... r.ia «05, *07 («th Clr- !»»*)• •«e»u*« th« parti** aqr«* that no •atarlai fact* ar# in dtaputa, auiwary )udqi«nt 1* approprlat# in favor of th* party that i* antltlad a* a aattar of lav to a judqaant in Ita favor. Sal rad. R. civ. r. 5«(c)! gflpttx Carp. If.. Catratt. *77 U.S. J17, 326 (1»»6). Caaa* eantarlnq on aonlnq raqulation* qovarninq aaataur radio antanna tovar* praaant a uhiqua tanaion aaonq vha variou. parti**' intaraat*. on th* on* hand, a local ■unlcipallty, throuqh th* axarcia* of it* traditional polic* povar*, ••v roqulat* th* haiqht and placaaant of radio antanna tovar* araetad in r*»id*ntlal dlatrlct*. A aanlclpaltty'* aotivatlon* for auch rogulatlon includ* th* po**ibllltio* that an antanna nay blocR th* lln* of •iqht of padaatrlana or drlvorai conatitut* a pronlnont ayaaor* that *1*0 nay intorfar* vith a »e*nlc vlav; fall on naarby raaidoneaa; or doer**** proparty valua*. Xnataur radio oparator*, on th* othar hand, plainly hav* an intsrsst in Mintsining successful sssteur cosnunications and in sustaining a strong network of radio asateurs* The federal governnent's Interests are aligned with those of the asateurs, for esateur radio volunteers afford reliable esergency preparedness, national security, and disaster relief cossunlcatlons. Because there is a direct correlation between an amateur's antenna height and her ability successfully to transait and receive radio signals, federal Interests are furthered when local regulations do not unduly restrict the erection of amateur radio antennas. The rcc was attempting to referee the tension between these interests rfhen it issued WB-1, in which it attempted to strike a balance between the federal interest in promoting amateur -4- I. p«nt«I is an aaatsur radio oporator who usas radio cosuRun1cations to sarva tha public intarast. Aftar she was licansad by tha rcc in Oacaabar 1»§8 to oparata an anataur radio and a station fro* har hoi», aha installad on har roof a vartical radio antanna that raachas a halght from tha ground of 56.5 faet. Ovar tha naxt two yaars, Partal was unable to establish reliable radio costtiunications with other aaataurs across tha United States, and she was able to establish only one international contact. Pantai concluded that har existing antenna thus was not adequate for doi^stic, xuch leas international, cowwinications. Accordingly, Rental began preparing to install a wore sophisticated antenna. The replacement was to be a retractable steel tower that seasured JO feet when lowered and 68 feat whan fully extended. This tower, which Pentel planned to have Installad professionally in accordance with its manufacturer s specifications, was to have mounted on its top two directional aluminum antennas.' Pentel was unaware when she installad har original antenna that she was violating tha city's zoning ordinance, which limits all structures, including radio antennas, to a halght of twanty- 'pental's proposed antenna would be more affective than her existing set-up for two reasons, first, Rental's current yfmrtical antenna dissipates signals in all directions, while her proposed directional antenna would concentrate and collect signals, thus increasing her ability to transmit and receive in a specific direction. Second, an antenna's effeetiveness increases with its height. Rental's existing antenna is blocked by trees, her taller replacement antenna, when estended. would be at or near the tops of nearby trees, thus i»pr<^ing her a.qnal transeissicn and reception. five feet.^ While proparlnq to install her new antenna, Pentol becane aware of the city'a restrictions, and in January 1991 she filed for a variance pursuant to Mendota Heiqhts, Minn*, ZoninqOrdinance § S.S (1981). The city evaluated Pentel'a application through a planning report prepared by a city etaff »e«ber, and at a planning coiittileslon meeting and two city council meeting*. city then sent Pentel a letter in February 1991 telling h*» that her application had been denied. The letter did not state any factual findings, reasons for the denial, or what Pentel could do to gain the city's approval. In an attempt to offer rantel a reasonable accommodation, as reguired by In.ft rfdlfdl .FfffflPtiQn Qf Amateur Radio racilitimi, 101 r.c.c.2d 952, 50 fed. Reg. 38.813 (1985) (codified at 47 C.r.R. I 97.15(e) (1992)) [hereinefter PRB-1). the city council granted Pentel a special-use permit that allowed her to continue using her existing antenna, which she had erected in contravention of the city's zoning ordinance. Pentel then filed suit against the city in the District Court, claiming that the city's ordinance was preempted by PRB-l in that the city had not reasonably accomsiodated her. Agreeing that there ^•re no disputed issues of material fact, Pentel and the city both moved for summary )udgsent. The District Court granted sumrary judgment in favor of the city on all claims.* Pentel appeals. ^Th# parties failed to furnish this Court a copy of • of the Mendota Heights toning ordinance, and the city was unable to furnish a copy when contacted by this Court, ue do issue, however, because the parties agree, and the District cour. found, that this section limit* Pental's radio antenna tower to a maximum height of 2^ feet. *In addition to her preemption challenge, Pentel raiseJ v^riou* otnar constitutional challenge* that are not renewed here - J - oporatlonr, .nd tho lcqiti».te interests of loci governments in regul.tinq loc.l toning rn.tt.rs.* PM-1 1 22. Aft.r w.ighmg loci f.d.r.1. .nd .».teur Interests, the rcc Issued . ruling th.t h.e . lls,lt«l preeuptlv. effect on loc.l regul.tlons. Stt »«»-l ' 24 The feder.l court, th.t h.ve .ddre.swl this ruling h.ve upheld Its pr.e»ptlv. effect. 8M. EVdnt Y. .JQinl Qt CBUntlt aaalxA. »»♦ r-w TH«m« y. Ct«-fll ,.v...de P.rh. K^. 27* r.2d 11.7, 11..-.9 («th Clr. 1..6) (P« curiawy. court, .pplylng PllB-1 heve discerned two me.ns by which PRB-l >i.y preempt . loc.l ordln.nc. First, the loci regul.tlon s.y be pro«pt«i on It. f.c. The city's toning ordlnsnc. doe. not conflict on Its f.ce with PM-1 boc.u.e it neither bene nor lepo.es .n unv.rylng height restriction on .eeteur rsdlo 'j* -- - - - seed of county r. Bupp. .72, ^ Colo. 1..0X V. City of EdMndB. «71 F. Supp. 1270, (W.D. Wash. Saconde PRB-l also praaapta a zonlfvg ordinanca that a city has not eppll«« in • -nner th.t r..«>n.bly sccoeecdste. «»t.ur co«unlc.tlon.. UM BCBM. ».♦ •* HirHIlUn V. refusal to si-clfy . height below which loci governeent. could not regul.te. end Insteed d«:l.red th.t -loc.l r«fuUtlons which involve pl.cos.nt, screening, or height of .ntenn.. b..ed on he.lth, s.f.ty, or .esthetic con.id.r.tlon. oust be cr.fted to .ccoeeod«t. re.sonebly .i«t.ur coeeunlc.t Ions, .nd to represent the elnlBue pr.ctle.ble regul.tlon to .ccoopllsh the loci suthortty s la^ltiaata purpoaa." PRB-l % 25- ..gu.n«"'V.’ti ;V« ■''■,^4 ”tn Riiiiasi ,y4. City Clr - - Initially, wo roust discuss the extent to which this language requires municipalities to yield to aeateur interests. Although some courts have evaluated whether the municipality properly balanced its interests against the federal governaent's interests in promoting amateur communications, i«t ^lUiaMt—Yj—City Sit Columbia. 906 F.2d 994, 998 (4th Cir. 1990): HOCHilHD, 740 F. Supp. at 1248, wa read PRB-1 as requiring municipalities to do more—FRB-1 specifically requires the city to accommodate reasonably amateur communications.’ Sfifi EYftM* 994 F.2d at 762-63. This distinction is important, because a standard that requires a city to accommodate amateur communications in a reasonable fashion is certainly more rigorous than one that simply requires a city to balance local and federal interests when deciding whether to permit a radio antenna. Application of this reasonable accommodation standard, however, does not require the city to allow the amateur to erect any antenna she desires. Instead, it requires only that the city **consider(] the application, ma(k]e factual findings, and attempt^, to negotiate a satisfactory compromise with the applicant.** Hgvaxd V. City of 937 F.2d 1376, 1380 (fth Clr. 1991): m.g.. Kvans. 994 f.2d at 762 (stating that the county was willing to permit a crank-up tower, a shorter tower, or a tower located elsewhere): williams. 906 F.2d at 997 (stating that the city suggested a limitation on the hours the antenna could be extended, and noting that the amateur could apply for a shorter antenna). UrwSer this approach, a local regulation that impairs amateur rad.,0 communications is preempted as applied if the city has not crafted it **to accomawdate reasonably amateur communications** while using *At various places in PRB-i, the FCC sastsur radio comaunicat ions . TRS-l 91 - *i - ••the Kinihum procticeblc regulation [necessary; to acooeplish the local authority's legitimate purpose.- PRB-1 1 25. The city Informed Pentel that her application had been denied via a bare-bonea letter that did not list any bases for the denial, because the city council failed to sake any factual findings,- acs uKit. near - r.un Club V. CttV Pt .BUgfl. 2«» (hlnn. !»•«) (holding in a case revlevlng a city council's denial of a special-use permit that a cryptic listing of reasons for the denial did not constitute factual findings) ,• aiTUrfinaiChOOt Y. OSK ..e mendata Heights. 33« N.W.Jd 503, 50* n.7 (Hlnn. l»»3) (stating that variances and special-use permits are treated identically on ludlclal review), we need not consider whether, if it had, such findings would be afforded preclusive effect here, U* universltv -renn. V. tlliOtt. 478 O.S. 7*8, 7»7-»» (1*8«). Although the city failed to make any factual findings, the planning report and hearings suggest four potential justifications for the city's denial of Pentel's variance application. «e now turn to those justifications, first, the city had no reason to fsar thst the antenna would Interfere with other resldenta television and radio reception.- the clty'a planning report atates that Pentel was prohibited by the fCC from causing, and that she could lose her license if she failed to correct, such a problem. Second, the city expressed concerns about the tower's safety in light of the strong winds that freguent the Mlaslsslppl River valley. Pentel pre.ented »o the city the manufacturer's -Mendota Heights. Kinn., i variance states that the city council's action ‘J'L ..n, application -shall constitute a finding sod City council that the conditions reguired f with any;;;St.- mis eonclusory language does »ot Provide c^rt with ^y Cecua-snted. enumerated factual findings „otnave made factual findings for its purposes, out It has not ours. 7 . specifications, which rate the tower secure in eighty-nile-per-hour winds. Although the city generally relies on such specifications produced by esnufacturers, it declined to do so in this case. In addition, the tower was retractable, and the city could require Pentel to retract It whenever bad weather threatened. Moreover, the city In 19*7 allowed a nearby anateur radio operator to erect a alnllar tower, and that one was cloMr to the operator's property line than Pentel'e was to be. The record before us thus does not establish a factual basis for the city's safety concerns. Third, the city clalns that It believed It reasonably acconnodated Pentel because she already successfully engages in anateur conwinlcatlona. Pentel subnitted with her application a letter of co«»ndatlon for her public services. The city's planning report concluded that this letter de«.netrated the adequaey of Pentel'e current antenna. Pentel has pointed out, however, that the public aervlce. cited in the letter were not related to the aaateur connunlcations in which she engaged fron her hone. in fact, the letter sakes It clear that the amateur eomnunicatlons for which Pentel was to be cosMnded were conducts at th« Air National Guard baaa In Mlnnaapolla. in addition, tho aayor and aoaa nambora of tho city counc.l indicatad In thair dapoaltlons that thay concludad f.c Pantal's •tatananta at tha haarlm|a that aha alraady %raa coaaunicating affactivaly. albaIt not to tha axtant aha daairad. Tfia haarln^a alnutaa Indicata that Pantal statad that aha aaa afcla to raach only aporadieally varioua piacaa in tha Unitad Stataa, ai^ that har currant antanna did not allov rallabla lonq-rafvja tranablaaiona. proiiptad. har attornay reluctantly attaaptad to quantify tha co«mnicationa. ha characteri*ad Pantal'a currant chancaa for Bakinq contact at 40 percent, and aatlnatad thoaa chancaa at 80 ao percent with tha laprovad tower. The context of these „e»a.it» and Pentel'a other atateaenta indicate that these chances c. «ucce«referred to done91 io .-onnunicat;ona on 1 y - liil • Thlr. quantification of 1-cntel'n ability to communicate wan -horouqhly mischaracterited by the mayor at his dapoaltion, whore h. stated that Pentel was able to communicate worldwide 60 to 70 percent of the tine, but that she wanted to heve reliable worldwide cornmunlcatlons 100 percent of the time. One city councUmember understood Pentel'. statements reqardlnq her tranemlsmlon success, but others demonstrated a fuiiy understanding, at best, of Pentel's situation. Mthouqh what constitutes -successful- amateur communications 1. difficult to quantify, the evidence In the record doe. not justify a finding by the city that Pentel'. old antenna enabled her -.uccessfully" to engage in amateur communication., and the city was unreasonable If It so found. On the record before us, th« city'* first thr«« concerns lack factual support. The city's last reason for denying Pentel'. application, that the antenna tower would be unsightly, rest, on .ubj.ctive consideration, and is difficult for a r«vi«»lng court to evaluate. This reason 1. undercut, however, by the city's willingness to allow Pentel to keep her present roof-mounted antenna, which reaches a height only .lightly below that of her proposed antenna tower, and by the city's allowenca of a similar antenna tower nearby. «e acknowledge the possible aesthetic difference between an antenna tower and a roof-mounted antenna, but ~ Indication in the record that the city attempted to l compromise that would haw. accommodated Pentel'. ama eur cowBunications. The city's decision to grant a variance that allows Pentel to continue using a wholly inadequate antenna doe. not accommodation In any practical sense. In ^Idltion. becau. city did not reasonably accommodate pentel. It obv ous u.e the least restrictive mean, evallabl. to meet It. roning purposes. therefore hold that the city's coning ordinance as appUmd m this case i. pr.cmptwl by P*B-l. III. W« exhort the parties to work together to arrive at a satisfactory solution to this controversy. PRB-l requires the city reasonably to accoaeodate Pentel's needs as an amateur radio operator; what is allowed is the "sininuw practicable regulation [necessary] to accoeplish the local authority's legitieate purpose.- PRB-l 1 25. The District court's grant of suwary judgment to the city is reversed, and the ease is remanded to the District Court for the entry of summary judgment in favor of Pentel. Our decision does not mean that the city necessarily must grant Pentel's application as it now stands, but it does mean that the city oust make a reasonable accommodation for her interests. A true copy Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT Of APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT -10- r/ Mr. and Mr*. David D. MacMillan 3t7 Orono Orchard Road S. Naytata, MN 55391 Juna 20, 1994 Mr. and Mr*. Graq Truchlnalci I9f0 fo* Straat Naytata, MM 55391 Ma* Aaa^aur Radio Towar Oaar drag Mancy: ... k.». ..ikad for oo»o tl»o now obout tho holoht of your onotoui HLi2^oi2r^*oo tho^io^ron ottochod. wo ooch h.v. • concorn IbMt SThoiOht of tho towor. It U in your boot i"**”*** obout_ _ u ^ j y boot intorooto thot tho oKr^2r bj thio lottor wo oqroo thot tho ooijjtln, so foot toll, ond thot you ooy hovo a too of tho towor. for a total otructuro hoiqht of 75 ^MotoiSJnruS’: •;:"oi":i:Ko”“"‘"’ % Sincaraly your* /& \ Nancy TruCTinaHi Cncloaura cci City of Orono Attn: Joanna MaOuatn LINDQUIsr &. VENNUM 4200 OS Cturviii $0 Souru iiGHTM Smtfrrl4M«90tA SMOg aw 3?i J207 N« OtfiMII LMHIUir*•W iTtm $vi«iT Sim 2ia Dfimii CoiOMMD «B02 M01 ^ruPNOMf krfornm^^ At Um» <•19 l?i June 20, 1994 CiVO«>a«o W!CWVW> too Kallcy BoukvMd JUH 2 2 1W4 LoMLakc. MN 553S6 CITY C.= CSO'C Rc: Application No. 1894/1913 Grcf Trochimlu 1580 F or Street Radio Tower Ladies and Gentlemen: We represent David MacMillan who lives at 387 Orono Orchard Road South. The David MacMillan property is adfacent to the Truchinski property on the north and east and the radio tower in question is in view from the MacMillan land extending above the tree tops as it does. We arc told that the radio tower is now 85 feet tall, but that hat not been verified. I am fafftiliar with the assertion that the height of an amateur radio tower is exempt from local land use regulation under the theory that the Federal Communications CooHittMioii, a federal imency, has preempted local land use control of the height issue. This is not correct. I enclose a chart showing cases decided since the FCC action, generally known as PRB-1 adopted September lA 1985. and the PtnlCl Yl. McndOtt Height* case filed January 18, 1993. Those cases show that the courts have adopted a balancing test between the interests of the local community, its residents and the land use regulations desqpied to protect those interests, the interests of the property owner who wishes to have an amanrur radio tower and the interests of the FCC. As you can sec the chart, tower heights in the 85 foot range are the norm.f14.! 1 The next level of legal inquiry goes to whether the local community regulates amateitf radio tower heights, either generally or specifically The answer in Orono a that there has always been a general height regulatKm concerning structures (i.e. 30 feet in Zone R-IA, § ia20. subdtviaiim 5(A)), which includes radio towers, but in addition, to your ordiaance adopts on April I. 1984, you have a specific provision which applies to raifio mwers tike the Greg Truchmski radio tower. Let me exf^ain. »Ccumn i Eighth Strcft XJS Minntsota 55402*2205 it 612*371.3211 371.3207 IH Oemvca Unoowst . Vcnnum a Chmstchscn 600 17th STHBfT. Sun 2125 Dcwvw. CotoiUDo 80202*5401 Telephowc 303*573.5900 t 1 RECEn/pn JUN 2 2 1994 CITY CF CROMC Tono Orchard Road South, ski property on the north and lacMiJIan land extending above is now 85 feet tall, but that has n amateur radio tower is at the Federal Communications se control of the height issue, d since the FCC action, nd the Pentel vs. Mendota it the courts have adopted a /, its residents and the land use 5 of the property owner who f the FCC. As you can see norm. ocal community regulates ^ The answer in Orono is that ng structures (i.e. 30 feet in j towers, but in addition, in 1C provision which applies to explain. UNDQUIST & VENNUM June 20, 1994 Page 2 Orono Zoning Code Section 10.20 supplies the specific rules for uses in Zone R-IA, One Family Residential District. Section 10.20, subdivision 3(K) provides that, on a conditional use basis, a landowner in Zone R-IA may have one radio tower not exceeding 65 feet in height. There is a further specification concerning antennas in Section 10.20, subdivision 4(H), but that is not applicable, because that applies to an antenna attached to the principal or an accessory structure. The rule of statutory construction is that "the specific controls the general". In this case, the Truchinski radio tower falls squarely within Section 10.20, subdivision 3(K) and, as such, the radio tower may not exceed 65 feet in height. Under no circumstances may one look to Ordinance Section 10.75, because it is a general section. In fact, when one reviews Ordinance Section 10.75, one can readily see that it is a general section which talks about many kinds of structures which are more related to commercial users, institutional users like schools, a municipality itself, the police department, the fire department and the like. It is evident that the generous height limitation under Section 10.75 is intended to accommodate pressing public needs, such as water towers, fire towers, antenna on fire department and/or police department buildings and the like. Under no circumstances does Section 10.75 come into play for an amateur radio operator in Zone R-IA, because such person and his land use is regulated under the speciHc provisions of Section 10.20, subdivision 3(K). When one compares the cases with the Orono ordinance, one must then determine, before going to a court of law, whether or not Orono’s regulatory scheme is consistent with what has been found reasonable by numerous courts in the past concerning the height of amateur radio towers. In this case, one can see that Orono’s ordinance limit of 65 feet pursuant to Section 10.20, subdivision 3(K) is squarely within many of the cases concerning amateur radio towers. Consequently, the City of Orono can be secure in knowing that if it permits Mr. Truchinski to have a tower that is 65 feet tall, that it is almost certain that a court will sustain that tower height given all the other cases on similar tower heights. Having determined that a 65 foot height is generous, appropriate and permitted under the Orono ordinances and in conformance with law, there remains the location of the tower. As you know, the existing radio tower sits close to the MacMillan lot line. The tower base is now at an elevation of approximately 970 feet above sea level. As stated above, the reason the tower is such a problem to the MacMillans is that it is clearly visible from their property, because of the tower’s proximity to their lot, and because the MacMillan land at 1,000 feet above sea level is higher land than most of the Truchinski land. Mr. MacMillan is aware that Mr. Truchinski has offered to move the tower from its existing location to a location in the northwesterly part of his property but at a place where the tower base elevation would be at approximately 986 feet above sea LINDQUIST & VENNUM I June 20, 1994 Page 3 level. Even if the tower is only 65 feet tall, it is objectionable to Mr. MacMillan that it be moved to an area of the Truchinski land at a higher elevation above sea level for that will make even the lower tower more visible from the MacMillan property. Therefore, Mr. MacMillan endorses whatever municipal permission is necessary for the Truchinski tower to stay in its present location at a height above ground level of 65 feet. I enclose herewith a covenant not to sue signed by David MacMillan to take Orono off the hook should there be any problem with the tower falling over onto the MacMillans’ property. I think the foregoing completely and accurately sets forth the proper handling of this matter. I therefore respectfully request the Planning Commission to take the following actions: 1.Approve the tower height at 65 feet in Zone R-IA pursuant to the provisions of Orono Ordinance Section 10.20, subdivision 3(K); Grant whatever municipal approval is necessary such that the existing tower may remain where it is and closer to the MacMillan lot line than 65 feet on the strength of David MacMillan’s covenant not to sue attached; and 3.Such other action as Orono may require not inconsistent with the above paragraphs. Thank you for your consideration of Mr. MacMillan’s position Respectfully submitted, Robert G. Mitchell, Jr. RGM/gjg cc: David D. MacMillan ‘.1 I III I in iv**^*^»^** AMATEUR RADIO CASES--------------------------------------------------------—Case Name and State Plaintiff's Claim Tower Height Preemption?Court's Holding ||Bulchis V. City of Edmonds671 F.Supp. 1290 (W D. Wash. 1987) Washington Denial of conditional use permit.70 feet1 No Ordinance not invalid on Its face.Ordinance did not balance local needs 1against plaintiff's needs. Process by 1which City denied his application 1invalid. 1Stiil V. Michaels 791 F.Supp 240 (D.Afiz. 1992) Arizona Nuisance.i K [ LI ii Yes FCC diroctly spoke to radio frequency inleifcience. Common law nuisance claim concerning radio frequency interference preempted by FCA and obstructs FCC's ability to regulate sucfi matters. | Williams V. City of Columbia 906 F.2d 994 (4lhCif. 1990) South Carolina Civil lights.55 to 65 feet Limited preemption policy calling for leasonatilo accommodation. City sought compromise and applied zoning ordinance in compliance with FCC regulations, thus, height limitation imposed was valid. Izzo V. Borough ol River Edge 843 F.2d 765 (3rd Cir. 1988) New Jersey Challenge legality of height prohibition. 40 feet Limited rather than total preemption. Vacated and remanded to district court to adjudicate reasonableness of 35 foot height limitation imposed by local zoning ordinance. 1 ■ -y ’A &._ i.Ul.■1—~Twiiiitrfr1ig‘- iTB ^ —1..—«. .___ -T ■1 Case Name and Slate Plaintiff's Claim Tower Height Preemption?Court's Holding |Howard v.City of Buflingante937 F.2d 1376 (9lt) Cir. 1991) California Denial of application to increase antenna height.51 feet Partial preemption.City free to deny permit as long as it has considered the application, made factual findings, and attempted to negotiate satisfactory compromise.1 Guschke V.1 City of Oklafioma City763 F.2d 379 (1985) Oklattoma * .................................................................. Challenge city's blanket height zoning restrictions.78 feet No explicit FCC action lo pieempt state law.Neither federal statutes nor regulations preempt City of Oklahoma City's zoning regulations regarding radio antennas. In re Medina Resolution 88 18 ' (no cue here) Minnesota Application (or amended conditional use permit and variance. 4 at 65 leel 2 at 70 feet No. reasonatilo accommodation City council granted conditional use permit subject to cenain limitations, including height. Bodony v. Incorporated Village of Sands Point 681 F.Supp. 1009 (E D.N.Y. 1987) New York Ctiallenged denial of zoning variance. 86 feel Yes.Summary judgment denied declaring city unreasonable in limiting antenna height to 56.5 feet. City also failed to make findings. Court ordered parties to arrive at compromise. Reversed and remanded case to district court lor entry of summary judgment in favoi ol Pentel. City's fieight limitations ol accessory buildings at 25 leet. 1 Penlul V. 1 City of Mendoia Heights 8th Cir. Coiiit ol Appeals Docket No. 93 1026 (Oct 1993) Minnesota Challenged denial to extend antenna 11.5 feet. proposed 68 leet No, leasonatile accommodation. PRO 1 requires the City reasonably to accommodate Pentel's needs as an amateur radio operator. Reversed and remanded to the district couit for summary judgment in lavor ol Pentel. f^ f - .m '"if* m ':m.: m ^> ■ ., iii : m •r- \ . . V . ■■ •• ..u-’. ■■'T- ||S#V5k-' 'd ^ ■' -"A M w ■ ft '.■yi ^'■r' [P United States Court of AppealsFOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT -&A/ No. 93-1026 Sylvia Pantel, Appellant,AppaaX from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. City of Mendota Heights, Appellee. Submitted: October 13, 1993 Filed: January 18, 1993 Before McMZLLZAN, BOWMAN, and MAGZLL, Circuit Judges. BOWMAN, circuit Judge. Pursuant to its zoning ordinance, the City of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, denied Sylvia Pentel, an amateur radio operator, permission to erect a 68-foot radio antenna taver in her yard. Pentel then sued the city, claiming that the zoning ordinance was preempted by a Federal Communications Commission ruling known as PRB-1, which requires the city reasonably to accommodate her amateur coiuaunications. The District court granted summary judgment to the city, and Pentel appeals. Because we conclude that the city did net reasonably accommodate Pentel when it limited her to the continuing use of her ineffective 56.5-foot antenna, we reverse and grant summary judgment to Pentel. ' r -'H _; .r rt of AppealsCIRCUIT <■.I.L026Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. :y >er 13, 1993 iry 18, 1993 X, Circuit Judges. a, the City of Mendota Heights, an anateur radio operator, % Lo antenna tover in her yard. that the zoning ordinance was ms Connission ruling knotm as easonably to accosBodate her itrict Court granted suBBsry ials. Because ve conclude that late Pentel when it liaited her fective 56.5-foot antenna, we to Pentel. ■SI : t if lii! tli: i. '-. : ........ M mm v: ■iil h'm' mmH- i. few lir'iw |W' ■ ■ Hh :W,-' ■ ffea' ■ pa;; fe:-- ■ m. • •■ Ife- Pentel is an anateur radio operator who uses radio communications to serve the public interest. After she was licensed by the FCC in December 1988 to operate an amateur radio and a station from her hone, she installed on her roof a vertical radio antenna that reaches a height from the ground of 56.5 feet. Over the next two years, Pentel was unable to establish reliable radio communications with other amateurs across the United States, and she was able to establish only one international contact. Pentel concluded that her existing antenna thus was not adequate for domestic, much less international, communications. Accordingly, Pentel began preparing to install a more sophisticated antenna. The replacement was to be a retractable steel tower that measured 30 feet when lowered and 68 feet when fully extended. This tower, which Pentel planned to have installed professionally in accordance with its manufacturer's specifications, was to have mounted on its top two directional aluminum antennas.^ Pddtel %ras unaware when she installed her original antenna that she was violating the city's zoning ordinance, which limits all structures, including radio antennas, to a height of twenty- Pentel's proposed antenna would be more effective than her set-up for two reasons. First, Pentel's current vertical antenna dissipates signals in all directions, while her proposed directional antenna would concentrate and collect signals, thus increasing her ability to transmit and receive in a specific direction. Second, an antenna's effectiveness increases with its height. Pentel's existing antenna is blocked by trees. Her taller *^*Pl*®****'t antenna, when extended, would be at or near the tops of nearby trees, thus improving her signal transmission and reception. -2- . . . . ..>• I.-.-. ■ ; L^arw..,:, ■M tv:*Ki :fS W _-M '■^L':M ■5/';;'J;!i.4l ■vv: •■'" V»3; ‘^:my:: ;^i3^ W;-- y-A:m 'V.* *WiM ■ ■# Mil jMi »\ ■ •H' p;{Pl FiK r\; m m ■ «• i- : fiv« feet.2 While preparing to install her new antenna. Pentel becane aware of the city's restrictions, and in January 1991 she filed for a variance pursuant to Mendota Heights, Minn., Zoning ordinance $ 5.5 (1981). e The city evaluated Pentel's application through a planning report prepared by a city staff aenber, and at a planning eonnieeion aeeting and two city council meetings. The city then sent Pentel a letter in February 1991 telling her that her application had been denied. The letter did not state any factual findings, reasons for the denial, or what Pentel could do to gain the city's approval. Zn an attempt to offer Pentel a reasonable accommodation, as required by In re Federal Pyiea^<ftw of stata and F.C.C.Zd 952, 50 Fed. Reg. 38,813 (1985) (codified at 47 C.F.R. f 97.15(e) (1992)) (hereinafter PRS*1], the city council granted Pentel a special<-use permit that allowed her to continue using her •listing antenna, which she had erected in contravention of the city's zoning ordinance. Pentel then filed suit against the city in the District Court, claiming that the city's ordinance was preempted by PRB-1 in that the city had not reasonably accommodated her. Agreeing that there were no disputed issues of material fact, Pentel and the city both moved for summary judgment. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the city on all claims.* Pe.ntel appeals. *The parties failed to furnish this Court a copy of S 8B.4(l) of the Mendota Heights zoning ordinance, and the city was unable to furnish a copy idien contacted by this Court. We do not pursue the i**ue, however, because the parties agree, and the District Court found, that this section limits Pentel's radio antenna tower to a maximum height of 25 feet. m In addition to her preemption challenge, Pentel raised various other constitutional challenges that are not renewed here. -3- V -xr ilsi lih-' f'iWn.:- : )v ' - *..?•* ,i'.'r • i---' ■ II.w« review de novo the district court's grant of sunaary judgnent. United States ex rel. Glass v. Medtronirr jpg,, 957 p.2d 60S, 607 (8th Cir. 1992). Because the parties agree that no material facts are in dispute, summary judgment is appropriate in favor of the party that is entitled as a matter of law to a judgment in its favor. SMA Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); ceiot#v gam, v. catrett. 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 326 (1986). Cases centering on zoning regulations governing amateur radio antenna towers present a unique tension among the various parties' interests. On the one hand, a local municipality, through the exercise of its traditional police powers, may regulate the height and placement of radio antenna towers erected in residential districts. A municipality's motivations for such regulation include the possibilities that an antenna may bloclc the line of sight of pedestrians or drivers; constitute a prominent eyesore that also may interfere with a scenic view; fall on nearby residences; or decrease property values. Amateur radio operators, on the other hand, plainly have an interest in saintaining successful amateur eoamunicatiens and in sustaining a strong network of radio amateurs. The federal government's interests are aligned with those of the amateurs, for amateur radio volunteers afford reliable emergency preparedness, national security, and disaster relief communications. Because there is a direct correlation between an amateur's antenna height and her ability successfully to transmit and receive radio signals, foderal interests are furthered when local regulations do not unduly restrict the erection of amateur radio antennas. The FCC was attempting to referee the tension between these interests when it issued PRB-1, in which it attempted "to striJee a balance between the federal interest in promoting amateur -4- I ; m E-i’ . .-■•b -if WJ1.7 .C ' 7' ’ operations and the legitiaate interests of local governaents in regulating local zoning matters.** PRB-1 9 22. After weighing local, federal, and amateur interests, the FCC issued a ruling that has a limited preemptive effect on local regulations. See PRB-1 5 24. The federal courts that have addressed this ruling have upheld its preemptive effect. See, e.c.. Evans v. Beard of County Coam*rs. 994 F.2d 755, 760-61 (10th Cir. 1993); Themes v. City of Lakeside Parle. Kv.. 779 F.2d 1187, 1188-89 (6th Cir. 1986) (per curiam). Courts applying PRB-l have discerned two means by trtiich PRB-l may preempt a local ordinance. First, the local regulation nay be preempted on its face. The city's zoning ordinance dees net conflict its face with PRB-l because it neither bans nor imposes an^ unvarying height restriction on amateur radio antennas. See Evans V. Beard of County Cemm'rs. 752 F. Supp. 973, 976-77 (D. Cole. 1990); Bulchis v. City of Edmonds. 671 F. Supp. 1270, 1274 (W.O. Wash. 1987).^ Second, PRB-l also pr?*mpts a zoning ordinance that a city has net applied in a manner that reasonably accemaodates amateur communications. See 994 F.2d at 761; MacMillan v. City of Rocky River. 748 F. Supp. 1241, 1248 (N.O. Ohio 1990). The FCC refused to specify a height below which local governments could net regulate, and instead declared that **local regulations which involve placement, screening, or height of antennas based on health, safety, or aesthetic considerations must be crafted to accommodate reasonably amateur communications, and to represent the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the local authority's legitimate purpose.** PRB-l 5 25. P*ntel's argument that the city's ordinance is void for vagueness is without merit. See* Kolender v. l^wson. 461 U.S. 352, 357-58 (1983); Will jams v. cltv of Columbia. 906 F.2d 994, 998 (4th Cir. 1990). ;; .. . ^ .... . .v; ' - i. ;;r:. \ -if- •>1 ■V- \T^ - I®,^f'>S'i5;. l?r,1%?j;'‘f"'# lii^ III 'M ' 'j;v^ '^lii V'-iS-'-vte. U0. |l Initially, we must discuss the extent to which this language requires municipalities to yield to amateur interests. Although some courts have evaluated whether the municipality properly balanced its interests against the federal government's interests in promoting amateur communications, see miliams v, citv of Columbia. 906 F.2d 994, 998 (4th Cir. 1990); MacMillan. 748 F. Supp. at 1248, we read PRB-1 as requiring municipalities to do more—PRB*1 specifically requires the city to accommodate reasonably amateur communications.’ See £vadi« 994 F.2d at 762-63. This distinction is important, because a standard that requires a city to accommodate amateur communications in a reasonable fashion is certainly more rigorous than one that simply requires a city to balance local and federal interests when deciding whether to permit a radio antenna. ■* Application of this reasonable accommodation standard, however, dees not require the city to allow the amateur to erect any antenna she desires. Instead, it requires only that the city **considern the application, ma()c]e factual findings, and attempt[] * to negotiate a satisfactory compromise with the applicant." Howard V. Citv of Burlingame. 937 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1991); see. . e.g.. SyBxift# 994 F.2d at 762 (stating that the county was willing to permit a cran)c-up tower, a shrrter tower, or a tower located elsewhere); williams. 906 F.2d it 997 (stating that the city suggested a limitation on the ho^.:s the antenna could be extended, and noting that the amateur could apply for a shorter antenna). Under this approach, a local regulation that impairs amateur radio communications is preempted as applied if the city has not crafted it "to aeeemnodate reasonably amateur communications" while using ’At various places in PRB-l, the FCC states that, in considering the issue before it, it weighed federal and amateur operator interests against those of local governments. After balancing these interests, the standard that the FCC concluded was appropriate was that a local government must reasonably accommodate amateur radio communications. See PRB-l ff 22, 24. -6- |; _ _ (jk: , 'v.j';'.. ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ .si. - j ■ , f 4- . j- i- * ^ .V.: > s •'v VI h-- i '*rri ♦0n ' i ’• t'- I •i V-v M M '■. ■ :i.,/-'.^'s V '' :« ..:n k- '':lM :‘-'fe" rv ' .c' i’' n- 7^; ’• fe,;':mi ^•v. V P ■■ "the aininuo practicable regulation InecessaryJ to acconplish the local authority's legitinate purpose.** PRB-1 5 25.The city infomed Pentel that her application had been denied via a bare-bones letter that did not list any bases for the denial. Because the city council failed to sake any factual findings,* see White Bear Rod t Gun Club v. City of Hugo. 388 N.W.2d 739, 742 (Minn. 1986) (holding in a case reviewing a city council's denial of a special-use pemit that a cryptic listing of reasons for the e denial did not constitute factual findings); VanLandscheet v. citv of Mendota Heights. 336 N.W.2d 503, 509 n.7 (Minn. 1983) (stating « that variances and special-use peraits are treated identically on judicial review), we need net consider whether, if it had, such findings would be afforded preclusive effect here, see University of Tenn. v. Elliott. 478 U.S. 788, 797-99 (1986). Although the city failed to nake any factual findings, the planning report and hearings suggest four potential justifications for the city's denial of Pentel's variance application. We now turn to those justifications. First, the city had no reason to fear that the antenna %rould interfere with other residents' television and radio reception; the city's planning report states that Pentel was prohibited by the FCC fron causing, and that she could lose her license if she failed to correct, such a problea. j 'f Second, the city expressed concerns about the tower's safety in light of the strong winds that frequent the Mississippi River valley.^ Pentel presented to the city the nanufacturer's *Mendota Heights, Minn., Zoning Ordinance f 5.S(S) (1981) states that the ' city council's action in denying a variance application "shall constitute a finding and deteraination by the City Council that the conditions required for approval do not exist." This conclusory language does not provide a court with any doctiaented, enuserated factual findings to review. The city may have made factual findings for its purposes, but it has not for ours. -7- % W"- m itr vr-HC "SB**'" M K... ^b;;:*specifications, which rate the tower secure in eighty«aile-per-hour winds. Alt.hough the city generally relics on such specifications produced by manufacturers, it declined to do so in this case. In addition, the tower was retractable, and the city could require Pentel to retract it whenever bad weather threatened. Moreover, the city in 1987 allowed a nearby aeateur radio operator to erect a similar tower, and that one was closer to the operator's property line than Pentel's was to be. The record before us thus does not establish a factual basis for the city's safety concerns. Atil V te m-. i- B' -••B' ■ ■ Third, the city claims that it believed it reasonably accommodated Pentel because she already successfully engages in amateur communications. Pentel submitted with her application a i*tter of commendation for, her public services. The city's planning report concluded that this letter demonstrated the adequacy of Pentel's current antenna. Pentel has pointed out, however, that toe public services cited in the letter were not related to the amateur communications in w’- ich she engaged from her home. In fact, the letter mates it clear that the amateur communica^tions for which Pentel was to be commended were conducted at the Air National Guard base in Minneapolis. .:'r ■•*• - - In addition, the mayor and some members of the city council indicated in their depositions that they concluded from Pentel's *^*^*®***^* *t the hearings that she already was communicating albeit net to the extent she desired. The hearings' minutes indicate that Pentel stated that she was able to reach only sporadically various places in the United States, and that her current antenna did not allow reliable long-range transmissions. When prompted, her attorney reluctantly attempted to quantify the communications: he characterized Pentel's current chances for making contact at 40 percent, and estimated these chances at 80 to 90 percent with the improved tower. The context of these resuirks and Pentel's other statements ‘ indicate that these chances of success referred to domestic communications only. -8- I.:# .... - . .• « ... . ■■■■ }m % fesl / M • V ■ ‘ .'•■11 mm: :y .r- '■> M& -. ■ ' : mi - - .m ■ vil !»:'■>' ‘I'-'V'-vc. I'"l®v \ ■■ •i f¥' This quantification of Pentel's ability to coraraunicate was thoroughly aischaracterizad by the mayor at his deposition, where he stated that Pentel was able to communicate worldwide 60 to 70 percent of the time, but that she wanted to have reliable worldwide communications 100 percent of the time. One city, councilmember understood Pentel's statements regarding her transmission success, but ethers demonstrated a fuzzy understanding, at best, of Pentel's situation. Although what constitutes "successful** amateur communications is difficult to quantify, the evidence in the record does not justify a finding by the city that Pentel's old antenna enabled her "successfully** to engage in amateur communications, and the city was unreasonable if it so found. On the record before us, the city's first three concerns lack factual support. '9^The city's last reason for denying Pentel's application, that the antenna tower would be unsightly, rests on subjective considerations and is difficult for a reviewing court to evaluate. This reason is undercut, however, by the city's willingness to allow Pentel to keep her present roof-mounted antenna, which reaches a height only slightly below that of her proposed antenna tower, and by the city's allowance of a similar antenna tower nearly, we acknowledge the possible aesthetic difference between an antenna toiler and a roof-mounted antenna, but there is no indication in the record that th* city attempted to find any compromise that would have accommodated Pentel's amateur communications. The city's decision to grant a variance that allows Pentel to continue using a wholly inadequate antenna does net constitute an accommodation in any practical sense. In addition, because the city did not reasonably accommodate Pentel, it obviously did not use the least restrictive means available to meet its legitimate zoning purposes. We therefore hold that the city's zoning ordinance as applied in this case is preempted by PRB-1. -9- ■m >1 p;,- V y-T^ y'-: '■■■jSv'-'-"' '' L-III.Wc exhort the parties to work together to arrive at a satisfactory solution to this controversy. PRB-i requires the cityaccoflUBOdate Pentel^s needs as an aeateur radio operator; what is allowed is the **miniDum practicable regulation [necessary] to accoaplish the local authority's legitiaate purpose." PRB-l 9 25. The District Court's grant of susDsary judgnent to the city is reversed, and the case is reaanded to the District Court for the entry of sunnary judgnent in favor of Pentel. Our decision does not mean that the city necessarily must grant Pentel's application as it now stands, but it does nean that the city nust make a reasonable acconaodation for her interests. 'M COVEMAMT NOT TO SUEmw. v; JS ffil! "m ■ </-■•;. ' rm ■■ ■, o,ofy.,, ■ ■?;"'y”'''^V R;li;WsrSi?■•:.•••- h-. . ■•4:. r * r^: - \ '-*- •■*• •'■-'■• ^ > ' • . Rv ; V^ -V'v-'••> •11%'*v;-:f li?,./.y . • • ->'-R ■• ■ .:.. . . . -tf y • .••.,••• .. .'. • -■-- --V-- , ! -r:.(R -r . ■ ■ •■ iRjWi;'.''; ^.: iilK> ■ :Rv.»Ry, V . .>:. -v sa ■. 5il:^v>,.:; feRWR" 1 ■-.; /Vi'•’ •R. .:■>■ M David 0. NaeHillaii and Karan MacMillan covenant not to aua the City Council, and tlia aganta and aaployaaa of tha city for any elaia, daaaga, loss, or axpanaa ariaing out of or raaultino froa tha ooaaaquanca of Mr. drag Truchinaki*a antannaa, or support strueturas unlikaly to collapsa, crossing Mr. David MacMillan's proparty lina. <■ ip- ^s\noJ Oavidi D. Itadliiian ^4^ .4 STATE o r MZimSOTA ) ____ ) as INTY or HBMMSPXM )a^ • I Ths foregoing instruaent was aoknovledgad before day of Juna» 1994, by David D. MacMillan.as this Notary rublic 4*- iio. A' ■4 I '.'R’ J'i. «V 0, ^ ‘ K.V* ^ :*.. .^ nrv' ^ • V -i-f- ■-■ ■». ■ -If' » / •:-vS i•.y ;v: • • -i '• • v ■■ ,; :. ^ I .-/ -V;... . * ■ isS'Mmfe- v^ h'"-? ■>■ ml:mn ,L..-.^Tv:.'■ g|":4: \ cr; •; p5i#:... V*>. Im^vIF -a:-'.--'' ■•■ ■•: •.... !• ...!/j:*- ■ ■ HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT{a^L: f>v.v« V\o-c)tt t //___________________ harmless the bty. the Qty Council, and the aynt> an^jshall indem.^ and hold loyeesofthe•iit • anda^nM all claims, damages, losses or expenses, including attor^ fee. wt^ the City City Council and agents and employees of the Ctly may suffer or for whldi it may be hdd liaUe. arising out of or rmilting from ^ assertion against them of any claims, debts or obugatlons in the consequence of Mr. Greg IVuchinski's antennas, or support structures unUkdy collapse. ■-i. A-r: ', I # : ■• ■•• v •. ♦/. .•■•, a: ... ■Vr f STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) COUNIY OP HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrui __4 i w day of _____May_____nt was acknowledged before me this .. 19 94. bv Whitney MacMillan ffAfoMMAAAMAAMA^AAAAAWWWWW ALLISON 6. GUNtOCKMiAfnr Rjai*c-%miisofA HENNEPIN COUNTY f MpCMm.' MWMAAAAAWMAAMMi b- ... . 'iV:. • V-:- . .1 il7. 1^. ^4 u ^ : 4 • r AA oi4 *1 Ic ■ .. i POPHAM HAIK MEMORANDUM 3300 Pi(wr J^tny Towtr 222 SoMh Niaih Sacet MioneapoUs. Mtoaefoca 53402 (012) 333-4800 VTA FACSIMILE DATE: Jem Mabusdw Qty of Oroao Kevin P. Staunion^V\*4 Tiochinski Condid<M U$e Permit Application July 18. 1994 ] <1 I am wiiting in response to your request for advice on the above-referenced maner. You initially asked us to look into two issoes afisinf out of the Tnichinski applieaiion. First, you asked for malyiis of attorney Robeit Mi(chell*s June 20.1994 letter legaidinf the law governing the City's ability to deny the application for a conditional use permit Mr. Mitchell represents Mr. and Mrs. David D. MacMillan. Mr. Truchinaki's neighbors. Since your original request you have indicated that you no longer want m analysis of Mr. Mitchell's opinion. We have diseontinoed our work on that analysis. Please note, however, that our preliminary analysis is not entirely consistent with Mr. MitchelTs analysis of the issue. Let. me know if you would like work on this issue completed. Your second inquiry related to Mr. Ttuchinski's request for a variance regaidittg the location of his radio tower. Apparently, the radio tower is located dose enough to the adjoining property (owned by Mr. md Mis. David MacMillm) that, were it to fall it could faU on to the MacMnim's proper^, potentially causing damage there. Although the current location of the radio tower is closer to the adjoining property thm is allowed by the code (and consequently. Mr. Truchinski needs a variance}, the terrain of the applicmt's property is such that placement of the radio tower on a portion of the property which would comply with the code would require the tower to be positioned on higher ground thm its current location, thereby resulting in m ultimate height above sea level that is higher thm the current height Although die neighbors at one point had objected m the height of the tower at its present location, they have made it clear that they prefer the tower in its presmt location for aesthetic reasons. r - V 2lM2QSU9t 7/11/94 ..f- ■ • r ::i v».«- .» . '.-v . * . i.. ■ rtnfrs;«»r vr ^"il ,^- i ^r*^■.Z^ '■•■T „4w/• i;il« ^4 t> j > <« • r ^ A • < ■i-S' ■m I \:>' ■;V;'5J '•.V t;:. W-- fe m. S: J ■■ •II- m W: '■■•f^sV^ . ... ■|^ ... ;■■-■■• ■• ConsisGeiit with this piefetence. they have oftod to execute a covenant not to sue.* I have sU|hdy revised their proposed covenant and attached it for your review. At the same time. Whitney MacMiUan. the owner of the property occupied by the appUcant has agreed to execute a hold haimlets and indemnification agieemenL I have also revised this docunenc and a copy for your review. In addition to these two doeuments, I ncomiiieiid dietyou obtain a bold hanolett and indemnification agreement firom Mr. Ttuchinsla. I have attached an agreement for him as well All three agreements have been revised to reflea sufBdent consideration for the promises rendered. Together, these three agreements should wodr to insolaae the City from any UabiUty in the event that the tower were to fall and cause damage on the adjoiiiint property. It appeal! that there is ample factual basis for granting a variance in this instance. Aside from the fare that the affected neighbors are in favor of the vaiianct. the terrain of the applicam's proper^ appean to impose a sufficient hardship to justify a variance. As mentioned earlier, placement of the radio tower on a location of the property which would not require a variance wotild exacerbaie the adverse aesthetic impact of the radio tower. Tharefore. it appears that the City is entitled to grant a variance. I hope this informal questions. cc: ilioffias 1 Barrett, Esq. is helpfuL Please feel free to eontaa me if you have further #• * Note that, although it is helpful for David and Karen MacMillan to agree not to sue. their agfeemeiit will not be binding on subsequent owners of their property. Bence, it is critical that enforceable hold barmhsss agreements be obtained from Whimey MacKfiUsn and Oreg Tnichintlti. U9Q20S14M 7/11/94 -■ V "M. ... r:-» M r"4 H.-J M . -V, -■'i '■■IV': • ^1 K“J If-I.wWf|5v?1 li »t's; Jf' t%-. ■•If 3i h'. ' •- ■•'f ■. *'M V-^-r • .. ■■ i»v^ '1-- i. ...-■.■V "-MA ;r 'SK ft -;v:;i’, '* • •* . »S - . ^ i '■ ■■'- J-: sf'l;. ■ ?'• ., ^ >-t - •' ••••. • - I ■■ UW:.4^ f.vi 9xm >•>>»CO VENANT NOT TO SUE__WHEREAS, Dtvid 0. tad Kano MacMtllao owo pippoty in the City ofCkadjacent tn pcopeity o«fned hy Whitney MacMiOan and i«?nn1 at ^ ^located atrvta-tHAS. Whitney MarMman leaaaa hia property to Owe Thieiri.>.i,j. ^ WHEREAS. Mr. lYuddMU hu contirncied a ladio Mtena and nmnoftiii. 00 WhtoeyMacMman’ipropeiy for wMdiiwnaadi a conditional uaap^yj^ ' * # « M .i»?S!21LS£!aiSLT!3S;^oS.'S ndio *" *y.**r- yo^O^'t vnmm ao*» «». ite ^M^«adiB,c«»»iD«Mirier7Sto«boww^'Cw^^!!M'n^!!ft.S^ MachfiUan hetehy covtaant and afine not to aue the Orano City CooaciL and tiM iMBti aiid damaie. loes, or eapenaa aiiatag oottforrcfultim bcm the coUapaa of Mr. Giet Trachiaald'f antennae and/or support mmm. David D. MacMillan Karen MacMillan STA1E OP MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) The fonfouf uMtnaneat was adcaowtedged before ore this___day of ^ David D. MacMUIan and Karen MacMillan. Notary Public n •• ‘'t ' V ‘ •fi ■ i4 21Ma09l4M7/lfe4 ■il-m IvW* ■ <\ »■!? vfvs.f?-' / . .,., . '. j' 11< {. E__^V^._-r 07 lii.w4 r'A.V oli >»'»•>« «4.V> • ,¥ m ■ €»j ■ila '&S1, '/■ I ^ |v.?r &■ ' ; > r • fs-v’; '■ ^.v,. . S'f ?'.■ i HOLD HAKMLES^ AND INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENTWHEREAS, Mr. Ong Tr WMtoey MteMOlan; lod BtU letKS praperty ID IM City of Or • I »■ I <«' •« WHEREAS, Mr. Giog 1\ochiaiki hu coo ittBCtM a radio ameiaa tad tappotdng tmeOKB o« Mr. Whittey MacMillan'i property liw wUch lie oaedi a conditioail me permit fiom dm Oty of Orooo; and WHEREAS, liw radio aataaDt and sapport ittociDro ait lociiad doaar to tha property of DavM D. Karco MaeMOliD (tte Beighbodog property otwfi) than is atlew the OronoCode; aad WHEREAS, tMie iM aomia and aapport 00 tha pioperqr of David D. aad Karat MaeMUIaa: aad nt to conapae, it could caoae damaie WHEREAS, Mr. TkoaMnald oeeda a variaaoe Rom tte City of Oroiio it order to locata the radio tower and aupporc atttcOHt it ita contot place. NOW, THEREFORE, hi eichaaie for the a ndeipai ed agrteaMot of the OroaoCity ^ Couadi to great Mr. Itachiaaki a vaiiaaee Rom the icqniitiDiiiti of dtf OroDo CIQr Cod^ Mr. Trochiaald haithy agrtaa to dafiae, iadamdiy and hold haimkaa the aty, the Gty CoBDCil, aad the ageea ted eaiplditei of the Oty Rob aad agaiiict all clahaa, damages, loaaea or expeaaes, iadodiag attoraey tea, trhkh the Oty, Oiy Cotaeil aad agaota aad employeea of the Oty may aoffcr or for which it may be held liable. ariaiDg oot of or leaultiag Root the ihaoi of aay daiiDa, debts or ohSgadoaa ia cooaaqtaaoB of the coUapae of hir. Qieg Ttoehiaaid's Greg Tnichinski state OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENN]dwiC Hie focegoiag instrument was . 19J4, by Greg Tn iwledged before me thia liBSki. day of Notary Public 4 X - j r-j . 21M2QS14M7AM4 HOLDRiiRML]mCAHON agreementWHEREAS, Mr. Whitney MacMOIaa owns prapeity ia the O qt of Oraao which heleaiei to Mr. Gteg Tnichiiiski: endWHEREAS. Mr. Gief Tlmehiaikl hae ceoitrucied e radio wienoa end sopponiag ttwctew oo Mr. Whiwey MecMinenU propeny for whkh he neede a conditioiiai me petmit fnm the City of O pqoo : and WHEREAS, the radio anaaoBe nd anppoR ainicM aM locaaM dole to the aejjhboriot pwpery od Devid D. and Kma MecMiUan and ji iUowad by the Oiono code; and WHEREAS, the locatloo ol the radio dw prayeicy of David D. aod Kacea MacMOh to coUa^ it ooold poieatlally canae dueaie MadiiDan: and aed aappQH atraetun ta doaer eaouth 10 that wm the aoMoa and ioppoft I the propeny of David D. and Karan WHEREAS, the location of the f Ciiyof Orano. NOW, THEREFORE, fai eBehame for the iwtidpated iitomct of vaiiinee hy die Orano Oiy Goaadt dtowtaf the radio towir to atay in ita preaenc locadoo. Whinny MacMillan hemby afreet to dafind, indanudiy and hold hannleaa the Chy, the Qty Council. and aiaiait all ddma, danufaa, loaaai or which it nay be held UaUa. anaug STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF K of Mt Greg Thichiniki's antenna or aapport >1 -4.1 • > The foicgoiBg iaamnent wa acknowledied before me dda 1994, by ii •'vy:H V.\i v.:J % . /minutes of the city of orono planning commissionmeeting held on APRIL 18,1994(#7) #1912 TIM HILLMAN, 400 LEAF STItEET • VARIANCES - PUBLICHEARING (CONTINUED) Smith inquired about the old building miiertals on the property and whether they would be used in the new construction or removed. Hillman responded they would be removed. Berg inquired if Mr. Hillman intended to do the construction himself of have it done, and Hillman responded he would do it himself with the assistance of a couple of friends. Heproposedio have the outside construction completed by fdl and intended to complete the interior during the winter months. Nolan he was uncomfortable with the setback variances and he felt they should be reivoriced so that they eliminated the side setback variance. Lindquist agreed, and noted he would like to see as few variaoces as possible. Peterson commenced he felt the proposed plans were an improvemern to the property but he felt that the variances should be eliminated on the south side. Smith asked if any accessory structures would be removed, and Hillman mpffndfd not as long as they were under the lot coverage limit Nolan inquired if there would be a time limit placed on the construction and Mabusth responded that such limitations are spelled out in the Municipal Code. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Berg, to recommend apprcnml of #1912 Variances for Tim Hillman, 400 Leaf Street, subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 3. 4. The applicant shall establish and adhere to time limits fx the construction. The exterior of the garage shall match the construction nuterials of the new house; this is to be completed prior to issuance of a Ortifkaie of (Dccupancy. AH exterior storage violations shall be removed prior to issuance of a building permit The City Engineer shall review the drainage concerns and work with the applicant to resolve problems. Ayes 4. nays 2. Smith and Nolan voted nay. (#8) #19U GREG J. 1RUCHIN5KI, 1580 FOX STREET - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT • PUBLIC HEARING Greg Truchinski was present and requested that he be allowed to keep the tower in its presem location becaim it provided less of an impact on adjacent properties. Mrs. David McMillan was present and stated that the proposed location for die tower will have a visual impaa on their property but it would be greater if the tower was located further up the hill. She asked if the crossbars on the tower could be lower, which would reduce the impact on their property. ■ ' ' •'m'-' to- • to ... '..to,,, - - • r ■y-^A m\ Kip ■m m'm , ■ C,-V^. ; i> K..- ,:v .., i. -r--\ ■t~): v!i i|;: tW:- ;rKi.'-.- I *. i minutes of the city of orono planning commissionMEEITNG HELD ON APRIL 18.19W(J81 #1913 GREG J. TRUCHINSKI» 1580 POX STREET - CONDITIONAL USE- PUBUC HEARING (CONTINUED) Chair Schrocder commenied that the tower was presenUy located iw cl^ to the lot line and should be moved. He noted the alternative was to execute a hold harmless agreement with the City if they were to allow the tower to remain where it presently is located. Mabusth commented that both the David McMillans mA Whitney McMillan would have to sign a hold harmless ^reement with the City of Orono in order for that to occur. Greg Truchinski stated he would prefer to keep the tower where it is. He stated the most he can lower the bars is ten feet because it’s more benefictal to transm^ion. Chair Schroeder he felt that the Planning Commission could sf^KOve the Conditional Use Permit and retpiire the hold harmless agreements to be executed. It was moved by Schroeder. seconded by Lindqubt. to recommend approval of #1913 Conditional Use Permit for Greg Truchinski. 1580 Fox Street, in its p^nt location, subject to receiving hold harmless agreements from all affected properties subject to review and approval by the City Attorney and receipt of all permits and fees. The variance will ron with the tenancy of Mr. Truchinski. and will terminate when he moves away. Ayes o. nays 0. (#9) #1915 GEORGE APPLEBAUM, 4109 H1GHW( PUBUC HEARING ROAD • VARIANCES • Chair Schroeder noted that thb item would need to be tabled pending the action taken by the City Council on the Bluff Ordinance. However, the item should be dbcussed by the Planning Commbsion at that time, if the applicant wbhed. Mr. Applebaum was present and ind»c^«^ he would prefer dbcussion to take place. Mabusth reviewed the suff report and recommended that the item be tabled pending City ^ Council resolution of the bluff ordinance. She reviewed the hardcover on the site and noted that reductions need to be made to achieve the required 15* lot coverage standard. George Applebaum dbcussed the topography on hb property and where the locatkm of dm top of the bluff should be according to the new definition. Mabusth noted that staff required clarification regarding the exact dimension of the second level deck and Mr. Applebaum responded that the elevations were correct and not the floor plan, and that deck was^a o deck. Mabusth noted that the deck area would be added » dm structural coverage figufw. She stated the proposed garage would be 10* from the street lot line and will be ^ will require a 35* setback from the street. The house does not meet the 35* setback from me street and the second story will require a variance. Mabusth reviewed the areas of hardcover which do not coincide with the plans but noted on the survey, which was done in the winter, and possibly was not accurate and did ___ c- -*•-1*--. i V.' ■ 7,:^ :-■ ‘' '"O :. ., • ^ \ ' V-; •■ A v';?ycs?A. ■ ■ft. 7:5, M ■ "vrti m a:-4' %i^.f< ... .' A RESOLUTION APntOVlNG THE ILAT or ilENCH LAKE or ORONO aND ADDmON riLBNO. ina M * r* A * I -* WHEREAS* die City of Orooo b a municipal coipontioii offioiied and exi laws of the Stale of Minnesoia; amt liK^' - ■ \-UAb.:.r: - ■:■• •••: •■'-•■-'A.-'- Iciidj WHEREAS, the Chy Couocfl of the Ci^ of Oiooo has fof the oidctiy, ccommic ahd safe destlopmcnt of land within ‘< 1111 ■ f I ~ d wbdivision Ci^;aad WSBREAS, the Chy Council has considerad the appikmion for a Wbdivbaao of a two lot plat by Robeft L. Melamed and Eliiabeth Mebmed, (hereiMfter "the subdivideis*); and WHEREAS* the wbdivj tal Rcsideniial Zoninf District, an . 1 1 has been found 10 meet all Randaids of the RR>1B, tuland R^iilatiov of the City, findiiig that each lot b of a siae and coafifuratioo that would allow ks use as a singb fomily residence to be ftiUy deseloped without the need of any variances; ., • V,.- r- ■ ■■ ■ ■ ' ■ .. .•: .-•■ i. •*. • . mulai WHEREAS* the a oftheCiQr. inehidli«: r. . I vider has *> I 11 *, -*led all recpib H HI i platting ^■f•- '.■■Li Im-■::...<fimA Completion Of aU the reqjuirenieins Of Resohition No. 3428. Dedication on the plat of dcaioage and utility easemenb. Rayment to the Chy for the legal review and filing of the plat in the amount of $75.00. Rayment to the CiQr of a park dedication fee in the amount of $9,600. NOW* THEREfORE* BE IT RESOLVED* that the City CouncU of the City of Oiono hereby approves a plat of French Lake of Orono 2nd Addition, suhsiect to the condition that the aforemid plat shall be filed by the CiQr of Orono widi either the Hennqiin County Recorder's Office or Registrar of Titles Office on or before Januaiy 11. 1995 together with a certificed original copy of thb lesohitkHi. Page 1 of 2 . MV 4heM* • t4" ■-'I s':i .’<-y-- mi-i- t' ■■^11m -■ ''-v^iml ':;mmmm :iS m-pik, 11m ■1S|#\W9,^lil, ,i>, J I;'!' ' • •;•■.■' : * V .1 :'m X-J ^v; •' -v^i y #'-1. 4 'S-’ /• ■ llr . ! •:. ■•:■ te:- " :;;■ ,‘' ’ :::pgiM|-J!l»m Tlie appfovtl fiiBied by this ictoki diis specified above. ofOnxioforsubdivisiMifeview. DMed sbell expire if die plal has not been filed by B with the City ISthdayofluly. 1994 ATT Dorothy M. HaUki. City Clerk STATE OF MINN Msyor X I TA ) )as. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) t I ' M ’The ftecfoin i »#l;S«a *> >■ *• “*,.y,py V . ■; ; ■ -;r </ I t • V H * rtodfsd befbve ne OB this asth day of July. 1994 M. HaUhi. Mayor and Ci9 Cleric of the CiQr of Oiooo. said inatmmeiit was deemed oo behalf of the City. , < :X-XX<}^^^XXXXrX: 'X ■■■ yxixm^mmmx:: Irnimm-xx' ->■ * •::- •;• ;•;-•• •• ! ;■! V. :;• -i-'ti K , ^ ■': Xjm:■.■•■■:■XX •r, ;i i m'-'X "^i:'^ .j Vi: ' ,j..r .H-t. V ' mtjm B-Page2of 2 r ■ \:>m ■•■ -t:^- i‘l T-^ ••P- 'm ) i XI xXxmx.\^mmx:-: ui.'./ -r.: -'V- M: ..T'.,%<J*f»:.'>-;'i‘ f . A’*'' *>•:#'^- • ’ .=•* •-« . r» .-.V . '■'gSi" - ’Ivj' WM: »IS TS^‘:3 ■ ' V* ^REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIONDATE: My 8. 1994 ITEM MO.: jf ^vS^v':" I#" ' f f s?' " ^ -:.ite?u-;fc ^ - V;/ ■ . • C;=^: ^ V ■• ;.v’' BW #1922 Rotaft-nD >FinaSubdiv • • EUnbeiii b-R ' 1.1000 Old CiyttalBtyRoMl South - III'! •, I - Rod MoofW Memo 7/Sm - PwllMiMiy SMbaWriM Rwolal • HMinnorfiMGhUkeoroi - Hal n« Afpoval Rwotalioo No. 3243 2nd Addhiun ■■>'-':VV ■ mmm^-i.aii ThB ifptfciBl hit hiifillBd n BOBUCt w dtdiMtioB fce of $12.000. Pkne refer to EihfehA. of the oonditioiii of prelinihaiy subdivisaoii tppioval. The City Adoiiniitmor conDenint the peyment of the peifc nuf this imner.» » I M I I I ^ M nuor's II -'ll I \ -f StBlfhii pnpired t fiml pire reiointioii per fee.requiriiti peymeat of ii -RO pceiimiinry plet resohi ■» •.» JNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Toidopcor ’l M " -i I ' • 11 » -R doted approvil r •»; M 1 1 •; { : ;■ iv-'v \ ■■' ■:;■ •■ « M ' < » , I of the plit of French Lake ttfOrooo 2nd :,-'H i-V: '■*. ■> ►iiisaiYi.: ?J,:v»*. ««ki» < I ■/. .■** '■ • i- w r»a»5'-#e*^ Me:Mayor Callahan and Orono Council Ron Moorae. City Administraior July 8, 1994d SitbdiviskNi Ptafk DedioMr. Mdaiaed hit qneitioiied itae puk dedkatioa fee included in the final plat lequifements. He has inrficaitd the exiiience of a park dedication fee was never discussed with him. He also indica ied that the price he offered for the propeity purchased from the City was based on his understandint that it was inclusive of all costs of developing two lots on the propert y, wf ‘ exceDtkm of the sewer unit fees. Hilli ^ • i- yjm •^'1 ■' '■ ’\i ■" -;:s < 11 Staff has resp onde d to Mr. Melamed that the purchase price did give him the right to develop the property with two Iocs. However, the costs related lo actually subdividing the propeity were his lespoosaMliiy. As the auhdivider. he is lespomiMe for aU costs of the subdivision. Oneof Item is the park dedication fee. Achr ofevi ( * w n ly assist the Council in understandiqg the staff's posi Mr. Melamed submitted an offer for the purchase of the lot baaed on a requirement that the lot not be subdivided for five yean. This offer placed Mr. Melamed in the positkm of having to pay a park dedication fee if he chose to subdivide the property at the end of the five year period. During the negotiationB regarding Mr. Melamed's offer, he requ e ste d that he be allowed to create two lots in less than five yean. During these negot ia tions the City iniliated the subdivision of the sewer plant property to create the one 4 acre parcel for Mr. Melamed. The subdivtsioo was initiat ed prior to the conclusion of negotiations in order to expedite t e construction of Mr. Melamed's home The result of negotiations was that Mr. Melamed was allowed to create two lots. Based on this tesuh. City staff offered to reinitiate the subdivision application to create two lots for Mr. Melamed. Mr. Melamed requested that the City follow through with the initial one lot application because a leapplkation would have delayed the subdivision process, resulting in a delay in the construction of his r •; M - If the City would have reinitiated the subdiviskm to create two lots for Mr. Melamed, the City would have remained the subdivider, and Mr. Melamed would not have been responsible for a parte dedicatkm fee. Ife also would not have been responsible for the other subdivision costs he has incurred. However, when Mr. Melamed made the decision to delay the creation of the second lot until after the purchase was completed, be became the subdivider, responsible for the park dedication fee. A- 'I w .. t- .4.,‘ w* ..* • V ■ t * , ;r,• ^ •» :. • • 1-^ ■ rim r L- m ■ m CITY of ORONORESOLUnON OF THE CITY COVNCDWO. 9 4 2 A RESCIUnriON GRANtING FIOXIMINA^ ATPROVAL or A CLASS n SUBDIVISION lOR A PROrBRTY LOCATED AT 1000 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH • FILE NO. 1022 • vsp?: ■V -xMi' ■M i h t'-,X*:x-'x-: tty \ m hI ■K.' ; ...,•••• r:- - ‘ py >- (I''-' =■ ' ®r- iS K ■ |S= WHEREAS. Robot L. Melaiiied and Elizabeth Mel subdivideis*) oo Match 25. 1904. filed a fonnal subdivisioa appl appioval of a two lot ictidential plat of propetty legally deacribed as Ml- 1 4^1 d (heteinalker "the with the City for linCoun^, property*); and Ma (hereinafier "the WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota 402.350 et. seq. and the City of Orono ’s Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono PlanniQg Commission held a public bearing on Ap^ 18. 1994, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this appUcatkm were given the opportunity to speak theieon; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting held on May 9, 1994, the Orono City Council considered the subdivision application of the subdividers, noting the following findings of fact: The property is located within the RR>1B Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring a minimiun of two acres of land widiin each newly created lot. The property is served by sewer. Per Section 10.55, Subdivision 15 (A-2) Lot 1 «»mII gain credit for .56 acres of wetland/drainageway with total lot area at 2.08. Lot 2 shall gain credit for .38 acres of wetlands. Ihe total lot area at 2.27 acres. The newly created Lot I shall continue to be served via the non-exclusive easement over the private driveway owned by the CiQr of Orono. Page 1 of 4 • \ : ■ V ■ymi Ji . • . . •r-sjv*- -ix • v->, .......w.. •:V!.'v?<rir.’' •. . 1 1 cmr of ORONO m ^-::K.;n: <1 '■■ij--.,:;. ■ Vi- ;‘": ':y ■ >' A lUnONOF NO.cmr COUNCIL Prelimiiiaiy nUMltvisioD survqr co afimit that all existiiif structures meet the lequiied lot standarda of the RR-IB Zoiiiqg District and Shoreland Regultti of the City. Ciment haidoover ioveoaocy coofinns that each lot area satisfies existing hardcover inmrovenieiiis within the newly defined boundaries of each of the reshirmial Iocs. NOW. THEiEiOIIB, BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon one or more of the findhys noced above, the Chy Council of the CiQr of Orono hereby approves the preliminaiy plat appikatkm of Robert L. Mehuned and Hiaabeth Melamed per pItt drawings by Mark S. Grohberg. a lioenaed surveyor of Coffin and Gronberg . Inc., dated October 20.1993, the most recent revised date March 24, 1994, sulqect to the following coniitiom: 1.Subdivider shall provide appropriate signage at intersection of private driveway and Old Crystal Bay Road (County Road 84) designatiitg legal addresses of both residents. 2. Dedication of drainage and utiUiyea along the perimeter boundaries and adj M -J ♦ i S' along all interior lot lines and 10* to road righta«f-way. The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator two weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meetiog on the second and fourth Mondays of the month. These subminals are u follows: 1.Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies (one for City records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (1) copy reduced to 1” » 2(X)'. Drawing to include: A. Lot lines platted per preliminary survey by Mark S. Gronberg of Coffin and Grohberg. Inc. dated October 20,1993. the most revised date March 24. 1994. B. Dedication of "drainage and utili^ easements* as noted in Condition 2 above. Page 2 of 4 NmWIM.. cmr of ORONORESOUmON OF THE OTY COUNCDNO. J84 251 2. C. Namiqg of plat. Legal documents required A.Title opunon address^ to the CiQr. All ownen, moit|age hoMen or otheii with piopeiQr imeicst indicaied therein shall sign the plat and all!n -i M* >> * * M r L affected by such hnerest. f :.|«P '>V’ ■ - ' S-i1 "M ■ill-’ -J'll-rt < 1 k ; n •m__ '-•‘III. • -I I' 3. Bret to be paid: Total due: $75.00* * A. Final plat fee last two subdivisii of Class n subdivisions ;r- No chaige for final |dat t- Legal review and filing fee of subdivision « S75.i *Phffc dedication fee shall be determined as soon as CHy Assessor has placed a feir maiket value on the area of Lot 1 at the time of preliminaiy plat approval. Subdividers shall be advised as soon as assessor's report has been filed with the City. Park dedica tion fees shall be based on 8% of the fair market value of said land in its undeveloped state. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Or held this 9th day of May, 1994. JJi K Minnesoa at a regular meeting M^^Mlin, City Clerk 1 CI7YSF FIHAHCE OFFIU 1350200000 01 sot 75. cm 71 75.UmPT-imm you ocooi m Ti anT Jr.. Mayor ^ •V Page 3 of 4 .t ... !•. vV- .:v>-' If*" ■">'*•'•>.^-1 *i* .■vti.•$!gs«teiS<SvA FRENCH L^KE OFAi/Jirict• /S' iL^y--'/\ V,,..:.- • ■ ‘7: f’* ^,- W ■7; 7‘: ■■ -m '■immiMmaMm: ' mmm V-.. • • ■• •. '■ ‘ifsailS./-.'®'p77Ha^|,A//7/r:7c^^ ^ V .■"■■■■' ■' *% »s:; ■ ' • V '77 ■.-:"s»»»a . .*to.. • ••••♦.'i A ftf-'vR/: 'wwiwaia mmil?tS:■■ ••m§5'-^P'1IP •i. m 3i>J!S',Sa(p I V«^il2pi 'W •K -r,3Sii ' 'iiSI Wmm&a* • ; ;a -'"‘V m-;'. ' ■■.: ■■■■: i:^ :;iii i€m \r- -ff fft 'lU CLiyiEEnilUEST fDR COUNCIL ACTION.oL ’ 5 1W4cmroFoioiio DATE: July 21. 1994 ITEM NO.: U>V - • «A.Mibwih Zoning Dtfffrimwii #1938 DoutlM and Kaien Olaoo, I I 1'^ i ♦ -1 > / ‘ » w A-Ai. Al-Ap^Ucantt B - Propeity Ownen List C-PImMiV D - Hardcover Woffcilncti 6/2CV94 E • Boor Plana F > EtevttkM 6^94 Meetiof O' Site Plan H • Bop^ Siie Plan 600/94 M 1 • Avciafe Lakaaime Setback Line I • Amended Hardcover Facte 7/18/94 Meei K - Anwnded Site Plan 7/18/94 Meeting im.. * Sectioa 10.08. SiAd. 14(C) Lot conenge Total lot area - 19.026 s.f. Allowed ■ 2.8S3.9 s.f. or 13% Propoeed * 2.491 t.f. or 13% r No variance requued W. 10.22. Subd. 2 - Review of I 0-75* eetback area - 7.624 i.f. Exiatii^ - 274 e.f. or 3.5% Propoeed » 144 i.f. or 1.8% (Hardcover resuli acceia stain because of steep slopes) ' ; 'r 75-250* setback area - 11.397 s.f. Allowed * 2.849 s.f. or 25% Existing “ 1.691.38 s.f. or 14.8% Original proposal “ 3.385 s.f. or 29.7% Amended proposal » 3.020 s.f. or 26.4% Variance = 171 s.f. or 1.5% (Original proposal 544 s.f. or 4.7%) r .<£^. -------. ■% m ■'•5s i • ►. ;-- V a ■V v:-.^ ■mff ■53% vmm .pistil '■iic'v3 '*/>v::.>- ■■ ^3 Wi .; •5'- i;. -^^ ■f--5i:-'::/7 cjl B^;C: kr-' p5: 1%.-. Request for Council Act! psfe2of4 July 21, 1994 ZoniM File #1938 MlI ». I 10.24. SiM. 5(B)Lot aveeRequired ^ 43,360 s.f. Existint - 19.020 s.f. Variance - 24,534 s.f. or 56.3% Loewi Required « 140* ExiniBg - 100* Variwoe «I* or 23.5% Street setback RequM « 35* m 13* (fjpom traveled rood 42*) Original profioaal - 16* Amended proposal « 6* at comer of gaiafe (42* fb Variance > 29* or 83% traveled road) Ml 10.56, Sdbd. 16(C-2) Bhiff setback variance Required « 30* Deck « 8* per amended plan, (original proposal 0-2*) Principal structure « 10* per amended proposal (original pr «16*) I M I * I I » ' 1 IThe qipUcation was reviewed at both dw June and July meetings of the Planning O Applkam has that application be presemed at the July 25ih meeting of the Council in order to rnpH**** oonttruction of new residence as iqqdicant con|deied the sale oi their curienc - i • 1 M - The application involves the demolition of the existii« residence and constiuctioo of a two story structure would be located 6* from die street lot line although 42* from the traveled rt^. The existing strucuire is located 13* from street lot line also 42* from the traveled road (review Exhibits H db K). Plannii^ Cominission required 10* as a minimum setback from the top of the Muff. The proposed structure now meets a 10* sediack for the principal structure but the deck at the southeast comer is shown at 8*. Planning Conunission recornmended approval as the b^ i^Krs to more gradual elevadoos along the east side of the property. Hardcover within the 73- 230* setback area exists at 15.01% and is now proposed at 26.4% requiring a 1.5% hardcover variance. Hardcover within the 0-75’setback area has been reduced from 3.5% to 1.8%. All of the existing improvements within the lakeshore yard shall be removed and appUcants shall reinstall a single access stair meeting all requirements of the municqMl code (10.56. Subd. 6). m m nr-iriastmfr'r,%g. m■ M-i■■■•: •■vi;r; r«:’’ Request for Council Acti pege 3 of 4 July 21, 1994 Zoniot Ftk #1938 't> lEMjt 1 < IDuriat the June review of the appikreioo, the Planmii| Coouiiisskm wu most concerned with the hnpact of the new comtnaction upon the Muff are* end required that the amended application show a minimum sellwck of 10* ftora the top of the Muff defined at the 982 etevatkm. Review Brfiaik c, the dedicai ed right-of-way of Riifc Luie is 80* ad|aoem to the street lot line of this property. Plamung Commissioa MemM*s fell that they would prefer to grant a more ii street setback vacianoe so that stnicture v^aild be moved away from Muff. The proposed structure will not encroach any cloeer to the i.aveled right-of-way than the existing strucoire at 42*. Applicants* hardcover hm been reduced ^iom 29.7% to 26.4% by reducing grade level deck areas and the moving of the structure cloeer .o the road reducing hardcover from driveway improve menn, compare Exhibiis H avsd K. ThePfamniiv appHcamhad VC stn recommended approval of the applicatioo as amended finding that ivcs of the naaniiv Conmiission at their June meeiiiv which was le to* cloaer to the road and hardcover was not to exceed 26-27%. I ('-■ * I I - *• t I r'Ktrm Wi ■mM .ill Ml .* ’ji 2. 3. 4. 1. The severe slope and Muff areas of the property have limited the building envMope 10 30% of the total lot aie9. The comer of the attached garage will be located 6* from the street lot line and 42* ftom the traveled road. The existing residence is located 42* from the traveled. Dedicated right-of-way for Park Lane is 80*. The City requires a 50* right-of- way for residential roadways whhin the City. Park Lane will never be developed at an 80* width. All runoff from new development will be directed towards street and away from the steep slopes at the lakeside of the residence. Hardcover within the 0-75* setback area has been r i from 3.5% to 1.8%. 6. The proposed improvement to diis property would be consistent with the existing iBiprovemems of the lakeshore residences to the east and west of the property. The Planning Coounissioa leconunended approval of the hardcover, street setback and Muff setback variances proposed in the amended plans, subject to the following conditions: All existing hardcover inq>rovemenis scheduled for removal must be c prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. •JM •ileted I i '.Mr.*!'.:r:;‘ - ►v'*'r ..•< ».;v Rcqueit for CouncU Acti ptfe4of4 21. 1994Zooiqg FUe #19380)iiitnictkm of the lakeshoie access stain shall be sobiect to the ^fortt in Section 10.56, Subd. 6; stair stroctmes within lakeshoie yaids icqiiiieI 11 ■ 11 >City of Or> *. M ’ I ♦and land ahemioossevere slopes and bkiff aicas shall be sohject io e 10.36 of the Munictpal Code that deals with vefMtionrenioval and w I I p of the _______.provte *trifcd mldnlMte pta. detUi« how ilnoyc lilotedhocwdiowwItMmi. NoilMlnorilieMporlhrblSrwai Doom AUdii«ii,e iovo*t««. (rod.) n* ho 2^ dtaiea. Mortoa^rlandaheiMionorbvilitecontnictiaa bhiff defined at the 982 devation Shan be designaiad by snow fencnw or ***^***^-5f!?-** **“*. •**“"**®*“ •*« ipproved beyond that line. Erosion •***"* ****"*“* ApplicantsM City staff to confirm installatioo ci fenciim and erosion comrol c 1 tuiUiqf poiBil ca he teaed. »i *» eiouao coonol The enclosed approval res hitioo has ht*n drmiM '■'WiuusMun reeoc neaaai .-T I'.« I of 6/13/94 and 7/12/94 for tail and backfround i \- •: ••• • Hr. ■' . A RESOLUnON GKANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODESEcnm li^ summsiON 2, SECTION It J4, SUIDIVBiON 5 (■) AND SBCnON SVaUVBtON M(C-2) f1LE#lf38 WBBREA8» Douflai Lee Olwa and KiitQ Olfon (ImeiiiiAer are ownen of die prapefiy locaied at 537 Paik Lane within the Chy of O "City*) and kplly deecribed ai tbilowi: • • -# i» .» .M »Mli H pplkanis”) (hereinafter Lola 6 and 7, Bhick 6, Minneioaka Sumwiif Me, li (hereinafter "the propeiiy”); and H >: I - IJ 11 CounQr, Mi WHEREAS, the applieanis have applied to the City for variances to Municipal ‘ 71* 0** developnieni will require the following variances: 1. 2. Required « 43.560 s.f. Exteiitg * 19,026 s.f. Lot width variance Required « 140* Exiting « The propefty measures 101’ at the lakeahore. at the 75’ lakeshore setback and to the rear of the street yard. Street setback variance Required » 35* Pnpoeed « 6 ’. The existing residence is 13* (stiucture will be 42’ from traveled road. Hardcover variance within 75-250’ area Setback area «* 11,397 s.f. Allowed « 2,849 s.f. or 25% Proposed - 3.020 s.f. or 26.4% BhifT setba^ variance Required » 10’ PTO|X)sed PrinequU structure » 10’ (existing principal structure if 13 Pro|x>sed Deck » 8’ Page 1 of 6 'S .. i ,■ i ill iV..•T’' m 'A »n ' i-> « i «i ■'‘I m f.':V'-NOW, TS RE, BE FT RESOLVED by the City Council of Or•Jlv.This app licat ioii wai reviewed u Zooim File #1938. # '■.4M w . r •> f. p«3;:113^ . .. •■■ •■ Iff’''- ■ ^ ■is®^;3v VS'^: flip, ■ ^ -Mn • I' •;-3’•'..■, if; V ^1. ,t::p;&-■•^ ■ ■■ :: .;.• • 3 <• rj. ^ i. The propeny it locaied in tte LR-IB. Lakcdioie Reiidenriil Zooinf District lequiriiH 1 acre in area. The aR(ject propeiQr comiits of 19,026 s.f. or .44 TheOronoPlainiiifC July 18, 1994 and i upon the followiiv t (" H ' n I ‘* * w I I • < h ’ B V ' M I ' ; f • ® reviewed this iL _ 1 acmoval of the variai onJi'ne20,1994 and es at amended bated • '' 11 r • t i I' ^ • >« » , r ¥ The revere slope and btaff areas of the propeny have 1 eovekne to 30% of the total lot area. tnll -«B»i -< The comer of the a ttache d farage will be line at 42* fitom the traveled road. The ftom the traveled. I w . t -1 t ^ • t 6* firem the street loc resideaoe is locaaed42* Dedicated iifhi-of«way for Park Lane is 80*. Tlie City requires a SO* rifteH>f-way for residential roadways within the City. Park Lane will never be d^lopcd at an 80* width. All runoff from deve street and eway ‘11«; MBh i residence sttucmre will be directed mm p slopes to the lakrside of the tesk ards Hardoever within the 0-7S* 1.8%. ck area has been reduced from 3.5% to The proposed improvement would be improvemcifets of the properties to property. 11 -mH111» ' sistent with the exa liaae east and west of Page 2 of 6 "•'•..V ■ ’ *;'4: nm 3:1:1 3'V.= 3- . • in- M '/Si '.T .r« 5. G. H. “niere is no land adjacent to this property for applicants to acquire. The property has been assessed for sewer and there has been a principal residence on the property for more than forty years. I The City has received no negative comments from the adjacent neighbors notified of the variance request. J.The steep lakeshore banks will minimize impact of stnicnire upon views from lakeshore. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a flit hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substanual property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon H^c o; more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Muniepai Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 2; 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C-2) to permit the construction of a new principal on the property granting a 171 s.f. or 1.5% hard^,/ver variance within the 75-250’ setback, lot area variance of 24,534 s.f. or 56.3%. a 40’ or 28.5% lot width variance, a 29' or 83% strwt setback variance and bluff setback variances of 20’ for the principal struemre and 22 for tne deck. Approval is subject to the following conditions: Page 3 of 6 1. 2. 3. 5. All existing hardcover improvements scheduled for removal must be completed prior to the footing inspection for the new constniction. Construction of the lakcshore access stairs shall be subject to the standards set forth in Section 10.56, Subd. 6; stair structures within lakeshorc yards require building permits from the City of Orono. All construction and land alterations on the portions of the property that contain severe slopes and bluff areas shall be subject to pertinent sections of Section 10.56 of the Municipal Code that deals with vegetation removal and erosion control. Applicants shall provide detailed grading and drainage plans defining how drainage is to be directed towards street. No alteration of the top of the bluff will be allowed. All drainage improvements (swale) must be installed within 10 ’ setback area. Prior to any land alteration or building construction, tl» top of the bluff defined at the 982 elevation shall be designated by snow fencii^ or other suitable fencing as no land alterations are approved beyond that line. Erosion control shall be installed prior to any land alteration on tim property. Applicants shall contact City staff to confirm installation of fencing and erosion control before a building permit can be issued. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property i»t with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (July 25, 1995). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of tto resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The utxlersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, succours and assigm, hereby agree to the recording ot this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 4 of 6 Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 25th day of July. 1994 ATTEST Dorothy M. Hallin. City Cleric Edward J. Callahan. Jr.. Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instiuineiit was acknowledged before me on this 25th day of July, 1994. by Edwaid J. CilUlmi. Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin. Mayor * City Clerk of the Ci^ Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 5 of 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of . 199_ before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared_____________________________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing iiKtnmwnt,^ acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. NOTARY PUBUC COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Uo this _ day of . 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared__________________________________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing in«6tninw»nt,aprf acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this____day of NOTARY PUBUC . 199_before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared_____________________________________ known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument.and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBUC Page 6 of 6 TO:Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE:July 12, 1994 SUBJECT: #1938 Douglas and Karen Olson, 537 Park Lane - Variances - Continuation of Public Hearing - Review of Amended Application Pertinent Ordinances Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B) - Street setback Required - 35 ’ Existing » 13’ (from traveled road 42’) Original proposal - 16’ Amended proposal ^ 6’ (42* from traveled road) Variance = 29’ or 83% Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Review of hardcover 75-250 ’ setback area « 11,397 s.f. Allowed » 2.849 s.f. or 25% Existing » 1,691.38 s.f. or 14.8% Original proposal = 3,385 s.f. or 29.7% Amended proposal =» 3,020 s.f. or 26.4% Variance = 171 s.f. or 1.5% Section 10.56, Subd. 16(C-2) Bluff setback variance Required = 30 ’ Deck * 8’ Principal structure = 10* Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C) Lot coverage Total lot area = 19,026 s.f. Proposed = 2,491 s.f. or 13% SecUon 10.24, Subd. 5(B) A. Lot area Required = 43,560 s.f. Existing - 19.026 s.f. Variance = 24,534 s.f. or 56.3% B Lot width Required Existing Variance 140’ 100’ 40’ or 28.5% i Zoning File #1938 July 12. 1994 Page 2 List of Exhibits A - Amended Hardcover Facts B - Amended Site Plan Review of AppUcation At your June 20th meeting, the application was tabled providing applicant additional time to revise plan per directives of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission recommended that the garage addition could be located as close as 6' from the street line (42' from traveled road) and that all improvements must meet the 10’ setback from the top of the bluff defmed at the 982 elevation. Hardcover within the B-75 ’ setback was to remain at 1.8% as proposed by applicant in his original plan. Hardcover within the 75<2S0 ’ area originally proposed at 3.385 s.f. or 29.7% was to be reduced to between 26 and 27%. Review of Amended Proposal Stnicniie has been moved closer to street. The corner of the garage is located 6’ from the street lot line. Principal structure is located at a minimum 10’ from the top of the bluff. The deck at the southeast corner of the residence is located 8’ from the top of the bluff. Issues for Consideratioa 1. Should the portion of the deck at the extreme southeast corner be adjusted to meet the 10’ setback. 2.In order to create positive drainage to street, applicant will have to complete certain alterations within the bluff impact zone but this n^ not involve the alteration of the top of the bluff and can be completed within the 10’ corridor required by Planning Commission at the June meeting. Other issues raised by Planning Commission. Options of Action To deny. Members should refer to the necessary fmdings set forth in Section 10.08, Subd. 3(A 1-12); or Approval as proposed or amended. Condition of approval should consider the following conditions: 1. All existing hardcover improvements scheduled for removal must be completed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. Zoning File #1938 July 12. 1994 Page 3 Construction of the lakeshore access stair shall be subject to the standards set forth in Section 10.56, Subd. 6. Stair structures within lakeshore yards require a building permit. All construction and land alterations on this property that contains severe slopes and bluff areas shall be subject to pertinent sections of Section 10.56 that deals with vegetation removal and erosion control. Applicant shall provide detailed grading and drainage plans defining how drainage is to be directed towards street. No alteration of the top of the bluff will be allowed. All drainage improvements (swale) must be installed within 10 ’ setback area. Prior to any land alteration or building construction, the top of the bluff (982’) shall be designated with snow fencing or other suitable fencing - no land alterations will be approved beyond that line. Erosion control shall also be installed prior to any land alteration on this property. Orono Planning Commission Members Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorsc, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator June 13, 1994 #1938 Douglas and Karen Olson, 537 Park Lane - Variances • Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinances 1. Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) - Street setback. Required Existing == Proposed Variance 35’ 13’ (travelled road 42’) - 16’ (travelled road 52’) 19’ or 54.2% Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - 75-250’ setback area = ttr25K) s.f. //| Allowed = BiflOf iifi tr 26 % 9. Existing = 1,691.38 s.f. or • i:*tsed = Variance = (addiiiMMM69ii«!'#^«6iMiMlMfi^iep^and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C) (2) - Bluff setback variance. Required » 30’ Deck * 0-2’ Principal structure == 6 ’ Section 10.03. Subdivision 14 (C) - Lot coverage. Allowed = 2,827.3 s.f. or 15% Proposed = 2,550 s.f. or 13.5% t296 s.f. of deck included as applicant proposed railings)* Review Exhibit F*. elevation of lakeside of residence. Note an upper level deck would be included within lot coverage inventory. Property would be allowed an additional 277.3 s.f. or 1.5%. Zoning File ^1938 June 13. 1994 Page 2 List of Exhibits Application Applicants’ Addendum Property Owners ’ List Plat Map D - Hardcover Worksheets E • Floor Plans F • Elevations G - Existing Site Plan H • Proposed Site Plan I - Average Lakeshore Setback Description of Request Applicants propose the demolition of the existing residence and construction of a two- story residence structure that would be located 16 ’ from the street lot line requiring a street setback variance and setback variance from the bhiff as structure wilt be located anywhere from 0-6 ’ from top of bluff. Hardcover within the 75-250’ setback area exists at 15.01% and is now proposed at 31.4% requiring a 6.42% hardcover variatKe, more than doubling the size of the existing improvement. Review Exhibit A-1, applicants’ addendum. Applicant notes the excessive right-of-way dedication at the street side of the residence shown at an 80* width and the location of the travelled road from the street lot line. Applicant notes some 2800 -f- s.f. of additional area between travelled road and street lot line that provides additional absorption area for hardcover. Based on the existing and proposed final elevations, all drainage from the new improvements will be directed towards street. Review Exhibit I, the proposed improvements will not visually impact existing residences on either side, note residence to south has been constructed within upper elevations of bluff. Applicant also notes that all other required setbacks have been met. Note grade level deck at southwest comer is not required to meet a 10’ setback hut can be located as close as 5’ to lot line. Applicant has also advised that there may be a need to excavate at the southeast comer of proposed residence in order to provide positive drainage towards street. Applicant intends to install a swale. Issues for Consideration 1. Is the 6.42% increase in hardcover reasonable for property at 18,849 s.f.? Note applicant has not provided hardcover facts within the 0-75’ setback area. Staff will ask applicant to provide this information for the meeting in order to determine if there are improvements that can be considered for removal. Zoning File #1938 June 13, 1994 Page 3 Althwgh a street setback variance is required, travelled road is some 52’ from the existing improvement. Would Planning Commission encourage improvements closer to street so that structure could be moved further away from top of bluff and positive drainage to street maintained without disrupting bluff area? Is the project overly ambitious for this property? Note there is no need for a lot coverage variance. The severe sloping topography has forced all strucmral improvements to the more gentle sloped areas further east and closer to the street. Staff has had an opportunity to view this property at the top of the bluff and from the lake. Mature vegetation would screen any improvement placed close to the top of the bluff meeting the intent of the ordinance. CITY OP OROMO > VARIANCE APPLICATION —tInitial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variai Renewal Variance Fee $100.00(no change from original application) Variance for non conforming use $200.00 After-the>Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > •/V f“rwa I t i/I rtcrrrc_ tJt * awi»• t 'ia wwVte i'V vvv rucnc Ti vm ‘ k. * I U > V-.•c/L-rijT^T'UAti’V vrrf) -• V * * : :r* •'*> ‘‘t* ^ • 7’ ’ *"k.'Vv*aw wwa *w A f ^ •' 4 w‘- Property Identif. Number (P.I.D.) ^ v/9 a g> W Attach legal description to application if not included on required surv^. Date Property Acquired /" 74- I (do)<!^ notP C/OJL (month/year) ^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential other(specify) Zoning District_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLICANT Name Phone (home) ^37~ S0:O_ _ _Phone (wor)c) & Addr...; City, iTfPis Zip. 55^8 OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home) Name Phone (wor)c) Address:City:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ J)G0^0Q^ Describe request in detail: ^^7" ^/!CK !£^ VARIANCES REQUIRED _ _ Lot Area _ _Setbacic: Lot Width FrontI Side )(_ Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lalceshore pother (specify) ^l^fr HARDSBIP/DBSCRIPTIOR OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty and unusual property ^^^it^^^^^eventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ► VI f i Z i w m I (attach additional sheets If necessary)RBQaiRBD SUBMITTALSAll of the folloiyiaq InfoCTation maat be ■nh»4»ted by the application daadline daf In order for toot application to be considered ccaolef« 1. K Complete? Application Form 2. _^Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150* (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 3. X Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 4. X Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed f^urveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required (provide or^ (1) copy 8%"xll* for ^ reproduction). 5. A Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes , in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8%"xll*). 6. A S)cetches or plans of floor 4 elevation views (provide 1 copy 8%"xll''). 7. _^As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that voor variance application 1s not complete if the iaformatioa baa not bean included. APPLICANT'S SI6NAT0RB The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by or/ginal fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct tq the )^^^ of his/her Icnowledge. Applicant's Signature iect to the o Date ONMBRS SIGRATURB The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature ___________________________________ Date __________________ Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants mush be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheouled meeting, please malce arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building 4 Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. U p ’ I fr P ' N. ^b- 7SjC!0/.7.^ - >^-=P5<9' //C 'y/A /I) 369 k 'OX^ 3(o'x^s'= lo'y '« 'J. -■ /cf % m / . ^ /ooS^ S4-'' /H ’' t f Hk/ j45L 5,. yf. 7cs''^ S/ !0 r . J<7 / n 14?L 79& ?o7 ^7f7.3 Soa . 0^1 V ^ 'Mi. ^3 - i>'x &'- iS-y £' = £1,0 %^^r.'Z 70? 4^ 33 - /7 _< —■75 r /^S/, - 7Sf J -'if^/«> 2p8xJ^^ 9H^ i <#"'•'>1 iA*- ' " V '-' • .2-•• 1 : I 'v| I-.1 ,i ••c I 3I / z,{m:"■;.S5f '. -fY-Z: ■izW ,'V, <•■',.■v,^'.‘ , >* ' 4 i-.. .•;;- '«iv^ ,a*issii '4:1^ 1% -r -., -Y'MYYm MYjYmg Y$smmmm^ :mMm ■ /.''‘Silli ; YY0YM ■ :.4 ;4>^44# 4b YYmzm ‘':Zm§ ■ yzA■YZ0 AZZ-iZi 'AZMM 4'44ii M S;i te'.'fte4-iftB:.'fciA te:%^ V mm'Z • ■''IKi,. lmmi$mz'^ ®SWa?3|s:i mm^mz »«»«* ■ spa;*sfe>:'^ fe.s? WmSm lliilts- #iiS4*'''-- '■• ■" ^IS4K4'4’4'V^ ^ ^ mSzYzY. : i«4- - ^ ■'. ki|4 ■■:': %ZZAh'fcp4-wmY I^.Z-A:Y:-.-- fe<-."a ■ ■mr- ■'■.■/if--m ' i / ■ -■ v ^;a«i : .i/<iSll ^ v5V^;^ Mi?l sfil ’■'•■‘iff#' U --tsm :smM..itaat ■'i'ssa i ■■wiH -i'iai if# y '^■:mw' .■If# ':iii ' <h ■'If Co '■« ■4M O ."I f'a . ^ / #SS ■■ ■ i»i:; - , i- ■■ Iff-f ■IIfttfl , ■ I-: . if ■' lify-' ' ip - pf--ffkvs■? ■../■.■, ■ '-b»-'‘-S->-5'Ppf /fif '■ 0 ;Xi.-'!<■,>' r f /*■ ■•f -’V »7 CK r i\0 ‘ ^ 'iJSfeg t. 086 ^ii;^^ii fm$ ■ m «4 Msi \ t*#v /♦ - ■?^ V i ilSWaj »il.: ^ImD i*i^v •.- ■;;<■- - '■ pi^ tessj VI r.p«tepi? II -/ MO ■■ V t96 " ■II'w $imifc ,#■ fepil=»>*i. ./ ONOO 1 31a -mi mi m ifc' g'aSv; ife||Sfcv.4 V’ ^slfev'^' Si®# Wt^-^Ei%f*-'H ■r ®>« Is' .t: Hi '=:PS'iSt1 ^ -h li^SML ^ K'1® •■ :.;;;pv ri iii\ -•p. siv-;-: ,il . - ' ■ -1. ■i#' tlW i'?'^ X n. / pp.,.: i^" JH ■'SH iM" ' m ■;P'" A •Si :f^m ^'ij^:mmpM' ;■» ■ '^1 -p-1 ;l / r ‘'*"-v • ---------'-'-^ /? o . &li®. I 4"'- (^ij|S;.s^"--;§*«| wN? X., ii, % ‘*1 m 6:fa, 'M m WU: rMk:^ • V '■'‘Pm i'MI^"Sf m mw ■"CC ■r^m m m le^Si pm ^ VL 08? A// \ ir^fi,yp j \ a.V \.• r • » \ \ V \* * cy) m mBW*0m ii p^fc'';>r;,:.;' i?i§' f* r>* W’Wp- WpiW' \\ « «. \ ‘wiiM:; '■ I W ^iili M'¥ Mpii. mill yvi/ I-V- V'" WPpp '-■■■ tuPPPi.ii--*-a* m miMmmrnmt 980 mpi Wi. iilliil:- m.,vz\ / 7 'n / \ WPP P»^*4! »te: •>'. P5J?? 07^: .^9- *8mpr / cT»> i-:^s ■;'i I .1 ■'mM - ■■- :• :pmm ■ I y. P\ 1 "-V .S'V... 'V- ■ mfvm 5*1 Mlii:l3^tlll|ip 1 P:PP' <■. 'i® % Pm \r # mippWavv-V.'- ^m^!- //T / 0tP §P^'Rfe: • •ter- -*|1 ■ 1: i B / / 0 ^yfAoi- L*- Si- - :^ ... ®£S:»»»-----------lii^ :^ - - — ’PPP-mP--- *1 ----- -V' WSiW/p - aa.. ~ Sii_ . - 7:-I- :*— — •»♦ — m^ik: ISIKfe*.___ ^ipR' M KpSi 1 1^ fmsmpp ’4te:Sf% 1-- Si|5 f 111 w WPpp ■ X. M |#lWtel' ISx » P' KS^%5, I 'mim ??RR'- ilPPm. mB' 0P ‘' ^P'Pr‘:pl- Jji'jV-* 4^ *t- ^iP^77- ■ ii- gil li :-f0i mm mm$ '?M :o.ip : - -•■■, .-J ' A V?) W-^' ■.r./i /?tWi.- ::1P ■'6 s* !i^j;« PI y^‘y:Ki¥m^ ■ ■V;v,fSi»,5! ■ ;V v"' 'Sii m ■mm:A«-y .^'v:v i;:' mm„'ii V» y *' i O t«t — Km*?v -----------T — •<• ____« ^ Is .at ,^'f. fifi——-■-'-----5Mea---- o t— ____I i&a .Z.\ ____i______— —^ ^\- 962 U- 19 m WPm ^■if'sIS" Ktii-'.- v^.-. pita;tejSs^if>' I- fe, 0M / 45 u V V-' :\ .1 v:a, >., /. /< lo. V -: - ;,.rv •• . ' / / v%, ; -!a,-- aiv / / / I a>I \ I \ { ,vf•■;M" w 1 I »*iVT pi; ^pKa'X'i >;I*.S I f 4 & \ •J \ II *!>0 m* ^SV . C:Mt fit ‘m'4, iPftii ...i ter;!- a>- ^p:w"' lit ^;- '•■la- -..>ra1 * I KiMP ■^1 ■ • • ' I U‘ y MIQUEST PDR COUNCIL ACTION %* - '*' ITEM NO.: DATE:w r » • / \ ' TMi MMi^ A 2oirii« AMiMMor AfCMla Zooinf 1 »■: Rbm #1943 >' 11 ■ 1 1 *Joyce MarfieM. 2455 Scoicli Pine Lane • Variai ' li \.i Aivikaata aeek afvcoval of a haidcover variaaoe within the 75-250* aethwk area and a side aaOicfc variance a proposed 5.6*x8.r two sexy elevaior addition with ohaervation deck at fi^lina. Ha ohastvation deck is decontive and will not be acceiaad from principal stnictiire. There wtti ha an increasa of sone 46.32 s.f. of haidcover or .015% in die 75-250* area where 29.6% eiiste. Ihe stnicture wiU he locaied 21* ftom the side lot line where a 30* setback is nqnind. The existiai stracnne is locaied 10.34* from the east lot line. Review EihMt D. Mr. Meifield*s letter to oondhion tnaloee it vtiy difficult Ihr her to elevaior will provide greaier mobility for Mrs. Marffeld •. -j I « adjacent neighbon. He notes his wife*s or descend the interior stain. The proposed I t ro V t • • I I I Ml recommended unanimous approval of the proposed varia approval on a maichiQf removal of existing hardcover imptovena hacdcovcriepropoaedat29.8% (existing-29.6%). The enclosed approval resohiT diafted per the Planning Commissioo's weniiMti«id>rin« » ^ » 1 1 »did I. Total has been L ACnem REQUESTI To either adopt or amend the enclosed approval lesohition granting hardcover variance of 46.32 s.f. or .015% and a setback variance of 9* or 30% to allow construction of a two story elevator addition with upper level observatioo deck. iTp> •ah \ 1 'i r I •f ■•j 4 'J ’ k' 1- J V>» A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZX»(ISG CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 AND SECnON 10.23, SUBDIVISION 0 (B) FILE #1943 WHEREAS, Samuels. Marfield and Joyce Maifield (hefeioafter "tliei^iplicaota”) are ownen of the propefty located at 2455 Scotch Pine Lane within the City of Orono (hereinnfker "City ”) and le^% deicribed as follows: Lot 1. Block 1. DiMn Addition. Hennqiin CoonQr. Miimesoca (hereinafter "the propefty”): and WHEREAS, the apfdicants have applied to die City for a variance to Municqwl Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.23, Subdiviskm 6 (B) to peimit constnietion of a 5.67*x8.17* two story elevator addition with observation deck at roof line which will require a hardcover variance proposed at 7,607.32 s.f. or 29.8% where 7,561 s.f. or 29.6% extes and 25% is allowed and a side setback variance to the east lot line proposed at 2V where a 30* setback is required and where the residence structure exists at 10.34’ ftom the east side lot line. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City CouncU of Orono, FINDINGS This applicatioo was reviewed as Zoning File #1943 The properqr is locaied in the LR-IA Zoning District requiring 2 acres in area. The propefty consists of 1acres. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 18,1994, and recommended approval of the variances as proposed based upon the following unique findings and hardships: Page 1 of 4 IS /ii 1 • ----- > \ h :: i 4 1 } I. •* i’ ^ * : . 5. The DiooB Add I III aoeni Bk II III I II . '» 11 »► wed in 1974 md at the tone the property lotatca. The property is now sul^ect 10 ids. B.The addition win Bg stfocture. 11 w I DO doeer to i» ^ 1 side lot line than • c.In 1979 the City approved haidcovcr vaii area at approKhnaaely 29.7%. * M -within the 75-230* set back Thedenrovefet inpaet of the St I '• 11 ••till -• I -* * * *1 ' le up •.•1 *L-1‘lesU will mintaniro any visual ial properties. The • have received approval letlen from the immertiatrly a^aoent property owners, to west at 2465 North Shorn Drive and 10 east at 2425 Scotch Pine Lane. The Cky CouncU finds that 10 k Md do not apply fenerally I« » I • \ • I I M • I < existiM on this property are peculiar proper ty in diii aonin g dktrici; that Utioos. light, ak nor neighbo ring propeiQr; would not merely aerve as a conveniaiirc to the Mpkcanis, but is flwwa iy to al itviaic arsTjssis"srssi; es&'jctjssssis Code and Compreh ensive PI m of the City. dangi hy the applicams and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfete of the conununiqr. CONCLUSIONS* ORDER AND CONDITIONS Bwed UK» ooe ot inoi. of the «t»v* fliriinp. ite Oiw Ci» ^ gnitt viitaic«TwtaB^ Zooii» Code Secdm 10.22. SBbdMiloB 2 lad Sccuoo 10.23. Subdivision 6 (B) to permit « I nctk» of t (WO any devMor eddUoa 10 itae een side of Hge 2 of 4 ^rtagTiT ThtM^ea ■ r ..d, fcf. ■ ■ frfcggriTaaBEd i 1i »TT’ 3^; fsm\¥^. !£:■ *.'?: ', * ^ i ti,: t-: m0 4—9I0^. f* . cxiidat itsaCaBe lyprovi m a 46.32 s.f. or .015% liaiOcovcr imcaae in the 75-250* setteck area maintaiBial total haiOc om a 7,607.32 s.f. or 29.8% and a tide variaace of 9* or 30% wl^ to the foiioiiriiv • *) I • t 1.• f' M ^ i • • ran wkh the propeity ve oaly aad aaiit be exeiciiad by ayplh baiUhtg pcnah withia ooe year of the dale of CouacU approval, or Witt cipiee oa that date (July 25, 1995). MM. with the fora variaace III * 11 • 2.Violaiioa of or aoa-coaipttaaBe with a^y of rewhaioB Ml coaathnae a violatioa of the 3. jjjj'as terms aad coad itiOBi of this , shall amoiBBHcally hableasaoiiideai * * I ■ 11 a ^ • < I., t: d applkaatt have read, uadermood aad hereby of this resohaioo aad on behalf of themselves, their heirs, suoc hereby agree to the recovdiai of fob retohitioo la the chaia of title of pnpcfty. Adopted by the Oioao Cky Couacil on ihb 25th day of July, 1994. • 1*1 M. Hallia, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor Property Owaei(s) Page3of4 '' ‘ ' !• -*c *i‘ ! 1 * ^ i 1 I i i ‘i ' k». , c V • :r.‘ ii_vy,!»•*.« < r _>x ■■ ■M Ma p te-#rfS'il^''^ ii f; istefs •^?' p#m•il^' M$Pmtef'- #■ fl ttev" m m. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The fov _ ES««d i. _m hBUMMOt WM admowledfed befbie me on iMs 2Sih d^y of July, 1S94» by Cmi^ Jf. ft Domhy M. HaUin, Mayor ft CiQr Cleifc of the CiQr of Oiono, a nmiciptf coipowtion and nid inatiuniant was cnacintd on bohalf of the CiQr. NMny STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OFF Oattii before me a Noiaiy PhbUc penonaQy appeared known to aae m be ihe penon(a) detcribed in and who exeaned the forepoinf faMiMnem. and aeknowledied that he (they) cnecmed the aame aa hie (their) foee act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) .day ofCXitiiit within and for aaidCouBiy _,199'__.before me a Notary Pii lins ~l innwaT | |rwe mranai^^ IpfW known to me lobediepai^f) described in and wto acknowledfed that he (diey) executed die same as his (their) free act and deed. ! s r] •i )MHWSlfvA*S Notary Public Page 4 of 4 SvIiMti Ji'OroBO Plaiwiiig Committkm Memben Mayor Callahan and Orono Councttmembers RonMoone. City I k; • I,Biiildmi A Zoohy Adminiitnim Ivly 13. 1994 #1943 Sam and Joyce MaifieH, 2455 Scotch Pine Lane > Variai Heariw PiMic sf ;.-i. - I V I I 10.22* subdhiiioo 2 > Review of haidcover within 75-250* Allowed - 6.370 s.f. or 25% Riieihn “ 7.561 s.f. or 29.6%. AppI Prapoeed - 7.607.32 i.f. or 29.8% Hirfcover ia cicaic - 46.32 s.f. or .015% proved in 1979 w - %< I ♦ I 10.02. Defhncioa 13 - Buildiiy hei «____■ < ; I !U‘J‘1 ’■''iA-i' I i A lop Of OBI and or the nppenBOii pohn on a roHnd or other aidHype roof . or iliBjisaaKl Topofiaphk cliMnei which elevme the a^oini^ fromid level above the existiiv tefnin ihaU not be considcrod in dmerminim boildim heiriit.* Please refer to Exhibitt L-1 and L-2. In L-1 the inspector determined hei. existint grade hnmediatrly below elevator addition. In consideiation of the amended building height definitioo. staff has lecoofiimed that there is no need for a hdght variance fbr the proposed ohservatioo lower. Review Exhibit L-2. staff used the existing higher elevmion at it was lower than the elevathm determined Iqr adding 10* to the lowest known elevatton. No height variance is required. -it. 5 3.a 10.23. Subdivision 6 (B) - LR-IA standards Side setback variance Required ■ 30’ Existhv - 10 34’ Proposed » 21’ Variance « 9’ or 30% ''m-. \iW> t-.iS' s.jT - »b.rT* File #1824 July 14, 1994 Pafe2 A - Applk B - PlatMip C • Propcfty Ownen* Lte D • AoPlkiiMi* Uner 10 Nciglibon E . Dixon Rypka of Tri Stale Lift, Uoer 6/17/94 F-1- Surveyor*! CMifieitioB of Hardcover 6/23/94 F-2- HMdcovcr Fact SM 0 - Gary BMbwn, MD, Letter 6/27/94 H-1-3 Lattan of Approval ftom A<yace« Nei "" 1 - Letten from Joyce Marfield J • Survey K • Pnpowd Site Plan L-1-2 Elev) t %>l \ f 1 Vm ■ M - ntiTiyrtinn M dte loof line. The ftxNprint maaaures 5.67 x 8.17 . Ai steady Mjw Trill ****** ”***“• i*pto*lii««pwpo*rt"i**‘»“‘“““' ■ ifriwcawis » oChe» aBwiw. R.vkwE«hM.D,E»dO. A»M., MiifleM;.lwgwtoi»y««»?.^ «— i* —«y ittfPnfH fnr her to MCttxl OT <te»cctti thc interior staiti. Thepropomd elevator will provide greater mobility for Mrs. Marfield. Itevk* EAMtl. Mn. M«fWd ««.d»tIteZodiiii Admip^^ PI__-rfw».ri»,.ifwaiie8ideofthe«|i|>lic«»ioo.ExMb^ Phise mUB d* langm* abow the owner ’s eigneniie specifies as follows. Vvy, W- ; f . 'itff - "iw ; •:? f ■Mli 951^ii f' ZcMtfi« File #1943 July 13, 1994 Pefe 3 and An » i <►-11PM1 LLi.1 The owner beicby acknowledfcs and agrees to this appUpam au diorfa es reasonable enny ooio the property by City staff, conauha] Commission meaabei s, and Gjuncil members for purposes of investigatioo and verification of this request. It is uafiMtunaie that Mn. MarfieM had not realiaed that iaspeccioiis of the property ate required by the City staff. Planning Commietinn and Oa mcihnembers, but, hopeAiUy, we can minimtoe any problems by arranging for inspectioiis of the she by first caUing hto. Marfield. The telephone muhber can be found on the from side of the variance application. You are also asked to drive up the driveway and park at the property. This action will pre-wam Mn. Marfield of your arrival. 1. 3. involves an increase in hardcov er. Will it be necessary for a pplicant to ___________ae whh an equal removal of existing hardcover improvcmenis? Note 7,561 s.f. was approved by a previous Council? >* I » 1 I m * * -m \ i tier issues raised by Planoiag Conuntssatm nKn sben? Lot 1, mock 1, Dicon Addhkrn was approved by the City in July of 1974 at 146.73* in width, the current standard requires 200’ of width. The side setback for the one acre aone was 10* in 1974 aixl the current standard requires a 30* side setback.. In 1979 29.7%. Chy approved hardcover within the 73*230* setback area at approximately The existing residence is located 10.34* from the located 21* fiom the east side lot line. sidelotline. The additioo will be Dense vegetation that surrounds the residenoe will minimize any visual impact the strucnire may have on adjacent residential properties. AppUcant has received approval letten from adjacent neighbors, the Lukes to the west and the Hills to die east. ■IWW oTAi To ^ipiove the appUcatkm as proposed or amended. If hardcover removals are tt> be a of approval, please require that these removals be completed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. 'm |,L’ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE AFPUCATION -k i‘>^^ Initial AppUcatkm Fee ($30.00 per each addtcii^ varia Reaewal Varianoe Fee $1 (no chaofe Ikom orignial applicad VaiiaDoe for ooihGOiifonDiai siniciiiiet After-the-Facc Fees (Double applkadon fee) ♦ Vil III I CITY OF flfifflB R£capr-miK you#3K!^ cooi m m0^'2C I i t <WiMte rP.l.D.1 4^4^000^ —---------- to appUeatioo if not included on required survey. ______ 1 <1 1 W_________________________jCmomh/year) I (do) ^ooo^also own the a^yaoeni parcels of land. PinicnniBTirpfopet^: X lesMential _ocher (specify)--------------------------- Zonifli Distrie AJPrUCANT , ........If I^WfW"1Y ^ ilTtr Addicar7gOi^j^M^&— • • ^1 f • I» ' Fhaoe(wQriOjS££ )_s±$Lsm MsogSB^as^ mSR (if different than appUcaoc) “—^Agg#£fai) PhOIM(| Phone (woclO.;CnT7ib= iYW^ cy A Citv! ^ jjAV3S^ HSCUmON OP REQUEST -EstiaMedQiinanctiooCwtS 'iQ^OQO DMcribe request indetail: (LnlMnre.^eTT«a^/ ------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ^ V Setback: X Hardcover Side __Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDsmp/SBSCRirrmN of unusual property conditi ons Of mietiial dttBculOf flc bhm» pwp«g condiuont pieyi widiZoaiitCadticquiicaieiiit;.^QQt33fi^2B^afefQBi£----i.— >»£- U)MD/rK^ «^g -------------------------------- (■tfrh Rdditional Sheets if neoeMary) ■ ^ J1 'l' YOU 70S i/2C 4 i < * ■r fc. ‘ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS J&al» ^ I r k ^ f < - fulfil ytoiwrf Applicaiioa Form . Piopaty Owners List of ownen within 150* (you must obcsin this list from lifnniitii Cotto^ Depailmcnt of Finsnce, A-503, Ctovt Center, 348-3271). I^Doni^^survey (existing and proposed etevadons) if any changes in «toini grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8J4 ” x elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8% * H ). List of the legal names (include marital sttcus) of aU persons with an ini^ m the pr^ tSs would include name(s) of applicanKs) if not curreni owngs).Asanidendum »this application, please attach a separate list of aity other persons you wish notified of diis ^pUcanoo. items as may be retpiested by City staff. 4 • »' * » ‘ V' < • Please remember that I fin pnS fall ' ^ ^ i ' I » "J5g2n55'!£?5 * i4i^ '-'-mudon supplied i«l correct to the best of his/her knowledgerM » I t. DM,AppUcant's Si oiw by Clqr *rff. C00«1IU»^^ *ei, fct pmpotes of iirveai|«IOB mi vaiBcMioo of Ihi* Owner’s Sigi . C ------ Applicant must ha Mhe^. Planning C AnnHcMti___MdConiidl. ifanappUcantisunabletoa Meettags are held on the third Monday of each umthiii a scheduled meeting, plM make airang » have an authorimd agent anend m your part sod to advise the Building & Zoning Office 0 dus change prior to the n I M k ‘ ‘IV'-. ------ ' ; .. >■ 1 ■■a / ^ .1^ ■ t - ..4 A 1 , c- :.i.A^.... .inH.f rJKT’ r?T^ W” -! « V#1.:'.' ■!..<«»>>• .«•• . i-»»»--*i “ <J^.#i^« »....W^M0^lifercff »S«. •’> ^ w.^ >«>y t fi t»-U7-«fe fefe tltt «M« fM H fe iiM im IAUM HiMH H M •fe>tl7*lfe«feMfefelMV C IIW tfettllM «• __ mnralAiii mH i ;■ m •»>Uf-it4fe •V 'i*. It tt-Uf-tttfeu » iiUlut i ajjart i«u Ml tttiaim u Mnfertiti Urn i AC MMMAiii mm C a : t cunrv niAf m feActt filliff: iM'W. :■ ■ or Mr nofeojfew mb icuir. ✓/ MU ^v./yjL/i i8ggg:¥ _‘ V'- -r;/ A ii^ i ..J* '■fe»^ss:. y•A^ . .-.ie';-K >.v. •.. y~„ •* I 'H-i W-'^ m'%- '•si..::' ■>r* .i*-,. ‘.V.•^-'K .■V S' ** ■"i’i ■'H- ■ ■/; yiiTe.. . ::^.gr:: •_ ..^- >___:• ■- ^ • :y- T' ?;.rIPi'*li: y \ h- I '.. SAM AND JOYCE MARFIELD 245S SCOTCH PINE LANE WAYZATA, MN 55391 VOICE 412-473-3344 FAX «13^3343 D Tbttndmy, Junm 23, 1934 f WM PtM 70 WOXID Jm ELK7JOOP AT OOP BOOSE. jores^s E.s. eas oottee tee best of eee leos . cumeieo TEE ETAIES TO OOM EEDEOOE IS A JUUL< TASK WOE EEE OEU OOES OF MED DOEE OECE A DAW. SEE SELDOE COES TO TEE OOE ELEWATOE DESIQEEE EAS FtAEEED AE ELEWATOE OE TEE EAST SIM OF OOE ms. WE SEED eirr feeeissioe . i eawe EECLOSED A FLAM IE CASE TOO AEE lETEEESTED. TEE ELEWETOE WOOF LIEE EIGET LOOK LIKE IT IS ABOVE OOE EXISTIEG EOOF, EOT WILL BE A FEW FEET BELOW. TOO EAT KEEP TEE FLAK. SAW \ ^ .1 • »' . = 1 \ 4I I'I "'ft•I 1 r-14 i i I \V fi! .i b,’- ,-;i - tr I I 143 WEST BRIDGE P.O. BOX 382 OWATONNA. MN 55060 hm 17.1994 Joyce MiflMd 24SS Sooicli Pine La WiyzMeMN SS391 Deer Joyce:RE: Elevttor evahietion la evaluMiBi your hone for the initalletkm oft fendentiil elevttor. 1 M an outside would he the most foasfl)le solution. I recommend you build an elevator shaft ju< outside your ffi* frfdioom are a This will give you convenient access at each floor in the area of the house you use the most. The large size cab required for the electric wheekhair you use would lequke a hoistway si» of approximateiy 5'X 6*. Tha design of yow insdequsie space til access to flu I M '* I • M.ts the possibilities for an interior elevator shaft. Wehm/efound ior of your home to install an elevator that would allow convenient and surrounding areas. ir in <' An ahanMNive would be to install a chairlift on the stairway. This would require you to transfor ftom your electric wheelcinw to the stairway lift seal. Itmsy work lix^ft}rawfaile,butifycur M.S. progress you msy not have the strength to transfer to the chairlift if the fiiture. We do not refflnmffiii thb type of lift for Chroiic Progressive M.S. patiems. Please contact us with soy qi Sincerely. : —M >ns you may have at 612033-1878. UiMOn Dixon Rypka Salea/Service Manager t. - -\v 1 ^ ; TOLLFREE_ pOO 026 6017 SALES rental , a service of handicapped TWIN CITIES lifts RESIDENTIAL ELEVATORS. S TA ! R R ! D E S . it 612 333 1678 dumbwaiters OWATONNA 507 455 3553 FAX 507 451 1655 ■-/ ■OAN; FIKL.D A NOWAK, INC suwvvoits y I 7«t| WAtCAU •OtKIWAAB Fy b JUM23, ItM lilil PAI: «ffl 248S tomh Pint Um Waymt, MN 8S391 RE: M^tcti^ ctleiiittiont f^itl 1. Block 1, Dieon Addlt Wt hmm our pitviOMt turvty tf ttit tubjoct pfopwty. Ourrteori 280 Hm Mofthttft tf tht Itkttliof It 2B,4B0 oqoft f—t moft or ItM. Tht harOetvtr ittil tt ptr our provioui turvoy for tho 78 foot to 280 fitt aroo it 7801 aauoro foot or 20.7 porcont. Tho tiovaior you art propooino to conatfuct io Oknanoionad 0 iPat by 7 foot crooting an additional 42 opuaro fiat of hardco¥or ourfaca. This incraaoao your hardcovar parcantago 0.18 pareant, for a tttal of 29.88 pareant in tha 78 foot to 280 fdat araa. tf you hoaa any guaotiont ragarding your hardcovar cateuiationo piaaio cati mo at 846-8837. Boiko Vica Praaidant/ COO i *4 ]I 1 ,TSTr’:aa"Arary.y«-]fflf;..Tfr^" ____SL-Sii 1\ ■r- : !■■ « j - ! ;• i i: ■ ‘ ' f P- '3^hardcover CALOIUTIOH ^ stTBACic zone: (emeu oue ) 0-7S*^7$-2S0^^^te0-500* 500-laio ExiSTtM HoDCCWP w Zowt t t A. Horn s.r. «tOTH t,p - X t.p s.r s.r 1« fiAMAt i.r C. ftllVIllAY t.r. «.Y O.SlOtllAU S.P I.F Ratio /kcK S.R - X f.R A.LANOSCAn s.r UNOtAUlN IT PLASTIC SHttTlNO t.P« t.P Ibtal HMdeovT as par 1979 7561 SiRi isad Elavator S«F •. * Total IU adcovir in Zone - rrn 7603 _ a.P. I A| Total Pnopenty A rea in Zone 25.480 m B •f[B X II 29.85 rmeik^ iv^jji^inri, Tr>gE.imra».WMrr:>^^,.. '‘4 i •.'t iii ■c w V, i i F'F.f»;- l.-i. K -«>: r^ :-f " I' U niversity of Minnesota ($ r^CMnC Me^ktiSeM B,tf29SUMMC 420OtknMr*StnttS.£. MInnm ^. mi55435 6t2’t24-3 June 27» 1994 II: JmmJMuMdnmmVOhtt M$. kfyet UMitkU 24S5 Sooich Fte0 Lmm Wiyaii.MN SS991 tar Ms. Mufieid: You SM mta mf an forvovr ■es rolst ic condition, wldcfa BMitoi it vefydMftaili for you t. Hiii coidithwi sIk> gwsbs you wvcio utiiuo. Over ins yotis. * t I (M hit |NO|iiiisd fiflificMilly For .1 Min. If your iKdbe •'. ■ A i' < • ih I BMchiBiad devke for wm in iatemal mschndcil device, I hope you an foeliof well. 1/ .M.D. Neurology A- r .' ;*i- v ■^i.. .: . .••» • • /.*■ I I Is *.• .1.,^ -V. .♦•*•»» n->« rf . '■. 4:i I.' %. I'.x ■h ■>^1 ■• ;& ■ • f ■ ’* ■ , ) ^:fX. ■^;'- -k' • • . jv"". 'S. ]•.% t, t;V ; % [! 1 ^ Si ujui ‘:;^ > • « 1 i^: ■r i .»h H ■I " * <T." V •il i / K - iV -• • - -*t i*.'• ■rr^im«itfiriTii^«irri ^jr rgr. ,. ,y ^.:.-r-‘Sar.Lgr^ ..V.C . i■- !V.■*»; Kfeitii& 1^' 4*?' .« * i-r>' - t. 1-m } ifr •r P:.-: ^S'-■ ■ Z' .isr iP#r'C'.is« .' i;fiy:,"‘,r - '■• W§m0^:, 1 \^ fi ’ '-'M Jsf -tuc hr' * ^^,^ Uv>n|<> .* • -\* ^ I*.-. - ? ' •-;^.- X-. • ,, •. i If r^^l.O .’. #C;*- -..7_ ------------ • *v.'i^*.-i,*v’ . ^ .• r• ,r 'j.'. "’ i'-^S ■ .; •> ''■:'^^r'S 5i>.,:.«»-as ■' .'X - V-5 -ro *.. . r:-- -• Va.-'t'-' • ■ ■ '■- •t‘^vV‘5»hi'-l-5^Siai^ mmm ■Vi; i*#1sifel »>r»JC: ^r; :: n:T9^ ::f^ t ^■ ^>'-'». > ’>T*'. - •; -^■'rr r■ f i :.>^Sv^='‘' f 'T ....... I U I?'h k!"' ' p- ■ '1^ f ---S'. • -■■ '•;. ih-'- 'im .**•*' • ^r7.*- V:-; ■-*/ ‘. - :r; h r •-■. ■- •; ^-' *'■ . *« ®^r P; ft ■ • .N:-' ■f % c- ?>■ I- ■ 1' i ! * CltT of Orono NMidpal Offleoo 27% KoUty Parkway OronOf Hb« $5336 July 11, 1994 Bt:AppUeatiOB #1943 SaBual and Joyca 1 raouaat for a aida aatkaek and hardcowar Tariaaeato pardt eoaatroctloa of a 2 atory addtloa that ■111 houaa aa alawator ahaft* Daar Plaaaiac Coaaiaaioa Maabara: Wa ara loeatad oatia oppoaita alda of Scotch Plaa Laaa f roa Sm aad Joyca Marfiald aad wa oiA tha proparty that ruaa dowa to ka laka adiacaat to thalra* It la our iataatioa to aotlfy you that wa a^ aot oppoaad to tha coaatructloa of aa alawator daft oa tha Eaat aida of thair houaa* Tha Harflalda hawaauppilad ua with tha propoaad plaaa aad aftar rawlawias ‘ ‘ tloaa*thaa wa hawa ao ohjac aiAcaraly, H. o/ 10 L... CharylT R* HillChary:2425 Scotch Pina Lana '•a 1 .1 fe:::jrii «.^*TLJ23K n-, . h\ h:‘ • r^' ■ .V f''U' K» ■^! SAM AND JOYCE MAKFIELD 2455 SCOTCH PINE UNE WAYZATA, MN 55391 VOia 412-4733344 PAX 413-473-2343 :r: JULY 12, 1994 TOt JBARIIE MABU8TH KBs LAND USB APPLICATION OP 8AMUBL AND JOYCB NARPIBLD DBA! JBANNB, BBKB ABB TNO NORB LBTTBR8 PROH NY NBIGRBOKS STATING TREY HAVE HO 0BJBCTZ0N8 TO OUK BUILOING AN ELEVATOR. ONE OP THE NEIGHBORS BROUGHT OVER TRB NOTICE THAT I DIDN'T RECEIVE ABOUT THE NEBTIHG ON NONOAY, JULY 18. I SEE THAT THE REQUEST FOR A SIDE SETBACK IS STILL IRCLODED AS IT NAS IN THE ORIGINAL LETTER OP NAT 25 TO NR. OOOPBRNAN. HRBN YOU AND I NET TiO NBBKS AGO YOU STATED THAT HE WERE NOT REQUESTING ANYTHING THAT NOULO REQUIRE A VARIANCE IN SIDE SETBACK. PLEASE LET THE PLANNING OONNISSION XNON THAT. EITHER HR. OOOPBRNAN OR SAN NAS TOLD IN THE BEGINNING THAT IT NOULO NOT BE NECESSARY POR US TO NBET NITH TRB PLANNING OONNISSION. NRAT HAS CHANGED THAT? THE NOTICE TO DO SO CANE AS A SURPRISE. I DIDN'T REALISE THAT THE NEHBBR8 OP THE PLANNING OONNISSION NOULO BE CONING TO NY HONE TO VIEN THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. NHEN THEY DO, I NANT NY ARCBITBCT TO NEBT THEN TO CONDUCT AND EXPLAIN IN A PROPE8SIONAL NANNER NHAT NB NISH TO DO HERB. UNANNOUNCED NEETING8 ARE 8TRB8SPUL POR HE, AND I NANT THEN HANDLED BY NY PROPBSSIONAL. THAT'S NHY I HIRED HIN. NY ARCHITECT, NR. OOOPBRHAN'S PHONE NUNBBR IS 545-0409. PLEASE CALL HIM TO SET A UP NBBTING TINE. THANK YOU POR YOUR HELP. SINCERELY, JOYCE HARFIELD 1I 'V •i M ‘’S [r ■■’*-"■^r■ i- i:-tv. •*., f-Th J : f-' .'/• t-I &/: W'- 1-'. f-' ^ T:.'- • ■. fe'f?^- V ■ ■c.) ^ .’ ► H-'V. V- "■ f.- •• ■ ^4' M: fX: L'i-’- 't'-- :|- "n‘* r'"'-k #■ ^v: : Vw 41 M-'* i*;:- ‘’.V A-JOw07-13-1994 0Si2£An FROM SPTI nPRPtELD 612 473 2363 TO 4730510 P.OlSAM AND JOYCE MARFIELD 2455 SCOTCH PINS LANE WAYZATA, MN 55391 VOICE 412-4;34344 PAX 412-473.3343 July 13, 1994 BY FAX (NOT HAILED) TOl JBUOrE NABUSTH BE: LAUD VSX MY BBQQXBT THAT THE PLAHNZMO CC ABCHZneT Z8 PROBABLY OVERKILL. .xUt 88ION HEET NITH NY IP TREY J08T BOTIPY NS BEFORE TREY VZ8IT IT HILL HOLD DONN THE 8TRS88 LEVEL AND Z CAN KMIOLS IT KYSELF. TRANK YOO ilNOERSLY ■»JOYCE NARFIELD f '*W,"V.-.>'•w - .. - X.. 1 i 1 ’-■1 :} •j .• ■f i 4^ \ detail $c»ki t-10* iiffi«’ te*i a i w IM I 1 ii I ^ n ¥^.5ftt '. ■: ■ ^imm ' * r a;iv.*.i,14ir!*;-!';.rm t 1■i P- M ■ '-mm-y^ %■ f f i i : ';m : l&^y ^ •- ■'■ ^ ■ ^iii" 4 4"i:4-* mAiy i ' ^ > ,. / v> I / <'■■ » Kfe: \ 1‘ A / /i / / // // i♦ / I 0 / i Ni >•f i , . ■, i\\‘' 5 .1^ ^ ^ '/ ■ \ N \ \ ':Mm ' 'Am' <0i* n< .A- : Oa aI m\^A A^.;, \"AA' •e ^^"■A\y.- 0 /'•' f'lf*. // ^ V !?V!l5i' .4c'' ;v ; -i'^a:#::::;;4 ■• • . - ,<;T. “ ^ "-<^0 / : fv ■!<t^’ : L^:A 1 .^ • -^ =>r-i./ »•* j ■'■%? '. : >:-a ftv y %a If r- -4' - sJPlaUnmmH .A'Sii £i- tr^' - P *. ■ i- 'A -L f ^WKl * * ■A i< ■A ■b'.: 4:4.;.;^^. ^ilii •■■"‘=Asiii•y . = 5«e Det^;f s \ // ■ • Tr4>.4,.:;.i;4 ' -Wj«f ■ Av:x4 : -7Mr-r.'”AA '■'.. N N X V ^ <«* V» .-I- _<> .V ^ ► ■«v «**• •C. '-r' '^ • ^y. < 13.98 '€ , <t>v v> V. rg44b ; 4fef Af; • tei4- / I 0mf iiS-■ PfeCiA^'A ■ WlK"pi*:.. ipif'X-1»4^iiii-ili4- teibf 4^ ■ WB«?mMA -S-''-.v:"-;-:''. teftiib'V |Astv: l . lit:-btSf*'' ■ ^f?>a *'■'■ ■• 'A; . >■liii- m: >li"- v ' - ?i4i: -r' • ■■ • ■' V m I , .;f-t|||k- Wmii*ii Iliam iK ■.^■111# ?¥gi§ ‘ ■-' -¥*p ‘fes-c 'i^'’I detail $c»k: r» 10* ;:V %Mra- /> ../V- . ., J <^v'<,f X.' *'PK:fOf£ij 't 's «». I I *• • • • • N r ; > ■4 '■ ' ,’i ‘ . aa , ;■ ■#: ...;,;.P •V ;6| „-?i- : '%*f V% 'v^fH ■ Wi , wmSmim' ■mmm- tiS-'&Sf' ■ S ■■. ■:'■> tefftK*: ’ ■ ■ W9M y liissjav .'r V T FLO sBtP '^V IPurn; i^P:' =K- B'- V- .%;.'•■'ll ■'fii 7 ft IKSUUW1V vwmmm» '• ;;:iii^ » i \ \\ "^m mm ,i;\:'*;%»tof'ae^ i>a£'^«4k. ........... wr ww— f ^ rti«tr«# 5ee musv. BkMn" !*i^ .. :,wi«sss .■kffcgi^ .■ ■ ■' -"■«:a»a ■■ :,8P4o:sKsl " ’ asl ✓ ♦ T FLOOR PLAK eBcouD Floor V 1/4* »l! ' :^1V t)sc."tMieM.^Hb Micn^Zx4 imSi fei: J.4(k(^<aeo6a UO.MUn» i'k ‘^iiil W9nO0DO4MIT. umt-tiosWMc , A‘ ‘ Pi^l fei® tpi® lilwsi lyip is» S', 7- .-' ‘ V-*-; mmmp: iV •'••i pfVv. 1;-;-^ • i, imi m-'''fi .- te;:-'- ‘if ••••• fiS>HWfUSP » /t'^fbuorib^ lK6s <6*’0iC • • %••« • % w I ■ >1^1 '-fS ii. il^.‘klff k:;,ii5ij V I c mm. feiii < 1 (3DM<i-ftR»c< fStocic.' pawwT e«i*sT *—; BASEMENT PlM^| it &■: ^Ifc: It't?.-'/- pv., 'r-v *P325::;-- to-. ■ ■■ SW=‘ .M&:: A-'ga feS?J¥;,: ®#t' psifist'pfes,:; X'fh^ ' -■> ?''rt-'pip': .Plfk kP P' •*' :■- I FIR1 m - . ►. • 'v.4^i3 ' ",. i%'mm .xW& sW0mi ’sSfeifS*:aiii -'imm i?’ '’i«lil ail# [4 |!«tl4t7Ntf' iU^Mi (S^ LowCt Lu^^t4tm Wdfnft •;:'f ■a ■ i: t: I'i*! !f '•'mMffinNG REQUEST fOR COUNCIL ACTION ^ ^ p*"= * un mmm IRMNO. V * ^ « PiMk WoliB Brown Rcwd Rccontnictioo and Wateitown RcMd Culvctt RepUc Award OaTtea^, July 19,1994 tte Ciiy receirod and opened bide for the reooniiniction of Brown Road Nofdi between Conmy Road 6 and Stale H^ffaway 12 and the tepUtemeoi of a latfe cidroit on WaKiiown Road between Leaf Saeet and High Lane. Bid* received were under the CBchieer's csthnaae and wiU be eiplained in the letter ftoin the engineer. On Wedneaday. July 20 0^ Eoftaieer Glean Cook. Field Ini|) acted a neigM wrf»Qfld f***^"f 10 dhcuia the final plana. Harlan Olaon and myself A. Safety . „ All rftii***^ were conceined about safeQf and ediat could be done to improve safely. We dMi site were goii« to be improved by chanting the elevation of the hOls and filling in the low areas B. Drainage , Another foirffm was the drainage and the impact on a private culveit. We explained that the ■■nfmt of increas e in flow is Insignificant, and that by reducing the size of dieailven under Brown Road will ai^ velociQr of water created by the storm sewer ^stem. C. Trail There wm also a request to reduce the width of the bike trail ftom 8’ to 6*. We exfdained dim 8* is a miliitmiin safe width for two way traffic. Some residents indica ted that Baker Paik trails were only 6* so we should be able to build a 6* traU. It wm verified later on that Baker Park trails are 8* wide. D. Assessments The residenis along North Brown Road have also asked whether they may be subject to through Other souices. The attached memo oudines those costs not covered by MSA foods and identifies several options for funding these costs. w ;* . ,#■ ■m ■1 ■41 M M- I# '■rm Mk 'h'^‘ Iv ■l4 i^ 1 <u i p«p3«f3 Mtftl,t!m 4 t «• 4 — ' ’ » ( -4 1Aswnacflt Policy. The City does not cuncody have a compreheiisive asi poiky. The City’s genefal poUcy, until the Sthbbs Bay sewer project, had been to assess 100% of the costs of a piMk improvemcBt project to the beneOtied property owners. Due to the court decision which tied the aiseismeni amount to the increase in value frnrratnl by the pdMic improvcinent, the Council negotiated an assessment lower than 100% with the Stubbs Bay property owners. The City has never done a n^jor street recomtruction project. Streets have generally been tecoomcied m part of sewer proijects. As the CiQr’s residential, as well as MSA requite leoonitroction the Chy will need to de^wlop a roadway reconsttuctioo a and program as well m a plan for financing the program. Ihis plan will need to inchide the use of special asi — '*11 -^1 * MSA roadways are diflbtent ftom residential roadways in two impoitaot ways. First, their "tmin purpose is lo serve as ooUecior roadwqrs. The nuyority of traffic on MSA roads comes from other roadways rather than thoae who live along the roadway. Second, MSA roadways have a dedicated fonding source which covets approxiniBiely 93% of the reconstruction costs. Because of these differences the City may choose lo treat MSA road projects differently than other public improvemem projects in terms of special f 44 ■m’ H'i ■nmi•'ij PS 'fe' The Ciqr Engineer has indirated that about one>half of cities eidier residential property for MSA roadways or thqr asseu only the arnoum not covered by MSA fends. On the other hand one-half of cities assess residential properties along MSA roads based on the average cost of a residential roadway. Under this method the amount assessed would be substantially more than die amount not covered by MSA fiinds. The reasoning is that the property owners have some responsibility to participaie in the cost of the street, and the revenue collected enables the ciqr to stretch its MSA fends which fell short of funding die ciqr’s reconsttuetkm needs. Because the total amount of costs not covered by MSA Ainds is a very small portiw of the project, the Council could approve die project and award the bid pdkir to determining the fending source for die costs not covenul MSA fiinds. If the Council decides to assess a portion of the costs, an assessment heuing would be required. The City could assess the cost by several different methods: a. <Mily dioae properties whose driveways enter onto Brown Road North. b. IiKhide aU properties abutting North Brown Road. c. Include those properties fronting on private roadways but whose access firnn these roadways is onto Brown Road North. -1■J m •• j ' A'Tj ! ■I'f ‘ 1 I '■•V V .4:,: m P: ^ « .•>.,V*^« TO: flOMi DATE: SUUB Mayor aad City CoMocil V I Vvi City A «*nl» July 21, 1994 Badiat Soufcot for MSA Roadway R -----o- . ♦ I • ♦mctkm Com Not Covered 9y MSA MeMcipel Stale Aid (MSA) Amdi cover appcoxinwiely 93% of die com of ncomrmsm MSAfOodwdy. M ite caae of tte Nordi Brown RoM prpfect, tline iMu are not ftilly eli for MSA fondiag. 1.Storm fewer 40% of rm sewer com are not covered (III M )) BBoe^HBoe trail: 20% of die bB» trail com are not covered ($3,150) 4 1 ^ -ii m 3.Eaaea < t'« I «t '1m ijorityof u: < I *are not covered. As ibe city ccmfones to leconMiKt its MSA roada as part of a kmi term propam ifaeae types ofcoM wiUcomimieiobeuofondedbyMSA. Die city needs to have a policy lo guide laiw these COM are to be fonded. Mfan TV>M fhW The portiea of the bBoe trail COM not covered by MSA fti 1 easily be covered using perk • i w I t < ♦ - I ( . i I « Xotti I COM can be ft i throiifh several ahernadve m A4 a ‘41 ■m '■■A. li ! 1. 2. 3. Oeneral property taxes could be used to create a fond specifically to cover COM. Special to cover properties bcnefittii« ftom the proiect could be assessed excess The chy could create a storm water utility. ThU involves each parcel paying an aaimnmi foe MBiibr to thc watCT Sod sewsT Utilities. The fee is based on die aaiount of hardcover and storm water ruthoff generated by the hardcover. This fee revenue would then be used to create a fond to pay for storm drainage inmovements including those related to the MSA projects. i u pf- i M b i ^ > .i f -■‘V r »i ‘ \y k ff ,*• k •thm Bonttuoo n «• ft Associates I 1UW H Oanrit COOL ThOMlilf H C^A A SvM^t A Goflon. H t mmm.n omm.H C tUML Al A Jiffy A tM»i. H Mirt A HifWi Pt AlC^ y9w0tmW fmnm n C iyncn.PI • MiM Pf jpfy O Pi Pf Pi 'Hrj" July 2a 1994 P AfMonPi i MLPf A MPi Oify W iMfi. Pf AIA PilP i Oinnan AtA Pi OM1 i«|M»i Pi AittlMW Pi. Pi PiiAi i Cmmm, n Pt lAPiOMMAPi mkmp ibu. Pi Mfl Pi I Pi UiliL M P City of Orocio F.O. Boi 66, Ciyfial Bay, MN 55323 Brown Road Reconstruction, Watertown Road Culvert SAP 152-107-01 and SAP 152-1034)1 File 13972 Honorable Mayor and City COoncO; Bidi were opened for the Municipai Sute Aid Improvement Project on Tuesday, July 19, im Tlmnitted hetcwiili ate ten (10) copies of the bid tabulation for your taiformation and fBe. The followinf sumoiariKS the results of the five bldi received: Low Buffido Bituminous, Inc. #2 Midwest Asphalt Corp. #3 CS. McCromn, Inc. #4 Hardrives, Inc. #5 Wm. Mueller A Sons, Inc. $567,226J0 $617,979.03 $632,653.23 $644,516.90 $655351.90 The low bidder on the prpiect was Buffdo Bhuminous, Inc. with a Base Bid of $567 326.^. This bid has been reviewed and found to be in order. The low bid also compam rawora^ with the Engineer’s esthnaie of $643,000.00. We are therefore recommending thil ftf Ott ateid this aroiect to Buffeio Bituminous. Inc.. continacnt-QO Obttil Note that easements for the road improvements have not yet been obtained. We recommend that the Alternate bid be awarded which provides for cable concr«e to be used at the storm sewer outlets in lieu of rip rap. The Alternate bid results in a deduct in the amount of $720.00, for a Total Alternate bid of $56630630. Should you have any questions, please fed ftee to contact me at 636-4600. Yours veiy truly, __ BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERUK A ASSOCIATES, INC. CK ammu n r^siwtmfKrwi PP rShawn D. Gustafton. P.E. SDG:rb: 233S Whst Highway 34 • St, Paul. MN SfH3 • 412-636-4600 A PKcfectNaae Municipal State Ait! Improvements • Brown Road Reconstruction, Watertown Road CulvertPtafed No.SAP 152 1074)1 and SAP 152-103-01 Fie No. 13972BklOpeatag\(m a m., C.D.SX, Tuesday. July 19. 1994 Owner Orono, MN MNulBuflak)Bitumiiious* Inc.KONolSMidwresl Asphft'l CcVtkaaI£ibty IMIFtoat1^1.00 1^00 IJW SF IJOO 13.00 18^.00 1630 CY 50 loxn 5oaoo 11.75 Lf 850 7.00 5,95a00 1035 EA 4 riaoo 80000 22000 SF 20 00 lOOOO 5.65 LF 7^5.00 36.150.00 635 LF 380 0.50 18000 035 EA 3 125.00 625.00 13600 LS 1 5j000.00 5.00000 lojoooxn SF 37J 35.00 1312.50 34.75 EA 1 30.00 30X0 50.00 EA 1 50.00 50.00 lOOOO ifv 0SMJQ9 4* wMe adid liM. yellow iMiai QNMa 4* «Ue wM Um. yelkm epiwy QMIjMI 4* bnilM Hbc. yellow |»iu OSfddflO 4^ bnikm Sm, ycHow epoqr «N4JQf 4'* wMi loitf Hm, while cpoi9 OSMjIOS r Mid Bm. while fwiai OdMyfOl Sr mM Mm. whMe epeqr 2371JU Mevl* 9i>P» 3* od.. B A B 2371JB AA SiMdl 3* OL. B A B Ur LF LF LF If LF LF LF LF 2371J01 BptM Cdondo Blw 6* M. B A B EA EA EA BUNalBuffaloBhuouiiotti. lac.BUNou2Midweal Aiphah Corp.BMNa3CS. MoCraaaaa CoHtnKtkm, lac.WoLMwelerHardrivea. lac.m sa5JOO 300 too 100 320 320 30 23 23 IMIBja010 i.ioaoo 010 Lioaoo 010 loaoo 010 113 113 113 115 115 loaoo 125.00 125.00 4oaoo 400100 75.00 7300 137.00 7jB3a00 233.00 5073.00 233.00 3073.00 017 0.70 017 014 007 000 1.90 105 713 183.00 30000 27000 1083.00 303000 133.00 0.70 33000 24.00 47.00 254.00 408.00 9900 441.00 915000 710000 4,73000 IMI0.18 99000 048 3,74000 0.18 018 043 111 1J4 104 17050 28073 26150 048 34000 18.00 4500 41910 38080 11040 425.40 8125.00 711073 414210 Btti Ub sag010 1.10000 072 314000 020 072 010 072 1.40 1.95 1.95 710 19000 30000 275.00 lOOOO 34000 7240 44840 42440 117.00 45000 910000 7173.00 4475.00 IMI017 045 017 017 042 115 1.73 1.75 4.75 19000 295.00 275.00 93540 317540 •540 1740 0840 soon 10840 940000 747340 047340 13972.TAB Bl-4 -400\m 1 m i m '■ m i \ m m m m ■■ -■ m *9 i m •• ~i i 1 m m ■ j VI 4 24 '•'< 1 1 m a 1 ■> 2513JID Sill fcooe, picaiieaiblcil 2911901 9m/kkkucHn 29T9 JK iMd. uriiMM* 900 2919J09 f niliiit, 1>pe IMW 2919J11 IMeh MUMtal. 1>pe I 2919 J19 Oi* uchoriiV 2919 J23 WtaO fiber biHket 29H9M niMitrii 20>l0>10 ■MNolIBuffaloBhuniroui, Ine. IMl Midwcet As|ibah Corp.Cl MoCroaiM Cotetfuctioa. luc.■y Ho.4 Hardrivea, luc.WM.MwBarIMUUITtatalESH 4oaoo 28aO0 435.00 30490 42a00 29400 Ibiel A • SMel - SAP 19M07-0I S399A10.00 S430O39A3 fiMt fi-SMM Sewer-SAP 192-I074n S457j0g9J8 IMt LF 700 2.00 140000 3J0 249000 243 1441.00 250 1.75000 AC 15 15000 229.00 163.00 24450 15750 238.25 185.00 24750 LB 150 350 525.00 3.80 57000 348 552.00 345 577.30 SY 9400 1.40 13.14000 1.45 1343000 i.42 1354840 150 1440040 TN 3.0 15000 45000 163.00 489.00 157.50 472.50 18540 495.00 AC 15 55.00 8250 60.00 90.00 57.79 8843 9040 SY 200 150 3oaoo 1.40 28000 151 28I0D 1.40 28000 30SO0 S449439JO 2jOO 140000 225X0 33190 2.19 412i0 1A3 19.32t» 7000 1.79 1 I . til I 23040 945441950 1519 tr RC pipe apn»40000 140000 /vdi I 78000 398.84 1.19452 26.'‘.00 78400 23740 713140 •-J *! - ISiVLTAB BT-5 \ •: .v*i v\ I k llCfll2501J15 15" RC pipe apron 2501^15 24" RC pipe apron 0501.602 Trash guard for 15" RC pipe apron EA 0501.602 Tr ish guard for 24" RC pipe apron EA 2503Jll 12" RC pipe sewer (Q. V) Des. 3006 LF 2503311 15" RC pipe sewer (G. V) Des. 3006 LF 2503311 18* RC pipe sewer (G. V) Des. 3006 LF 2503311 24" RC pipe sewer (G. V) Des. 3006 LF SP-3 Construct catch basin, Des. 3-4 SP-4 Construct catch basin, Des. 3 6 SP-5 Construct CBMH, Des. 3-5 SP-6 Construct inlet control structure Design 4-2,4* dia. BidNa 1BuffaloBituminous, Inc.BidNa 2 Midwest Asphalt Corp.BidNa3C.S. McCrossan Construction. Inc.BidNadllardrives, Inc.BidNa5 Wm. Mueller Sl Sons, Inc.Unit Unit Unh UailUnitQSLPriceToutPriceToulPriceToutPriotIbUlftioe IbUlBA2425.00 850.00 278.00 556.00 414.94 829.88 280.00 560.00 254.60 509.20EA1550.00 550.00 357.00 357.00 559,06 559.06 36100 36100 328.PO 328.80EA2300.00 600.00 Uisrn 620.00 >32.48 464.96 31100 624.00 283.40 566.80 EA 1 500.00 500.00 715.00 715.00 541.05 541.05 725.00 725.00 657.50 657.50 LF 410 23.00 9,430.00 22.00 9.020.00 24.91 10313.10 22.25 9,12150 24.50 10^.00 LF 470 25.00 11,750.00 2435 1133830 26.12 12376.40 25.00 11,750.00 26.90 12A63.00 LF 684 3130 21346.00 77.25 18.639.00 28.96 19308.64 27.60 18378.40 29.40 20.109.60 LF 156 33.00 5,148.00 72.10 11,247.60 5630 8314.00 73.00 11308.00 70.70 11/09 JO EA 2 500.00 1,000.00 6.53.10 1306.20 756.57 1313.14 66100 1324.00 601.50 U03.00 EA 7 700.00 4,900.00 905.00 6335.00 908.91 636137 916.00 6,41100 83120 5.825.40 EA 11 1,200.00 13,200.00 1300.00 14300.00 U06.45 13370.95 1394.00 14334.00 1,176.30 12,939JO EA 1 1,150.00 1,150.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 1,109.16 1,109.16 2,033.00 2,033.00 1348.10 1J48.10 13972.TAB BT-6 s. —qPEE" BuffaloBituminous, Inc.Midwest Asphalt Corp.C.S. McCrossan Construction, Inc.Hardrives, 1Inc,Win. MueUer & Sons, Inc.UoK sky UftUPrice Tout U bUPrice U a HPrice Ibul UakPrice Total UnMMqe IbUlEA2300.00 600.00 340.00 680.00 200.00 400.00 345.00 690.00 313.40 626.80HA1300.00 300.00 480.00 480.00 150.00 150.00 485.00 483.00 440.80 44a80CY2870.00 1,960.00 75.60 2,116.80 50.00 1,400.00 77.00 2.156.00 69.60 1,948.80$74,684.00 $80,691.10 $78,909 23 $81,529.90 $81,434.70 Uait g&UailMot IbUl UailPrice IbUl UaMMot Tbul UakPrice IWd UulfidissCY1.450 3.50 5.075.00 630 9,135.00 4.00 5300.00 8.00 11300.00 330 5375.00CY60010.00 6,000.00 11.75 7,050.00 13.00 7300.00 12.00 73oaoo 1237 7322.00CY1.000 6.00 6.000.00 5.20 5400.00 4.00 43oaoo 12.00 12300.00 10.00 IOjOOOjOOCY3006.00 1300.00 6.00 1300.00 430 1350.00 8.00 23oaoo 3.50 ijosaoo Vmk <2x UaRPrice IbUl UnitPike Ibul UahFnot Ibul UnitPike Ibul UnitPrice mi2451^1 Structure excavation. Cl U (P)CY 750 4.00 3,000.00 5.50 4,123.00 9.79 734150 5.40 4,030.00 4.90 3373.002451J11 Coane filter aggregate (CV)CY t20 14.00 1,680.00 13.00 1300.00 17.60 7,11100 1530 1336.00 13.90 1368.002501J11 12* CM pipe culvert LF 50 24.00 UOO.OO 32.60 1,630.00 21.06 1,054.00 33.00 1,650.00 49.00 2,430002301,511 48* RC pipe culvert.a.4J)e$. 3006 LF 124 140.00 17360.00 i5aoo 18,600.00 112.23 13319.00 13100 18348.00 137.10 19,480.402301,313 12* CM pipe apron EA 2 70.00 140.00 123.00 250.00 132.67 263.34 127.00 234.00 113.10 23020 2301,313 12* RC pipe apron EA 1 400.00 400.00 250.00 250.00 398.84 398.84 306.00 306.00 277.30 insi 2301,313 48^ RC pipe apron EA 1 U70.00 1370.00 9oaoo 900.00 1317,93 1317.93 910.00 910.00 827.40 827.40 0301.602 IVath guard for 48* RC pipe apron EA 1 930.00 950.00 1.700.00 1,700.00 1376.38 137638 1,694.00 1,694.00 133930 133930 Umk VmU VmH IMt lliilUf^an Mob IbUl PrioB IbUl Mob IbUl PriOBEA2200.00 400.00 212.00 424.00 204.75 409.50 2oaoo 400.00 195.00 39a00EA2450.00 900.00 500.00 1,000.00 47150 945.00 2oaoo 450.00 900.00LS15,000.00 5,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,630.00 3,630.00 3,000.00 3/ioaoo 8,000.00 sjooaooLF1,100 0.20 220.00 0.27 297.00 0.18 198.00 0.20 22aoo 0.17 187.00LFuoo0.20 220.00 0.24 264.00 0.18 198.00 0.20 22aoo 0.17 187.00 LF 300 2.00 600,00 3.50 1,050.00 163 789.00 3.00 900.00 1.90 57aoo AC 0.4 200.00 80.00 220.00 88.00 210.00 84.00 22aoo 88.00 34aoo 136.00 LB 40 3.50 140.00 3.80 15100 3.68 147.20 3J5 154.00 4.00 loaoo SY 700 1.50 1,050.00 1.60 1,120.00 1.47 1,029.00 1J5 1,085.00 100 i,4oa«o TN 0.8 150.00 120.00 165.00 13100 157.50 126.00 165.00 13100 4oaoo 320.00 AC 0.4 75.00 30.00 82.00 32.80 78.75 31.50 85.00 34.00 loaoo 40.00 ...........................................-Ill...........BidNa 1BuffaloBituminous, Inc.Unit BadNa2Midwest Asphalt Corp.U b K BidNaBC.S. McCrossan Construction, InaUait BklNoidHardrives, Inc.BidHa5 Mueller A Sons, Inc.UskNo. lion Unit ast Price Total Price Total Price i>iui Moe IbUl Price 3^2S75J31 Commercial fertilizer, analysis20-10-10 TN 0.1 400.00 40.00 435.00 43.50 420.00 42.00 440.00 44.00 470.00 47.00Toul C - SAP 152-103-01 $92,932.50 $106,948.30 $96,644.12 $11334730 $119,101.70Toul A - Street • SAP 152-107-01 399,610.00 430,239.63 457,099.88 449,13930 454,81530 Toul B - Stonn Sewer-SAP 152-107-01 74,684.00 80,691.10 78,909.23 81329.90 81,434.70 TbUl Part C • 152-103-01 92,932.50 106,948.30 96,644.12 113,84730 119,101.70 Toul base Bid $567,226.50 $617379.03 $632,653.23 $644,516.90 $655351.90 Ahemate Bid - Contractor shall bid cable cone, in lieu of random rip rap. Base bid for rip rap will not be paid in this case. 13972.TAB BT-11 • *Bid No. 1 Bid No . 2 BidNo.3 Bid No. 4 Bid No. 5iH1 i 15% Bid Bond 5% Bid Bond 5% Bid Bond 5% Bid Bond 5% Bid BondHn»Buffalo Bituminous, Inc.Midwest Asphalt Corp.C.S. McCrossan Hardrives, Inc.Whl MueOer Sc. Sons, Inc. %Danell E. Hicks Blair B. Bury Jane McCrossan Stanley M. HemphiU Richard Wendlandt IMb President Vice President Vice President Project Mgr.Secy/Treas. P.O. Box 337 P.O. Box 5477 7865 Jefferson Highway 9724 10th Ave No.831 Park Ave. CI».tiHi.Buffalo, MN Hopkins. MN Maple Grove, MN Plymouth, MN Hamburg, MN Z^C d *55313 55343 55369 55441 55339 (612) 682 1271 (612) 937-8033 (612) 425-4167 (612) 542-9060 (612)445 1082 R b H ol (612) 682-6522 (612) 937-6910 (612) 425-0520 (612) 542-8750 (612) 467-3894 19972.TAB BT-I3 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^ jog, DATE: CHY<0f><N(0N0 ITEM NO; Department Approval: Name: Ron Moorse Title: City Administrator Administrator Reviewed: ^____________________ Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Replacement of Two Finance Department Computers The Finance Department has requested the purchase of two new personal computers to replace an existing personal computer and LOGIS terminal. The personal computer currently used by the Assistant Finance Director is not capable of running current software packages and is too old to be upgraded to run the software. The Senior Accounting Clerk currently does not have a personal computer but only has a terminal to the LOGIS system. The new utility billing system being developed by LOGIS will require a personal computer rather than a terminal. Also, the personal computer will enable the Senior Accounting Clerk to run non-LOGIS software such as; spreadsheet and data base programs. With the purchase of both computers the fuiance staff will be able to reallocate responsibility and perform all duties more efficiently. The Equipment Fund is designed for replacement purchases of this sort and funds are currently available to cover the cost of this purchase. One half of the cost of the computer for the Senior Accounting Clerk could be funded out of the Sewer Operating Fund, since half of the duties of that position are related to the sewer fund. The cost of the computers is $1,373 each (please see the attached memo from Chris Miller). COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve the purchase of two personal computers to replace the existing equipment in the Finance Department at a cost of $2,746; the cost to be funded from the Equipment Outlay Fund ($2,059) and the sewer fund ($687). July 20, 1994 TO: FROM: RE: Tom Kuehn Chris Miller ^ Price Quotes for Computer Purchases. Tom, In preparation for the purchase of two new computers for the Finance Staff, I have requested quotes from three local vendors. The quote I requested was based on the following specifications: * 486DX 33MZ * 4MB Ram * 200 MB Hard Drive * 3.5** Floppy Drive * 14" SVGA Monitor * 1 MB Video Card * Mouse & Pad * 2 Serial, 1 Parallel Port * Limited 5 Year Warranty, which includes the following: 1. 5 Year Labor. 2. 2 Year Parts. 3. Year 3 Parts 9 75%. 4. Year 4 Parts 9 50%. 5. Year 5 Parts 9 25%. All of these specifications are considered standard among distributors and retail outlets, and should meet our needs for the next five years. The following is a summary of the quotes, which includes sales tax. PC Tailors, New Hope $ 1,373.00 PC Express, Richfield $ 1,625.00 Office Products of MN, _ _ _Minneapolis_ _ _ $ 1,914.00 Purchases. wo new computers for the es from three local vendors, he following specifications: [lich includes the following: 5\. )%. >%. .dered standard among should meet our needs for LS a summary of the quotes, Office Products of MN, Minneapolis_ _ _ $ 1,914.00 PC Tailors came in with the lowest quote, and I reconunend we purchase the compt.ters from them. It should be noted that these prices are only guaranteed through July 26. However PC Tailors does not expect any significant changes in the quoted price. These two new computers will operate 35% faster than the computers we purchased two years ago, and will cost about $100.00 less. I will brief John Olson on placing the order, as I will be on vacation when the Council receives our request for the purchase. I would also recommend we purchase a monitor from PC Tailors for Jamie's workstation as her current one needs replacing. The cost to replace her monitor will be $ 265.00. This is a standard price, as it comes directly from the manufacturer, and will carry a 1 year manufacturer's warranty. cc: Ron Moorse REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Department Approval: Name: Ron Moorse Title: City Administrator ::CiLMEEIIN6 JUL 2 5 1994 DATE: Juieay^FOROM ITEM NOi Administrator Reviewed: f'P-. Item Description: Personal Watercraft Ordinance Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Attached is a draft ordinance regulating the surface use of Long Lake and specifically regulating personal watercraft. The ordinance is very similar to the LMCD persorial watercraft ordinance. The two differences from the LMCD ordinance are underlined. First, the draft ordinance includes language prohibiting two or more personal watercraft from operating on a race course simultaneously. This is to address the concerns regarding the large group that uses the race course. Second, the noise restriction was increased from 79 decibels to 81 decibels based on information from the Water Patrol indicating that no personal watercraft are manufactured that operate at a noise level of less than 81 decibels. As indicated above, the ordinance was drafted by suff based on the LMCD ordinance and on an earlier draft prepared by Long Lake. The Orono City Attorney ha.<- been provided with a copy of the draft for review for the Council meeting. Ordinance Adoption Process According to DNR rules, the process for adopting a surface use ordinance includes several steps. 1. The local unit holds a public hearing. 2. The local unit adopts the ordinance for DNR review. 3. The local unit submits the proposed ordinance and supporting documentation to the DNR. 4. The DNR reviews the ordinance and cither approves or denies it. A denial by the DNR would be based on the ordinance being too restrictive. The DNR has indicated that if the City can show a significant problem that is unique to personal watercraft use on Long Lake it could be open to a higher level of restrictions. This information would include the types of use. the number of users, and the times of day personal watercraft use the lake. Public Hearing If the draft ordinance is generally acceptable to the Council, a public hearing can be scheduled to receive public comment on the ordinance. Due to public notification requirements the hearing can be scheduled any time after August 11 . Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 2 Personal Watercraft Ordinance COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: The following are options for Council action. 1. Schedule a public hearing regarding the draft ordinance. 2. Direct staff to make changes to the ordinance as desired by the Council. 3. Take no action regarding the personal watercraft ordinance. AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE SURFACE USE OF LONG LAKE SlSilff Section 1. Purpose, Intent, and Application. As authorized by Minnesota Statutes 86B.201, 86B.205, and 459.20, as now in effect and is hereafter amended, this ordinance is enacted for the purpose and with the intent to control and regulate the use of the waters of Long Lake in Hennepin County, cities of Long Lake and Orono, Minnesota, said bodies of water being located entirely within the boundaries of the cities of Long Lake and Orono, to promote its fullest use and enjoyment by the public in general and the citizens of Long Lake and Orono in particular; to insure safety for persons and property in connection with the use of said waters; to promote the general health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Long Lake and Orono, Minnesota. Section 2. Definitions. "Personal watercraft" means a watercraft less than 14 feet in length which uses a motor powering a water jet pump, as its primary source of motive power and which is designed to be operated by a person sitting, standing or kneeling on, rather than the conventional manner of sitting or standing inside, the watercraft. Section 2. Maximum Speeds. No person shall operate a watercraft on the Lake at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and with regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. In every event speed shall be so restricted as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, watercraft or structure in or upon the Lake which is in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care. No watercraft may be operated on the r i I Lake at a speed in excess of the following limits: (a) 40 miles per hour during the daytime; (b) 20 miles per hour during the nighttime; (c) 5 miles per hour in the following areas; i) a quiet waters area esublished by this section. that area within 150 feet of the shoreline. iii)that area within 150 feet of an authorized bathing area or swimmer, an authorized scuba diver’s warning flag, an anchored raft or watercraft, or a dock or pier except that from which a watercraft with a person in tow is being operated. Section 3. Personal Watercraft. Subd. 1. Prohibition. It is unlawful for any person to operate a personai ^watercraft or for the owner thereof to permit the operation of a personal watercraft on the Lake in any way which is contrary to the provisions of this Code or the laws, rules or regulations of the state. Subd. 2. Personal Flotation Devices. No person shall operate or ride on a personal watercraft unless wearing United States Coast Guard approved personal flotation device. Subd. 3. Hours of Operation. No person shall operate a personal watercraft between sunset and sunrise the following day. Subd. 4. Speed. No person shall operate a personal watercraft at a speed in excess of 5 miles per hour or at a speed which results in more than a minimum wake within 150 feet of any shoreline, swimmer, anchored boat, person fishing, mooring, dock or other water strucmre. .,1 4 I 4 ' - Subd. 5. Operation Within 300 Feet of the Shoreline. No person ^all i^rate a personal watercraft at a speed in excess of 5 miles per hour or at a speed which results in more than a minimum wake between 150 feet and 300 feet of the shoreline unless the personal watercraft is being driven perpendicular to the shoreline and to or from the nearest point of water 300 feet from the shoreline or parallel to the shoreline from one location to another in a manner which is not repetitive. Subd. 6. Automatic Cut-off Device. No person hall operate a personal watercraft which is equipped by the manufaemrer with a lanyard-type cutoff switch unless the lanyard is attached to the person, clothing or personal flotation device of the operator. No person shall operate a personal watercraft on which the automatic cut-off device applied by the manufaemrer has been altered, disabled or removed. Subd. 7. Wake Jumping. No person operating a personal watercraft shall jump the wake of another watercraft within 150 feet of that watercraft. This includes the wake of another personal watercraft. Subd. 8. Careless operation. A personal watercraft must at all times be operated in a reasonable and prudent manner. Maneuvers which unreasonably or unnecessarily endanger life, limb or property, including, but not limited to weaving through congested boat traffic or swerving at the last possible moment to avoid collision shall constimte careless, reckless or grossly negligent operation. Subd. 9. Rental. Any person who offers personal watercraft for rent: (a) shall not rent a personal watercraft, regardless of the horsepower, to any person who is less than 16 years of age or who is 16 years of age or over but less than 18 years of age and not in possession of an operator’s permit ^ I'III* 11 till required by law. is required to provide a summary of the laws and rules governing the operation of personal watercraft and to provide instruction regarding safe operation to any person renting personal watercraft. The instruction provided to a renter must cover the laws and rules governing personal watercraft as well as the actual operation of the personal watercraft itself; and (c) is required to provide a United States Coast Guard approved wearable personal flotation device to all persons who rent a penonal watercraft, as well as all other required safety equipment. Subd. 10. Prolonged Operation. No personal watercraft shall be operated in a single area for more than thirty consecutive minutes. A person in control of such watercraft shall be subject to citation. A single area is defined as an area of the lake which is so small that the noise emanating from personal watercraft operated continuously within it is liable to oe a nuisance or cause substantial annoyance to residents of one or more shoreline properties during all of the time of such continuous operation. Subd. 11. Simultaneous Multiple Use. Two or more personal watercraft shall not use a "race course", or be operated as if on a race course, simultaneously.. Section 4. Noise. No person shall operate any watercraft or boat on the Lake which is capable of exceeding a noise level on the A scale measured at a distance of 50 feet or more from the watercraft or boat of: 84 decibels in the case of marine engines or motorboats manufactured i before January 1, 1982: or (b) 82 decibels in tte case of marine engines or motorboats manufaemred on or after January 1, 1982; or (c) 8i decibels in the case of personal watercraft water jet pump engines manufactured after January 1, 1992. Section 5. Enforcement. The enforcement of this ordinance shall be the primar>' responsibility of the peace officers of the Orono Police Department or the Hennepin County Sheriffs Department. Other licensed peace officers including Conservation Officers of the Department of Natural Resources of the State of Minnesota and volunteer members of the Hennepin County Water Patrol are also authorized to enforce this ordinance. Section 6. All authorized Resource Management, Emergency and Enforcement Personnel, while acting in the performance of their assigned duties are exempt from the foregoing restrictions. Section 7. It shall be the responsibility of the cities of Long Lake and Orono to provide for adequate notification of the public, which shall include placement of a sign at each public watercraft launching facility outlining essential elements of the ordinance, as well as the Ir placement of necessary buoys and signs. Section 8. Penalties. Any person who violates the provisions of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by 90 days incarceration and/or a $700.00 file or both. IT U JJ Ui Adopted this day of . 1994, by the city council of the City of Orono. Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk L r REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION JUL 2 5 1994 DATE: July ITEM NO: // NO Department Approval:Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Name: Tom Kuehn City Administrator's Report Titk: Finance Director Item Description: Refund of Park Dedication Fee,Application #1818 The applicants for the subdivision of property at 905 Tonkawa Road request a refund of the payment for park dedication fee of $25,000.00. The applicants have withdr.’ vn the two lot subdivision and have requested the refund in writing. (See attached letter from applicant.) COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to authorize refund of $25,000.00 park dedication fee due to withdrawal of application #1818. Refund payable to applicant Russell T. Lund. III. i I 4 “ w -A J RUSSEL-L- T. l-UND |A«0 t.AK« •TW^^T MINNCAMUS. MINN. SS^O« June 29. 1994 F.SCsiV'" JUL i W94 CITY OF CBC Jean A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.6. Box 66 Crystal Bay MN 55323 RE- Application #1818, Subdivision of property a, 905 Totikawa Road S'.KSK'ofsr;' i-i, Dear Ms. Mabusth: 11 nnf hr* nroceedine with the subdivision of 905 Tonkawa rr «;ti;. is to s#- - funds on deposit with the City of Orono. Sincerely, .ussell T. Cund mRussell T. Personal R^resentative of the Estate of Russell T. Lund, Jr. Address:Lunds Inc. 1450 West Lake Street Minneapolis MN 55404 "34 1 -4i- - f ^ CQUNGILIIS11IIGREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION JUL 2 5 1994DATE: July61(1(41 ORONOITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name John R. Gerhardson Tkk Public Works Director Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Public Works Item Description: Subrecipient Agreements Community Development Block Grant 1994 Year XX For Year XX of the Community Development Block Grant Program, the City Council approved the following program: Interfaith Outreach Westonka Intervention WeCan $1,500 1,500 1,500 The above programs are administered by Hennepin County which requires a subrecipient agreement for each program. Attached for review and approval is a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to sign the agreements. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to execute a subrecipient agreement with Hennepin County for 1994 (Year XX) Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program. in-- V' M ^ j 81*1 □OKifiO Attest: ?oSS '.T vS'oS'ST.S t T.SS vvHFREAS the City of Orono has executed a Joint Cooperation Agreement with He^epin Coun^o“;!l pu^se'^of pan.c,pacing cn cha 1^994 (Year XX, Urban Hennep.n County Cotnmunity Development Block Grant Program; and W-HEREAS, Hennepin County is the recipient of an annual grant from the U.S. Depaitment of Housing and Utban Development for purposes ot ‘he program, and the City a subrecipient under the program and receives a share of the grant, an WHEREAS, program regulations require that the City and County execute a Subrecipient Agreement which sets fotth the specific implementation processes tor activities to be undertaken with program funds. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orono C:ty council hereby authorizes and'directs the Mayor and the City Council to execute the Subrecipient Agreement on behalf of the City.. Adopted by the Orono Council at a regular Council meeting on----------- Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr., .Mayor iVi ^ ^ arThe City of Orono City Council approved the Final Plat of Old Crystal Bay Road Addition, which contained a condiUon that the subdivider would post a letter from its lender relating to the use of certain loan proceeds available for. among other ihings. the construcUon of the public iirprovemenu associated with the Tandem Properties project. After review by the City’s Attorney, the letter was found to be insuffidcnU because acceptable arrangements could not be worked out with subdivider’s lender. Subdivider proposed to post a $300,000 irrevocable letter of credit, a payment and performance bond securing the work of the construction contractor to complete the public improvements in accordance with plans approved by City and City’s En^neer, pursuant to an approved construcUon contract, and a $15,000 irrevocable letter of credit and a warranty letter of credlu each to be delivered after construcUon b complete to secure any defecu In Ute work comprising die public improvements, which Staff has found to be acceptable. These provisions have been incorporated In the Subdivider’s Agreement. Because the form of security has changed from that approved in ResoluUon No. 3427, we have brought this matter before the Council for iu approval, in accordance with applicable City Municipal Code provisions. . j,. .tsask. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^cnYOronHo DATE: Julv 21. 1994 ITEM NO Department Approval: Name: Dorothy Hallin Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator'^ Report Tkle: City Clerk Item Description: Licenses Residential Kennel License: Ann & Rod Crawford 4705 North Shore Drive COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED; Motion to approve listed licenses. * I i. r *Aii- i ■■ ’V 1. < * fc 1 3 f ( ! VDcr> Ir • rOONCIL CHECK REGISTER Tim Jul 21 0U:S9:04VENDOR DESCRIPTIONHECK NO031138 1994/07/20 $4,836.00$4,836.00*031139 1994/07/20 $5^,623.43$9,623.43*031140 1994/07/20 $2,809.31$2,809.31* 031141 1994/07/20 $39,422.10 $39,422.10* 031142 1994/07/20 $2,916.32 $2,916.32* 031146 1994/07/21 $672.26 $672.26* 031147 1994/09/21 $174.55 $174.55* 031148 1994/07/21 $1,443.41 $1,443.41* 031149 1994/07/21 $163.77 $163.77* ■ "is *■ r> i $62,141.15 Paye 1ACCOUNT N Invoice PO NUM.MANUAL9999-20309999 2030 001034 IP9999-2032 001035 IP9999-2030 001033 IP 9999-2030 001036 IP 9959-2030 001041 IP 9999-2032 001043 IP 9999-2030 001044 IP 9999-2030 001042 IP <5^ r 1City Of Orono' Cotocil ClMCk Rttifttr July 25. 1994 ta»riean tank Mwrican tank MvriOata ttackoMiak ft Sen ■tackowiak ft Son Itackowiak ft San tlackoMiak ft San llackowiak ft Son laris, Scatt •uritat trinting Colonial Ufa Doradua Carp, ftapraas Haasanfar Golf Car Nidwaat Group Haalth Hannapin Co*op I.C.M.A LOGiS NANA Nark VIt NadCantart Niduaat luainasa 9rod«ts NN Stata Traasurar NUCC Orono laaaball Asan. Orono Saif Sarv PENA Pionaar Pro lira ft Exhaust Pro Tira ft Exhauat Pro Tira ft Exhauat •aad Vandinp Rolf Erickson Entarprisaa Inc. Scott Saack SouthsM lusinass Coonxiicationa S.O.S. Printing Mrning Litas Oascription 1919 Utr ft Swr land Payant Qua 1992 Wtr ft Swr lond Payaant Oua Sarvica Contract > August Loaf Pickup Trash Hauling • Laka Araa Itosta Hauling - Old City nail Trash Hauling • Golf Coursa Trash Hauling • City Hall Raiitejsaaent Expansas * C«if. Coin Envalopas Ufa Inauranca Prawius • Juna Siran Naintananca * 3rd Qtr Dal ivory to Pophaa, Haik Repair Golf Cart Nodical Insurance Pranltji * Aug Seed for Golf Course Annual ICNA Confaranca Juna till for Sarvicas N.A.N.A. Luncheon Tennis lolls Nodical Inauranca Prantui - Augi Office Supplies luilding Pensit Surcharge SAC Charges * Juna laseball field 8 ledarwood J«na Charges Salary Deductions 7/04 • 7/17 Ewploysnt AdvartiseMcnt Oil Change 0161 Plug Patch Oil Change #166 Candy for Golf Course Assessing Sarvicas * August Golf tails Ad for NSA Street liif>rovaaiants Violation Warning Tickets tarricada Litas Rental Total Check Register Aaount 62,512.50 46.360.00 629.40 145.00 279.86 2.130.00 67.34 161.57 77.29 84.14 686.52 156.00 18.45 297.79 3.810.73 192.25 455.00 5.151.78 11.00 136.00 2.077.89 242.84 2.713.99 5.544.00 20,000.00 69.35 8.334.95 39.80 19.53 15.50 19.53 36.60 6.024.53 228.00 172.50 376.05 95.85 169.373.53 - * - —.V I iTTIi arr ri !>■;t •07/l7/i4 l-R: CB PRREGOR ^18EMP 8 NAME DPT471688060 474563339 476921819 471840871 475443862 468113870 468843008 472503991 469526026 475989721 468821018 468622840 472529007 468701868 469686562 468420832 469087884 474667812 475380151 477500666 475444249 477463877 471569863 473141624 476020397 471848180 504260307 472600574 121262417 475344512 480843542 470987727 477700023 334506281 473108423 468909535 476783251 476866274 470700901 469848107 474167795 475382983 473746173 473609629 470566529 469629194 475569177 267460042 472563051 474663296 470704904 475505292 468629488 477881539 ANDERSON, BRUCE L BOBZIEN, SUE A BORIS, SCOTT W BOSMA, JAMIE L BRINKHAUS, JOHN F CALLAGHAN, JEREMIAH CARLSON, MICHAEL B CHESWICK, GARY B CORNICK, JAMES L DEMBOUSKI, JAY C ENGLISH III, IRVING ERICKSON, DOUGLAS J ERICKSON, KURT R FISCHENICH, DAN T GAFFRON, MICHAEL P GERHARDSON, JOHN R GOMAN, DAVID J GREGORY, JAMES D HALLIN, DOROTHY M HANSEN, STEVEN C HANSING, CAROL J HASEilAN, CAROLE JOHNSON, BRADLEY P JOSTROM, FOREST J KING, ANITA D KNOLLENBERG, KRISTIN KNUTSON, CHARLOTTE A KUEHN, THOMAS M MABUSTH, JEANNE A MCINTYRE, WILLIAM E MCNICHOLS, DAVID L MILLER, CHRISTOPHER MOORSE, RONALD J MOROWCZYNSKI, JAMES OAS, DANIEL O OBERAIGMER, SCOTT G OBRIEF RANDY L OLSON JOHN C. OMAN YLE E PALM . GREGORY A PETERSON, JACK W QUAST, WAYNE A RATHBUN, BARRY J ROSS, JOHN A SCHOENHOFF, JOHN B SKREEN, DALE S STEFFENHAGEN, RONALD SULLIVAN, STEPHEN X THOMTON, MARK R TOMCHECK, LAWRENCE F TOMCZYK, MARK W VANG, BRUCE L VEE, LINDA S WECKMAN, STEPHEN J 31313112429331 31 31 31 31 YTDGROSS27228.14 15764.78 3737.04 9086.89 24795.73 1692 3134 26620 29896 27553 27030 000417 65 12 30 CURRENTGROSS1805 1042 565 680 1656 393 316 1774.56 2846.45 2450.51 1883 .76.56.11.15.00.0068 .80 93 212.73 63.50 31 24421.76 1692.10 31 24833.87 1628.76 33 22668.41 1513.92 , 2180.31 '42 43574.94 35 4947.42 319.38 42 20402.16 1348.41 12 19527.53 1304.16 42 18798.67 1113.03 31 8934.36 847.39 12 15980.92 1073.97 31 25610.23 1828.06 93 1418.17 248.60 : 35 885.66 40.68 31 2338.89 406.00 15 16758.33 521.28 15 33348.41 2227.20 33 28388.07 1895.92 93 1737.39 169.50 31 24232.65 1877.88 15 6036.33 1088.24 12 36531.67 2449.44 31 24887.94 1611.52 93 1939.20 251.49 42 19044.90 1488.70 92 18698.89 1113.03 15 3190.29 938.32 33 22469.96 1513.91 42 18183.57 1113.04 93 1212.00 264.00 92 23057.57 1430.24 92 18700.56 1321.74 93 2361.73 367.25 31 7895.00 287.20 42 18293.65 1113.04 93 19527.55 1304.16 31 31348.73 2177.28 31 24188.92 1660.43 31 24620.16 1640.66 31 24480.75 1692.10 33 19527.55 1304.16 12 16939.73 1169.62 33 18046.75 1209.21 66,223.41 ... • - r INFORMATION ITEMS COUNCIL MEETING >•1’ A A MOmBIWG JUL 2 5 1994 CnYOFONNO OF ■ .^.A.• .r^js::r MATION ! 5 1994 REPORT FOR 1/1 Bonestroo Rdsene v=5 AnderlfkA Associates Engineers & Architects Ono G Bonewoo PE tooen W Roseoe P£ • XJieoh C Anderuk L torvM. PE Pecans E Vnef ^E G*enr P Cook •^of%i4 E Noyrv P£ «noert G knumcrit PE Scfwn M EDene^ C PA •Vmor ConsuMnt A PE A Gordon PE aoc^ri 9 PV^ne. pg ffichjia W Sowf PE o^td O LOstoU. PE ^DOe^ C Puwe« A IA Jenv A Bourdon. PE Mark A Hjrton PE Michaf’ T Ejutmann PE A P.e*d PE Thomas g Anoenoo AiA Oor^ C Bufgjidt PE Thomas A Syn«i pe p'Wenc j Stenoorg. PE smaei ManIne^ PE M<ha« P Eau. PE Agnes M Eifig. AiC P "homas Vl‘ Pwenon »E Michael C lynch Pg ;ames ff viaiand PE ,erry □ Pe^tath P£ ko« J Arganek PE kenneth P Anoefvy> PE Mark g fldifi PE Mark A Seux p £ Gary J/ Mor«n PE Paul J Gannorx A i A Oarkei J Edgerron Pg A ffick Schmrt. P£ Phkip J CasiMeU Pg Mark o \i«lK PE Miles 8 Jensen PE I Phaho Grawei. PE Aaren L Ji'ipmen. Pg Gary 0 k* PE P Tood foster. PE kr<h g Yaoo PE Oougias J 9enoc PE Shai^vn O GulCifscn P£ Cet- k? Ot»ver P£ Pam G Meuff PE -tohn P Gom PE Chartei A Enckson Leo M P^ne qicy HanarsM Ohon James f Engeevudi July 20, 1994 LY AVE.AREA PROVEMENTS >RONO, MINN July 1994 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Re: 139 Kelly Avenue Area Storm Drainage Improvements Dear Mayor and Council: Attached is our report for the proposed improvements to the drainage way on Kelly Avenue North of Camian Road. We reviewed four alignments for improving the storm sewer outlet for the area. Deta^'ed cost estimates and drawings are provided within the rqx>tt. We would be pleased to meet with the City council and staff at your convenience to review the options presented 1 the improvements. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERUK & ASSOOATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook GRC:lk MfkP........ Hill...... 2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 55113 • 612-636-4600 vafd A Sinft>0 PE n A Go*OOfi. PE eft» Pfiet*>ene. PE uid W Po«ef PE ftd O Louou PE en C Puwe* ^»A y A Boufdon. PE rt A Hamon. PE hje* T Raumaon PE K Field. PE xnat 8 Ancenon. AiA naid C Bufgaidc. PE ynas A SyfliQ PE dene J Stenoexg. PE laei M^tvnei, PE :naei P Rau. PE Agnes M Ring. AlC P Tnomas W Perenon PE Micnaei C lynen PE James R Maiand. PE jeny 0 Ppftzscn PE Scoff J Argane^. PE nennetn P Andew^ PE .Viafk R RqRs. PE Mant A Se»a PE Gary W Monen. PE Pam J Gannon. AIA Daniel J Edgenon PE A Rick ScrvTwx. PE Ph*p J Cas^Mek. PE. Mark O PE Miles 8 Jensen PE L Pruiip Gravel PE Kj*en L Wemeo. PE Gary O knoote. PE F Tootj Fouer PE Ketry R raoo PE Douglas J Berxx. PE Snawvn D Gustafson. PE Okviff P£ Pam G Heuer PE jonn P GokJer. PE Cnaries A Erckson Leo M PaMetsky Hanan M Oiion James F EngeRsaffl Mils to the drainage way on Kelly Avenue ents for improving the storm sewer outlet d within the report. il and staff at your convenience to review OCIATES, INC. Feasibility Report of Kelly Avenue Area Storm Drainage Improvements City of Orono July 1994 Introduction The City of Orono ordered the preparation of this report to evaluate the feasibility of improving the drainage for the ponds on Kelly Avenue North of Carman Road. The drainage in this area has been a problem for 20 years or more. The purpose of this report is to define several options for the improvements and provide estimated project costs to determine project feasibility. The project will require permits from the Watershed and DNR. Project Description The existing drainage way appears to have been pieced together over time as development occurred. The storm sewer lines are of various sizes and don’t seen to have a consistent direction of flow. The Hooding of Kelly Avenue occurs annually and the street is impassible during certain periods of time. This results in an inconvenience to the neighborhood that can be eliminated The vegetation in the ponding areas between Kelly Avenue and Carman Road make it impossible for the water to recede in a reasonable amount of time. The proposal here would be to reduce the amount of time water stands over Kelly Avenue. The project would not eliminate standing water because the elevation of Kelly Avenue in this area is only 1.5 feet above the ordinary high water level for Lake Minnetonka. We have identified four options for constructing an outfall line as shown on Figure 1 . Option A - Provides for construction of storm sewer following Kelly Avenue from the Kelly pond to the Carman Cove Pond. This option results in a 20 foot deep excavation on Kelly Avenue to provide gravity flow. The advantage of this option is that the work can be completed on the street right-of-way. Option B - Provides for construction of storm sewer that follows the natural drainage way. This route is across private property and will require some tree removal. The depth of excavation is minimized by following the perimeter of the wetland area. Option C - Provides for replacement of the existing culverts and drainage tile in the area. This drainage route again follows the natural drainage route. This option would require excavation in the wetland area to create more open water and assure positive drainage. Option D - Provides for construction of storm water pipe between the ponds. This option utilizes the ponds for water quality improvement as does option "C". This option utilizes the best features of the other options. " i 612-636-4600 •*. ___.• re{X)rt to evaluate the feasibility of snue North of Carman Road. The or more. The puipose of this report id provide estimated project costs to re permits from the Watershed and d together over time as development and don ’t seen to have a consistent i annually and the street is impassible onvenlence to the neighborho^ that Avenue and Carman Road make it unount of time. The proposal here ^er Kelly Avenue. The project would Kelly Avenue in this area is only 1.5 nnetonka. utfall line as shown on Figure 1. allowing Kelly Avenue from the Kelly n a 20 foot deep excavation on Kelly this option is that the work can be ^at follows the natural drainage way. I some tree removal. The depth of f the wetland area. ulverts and drainage tile in the area, e route. This option would require ^ater and assure positive drainage. >ipe between the ponds. This option loes option "C". This option utilizes Detailed cost estimates of the proposed improv ements have been prepared and are included in the Appendix. All prices are based on anticipated unit prices for the 1994 construction season. Tbe total project costs include ten (10) percent for contingencies and thirty (30) percent for engineering, legal, anticipated interest, and bonding costs. There are no costs included for easement acquisition. The total estimated cost for the various options is as follows: Option A $81,290 Option B $70,430 Option C $66,140 Option D $85,150 Assi 11 lents We would recommend that the project costs as outlined be charged to the benefitting property owners based on benefit received. The benefit can be calculated on an area basis of the property that has direct runoff to the drainage channel. The drainage area of approximately 35 acres will benefit from the improvement. Conclusions and Recommendations The drainage improvements presented in this report are feasible as related to engineering principals and construction practices. We would recommend option C because it minimizes the impact on the neighborhood and it provides good Water Quality Management.impact The following recommendations are presented for consideration by the City council: That this report be adopt -tI t/*, the City of Orono as a guide for construction of the proposed improve.' That the City hold an information meeting with the neighborhood prior to initiating the project. That the City conduct a legal and fiscal review of the proposed project prior to a public hearing. That the cost of the improvements be allocated equally among the parcels in the study area receiving benefit. 139/geo. rpl N ft The following schedule be implemenled if the project is to proceed in 1994. Receive prelimiiL "y report Hold neighborhood meeting Public honing Order Plans and specifications Approve Plans and specifications Opra bids Award bids Start construction Complete construction Complete restoration July 25, 1994 August 3, 1994 August 8, 1994 August 8, 1994 August 22, 1994 September 9, 199 September 12, 1994 September 19, 1994 November 18, 1994 June 16, 1995 : .i i 139^gt!i.fTl ‘ ^ r Aftemate C 350 Lin. ft. 3 Ea. 400 Lin. ft. 100 Sq. yd. 4,000 Sq. yd. I3^>cn ml APPENDIX A Cost Estimate Alternate A 850 Lin. Ft.18-PVC @ $35.00/lin.ft.$29,750.00 3 Ea.Manhole @ $l,500.00/ea 4,500.00 2 Ea.18" CM Aprons $125.00/ea 250.00 750 Sq. yd.Street Restoration @ $25.00/sq. yd.18,750.00 1,200 Sq. yd.Sod @ $3.00/sq. yd.3.600.00 Total 10% Contingencies 30% Legal, Eng., Admin. Total Alternate A $56,850.00 5.680.00 $62,530.00 18.760.00 $81,290.00 Alternate B 750 Lin. ft.18"PVC @ $40.00/lin. ft. 2 Ea.Manhole ® $l,500.00/ea 2 Ea.18" CM Apron ® $125.00/ea. 160 Sq. yd.Street Restoration ® $25.00/sq. yd. 4,000 Sq. yd.Sod ® $3.00/sq. yd. Total 10% Contingencies 30% Legal, Eng., Admin. Total Alternate B 18"PVC @ $50.00/lin. ft. 18" CM Aprons @ $125.00/ea Ditch grading @ $30.00/lin. ft. Street Restoration (Sf $25.00/sq. yd. Sod @ $3.00/sq. yd. Total 10% Contingencies 30% Legal, Eng., Admin. Total Alternate C Total 10% Contingencies 30% Legal, Eng., Admin. Total Alternate D $30,000.00 3.000. 00 250.00 4.000. 00 12.000.00 $49,250.00 4.930.00 $54,180.00 16.250.00 $70,430.00 $17,500.00 750.00 12,000.00 4,000.00 12.000.00 $46,250.00 4.630.00 $50,880.00 15.260.00 $66,140.00 Alternate D 880 Lin. ft.18" PVC @ S35.00/lin. ft.$30,800.00 6 Ea.18" CM Apron @ $125.00/ea.750.00 3 Ea.Manholes @ $1.500.00/ea.4,500.00 460 Sq. yd.Street Restoration @ $25.00/sq. yd.11,500.00 Sq. yd.Sod @ $3.00/sq. yd. 559,550.00 5.950.00 $65,500.00 19.650.00 $85,150.00 \ ■ ? ! r 1 STORM WATER DRAINAGE Scale In feet ORONO. MINNESOTA KELLY AVENUE FIGURE I Bonettroo Roeene Anderlik d Associates 139GEN\139KELLY 7/6/94 COMM. 139GEN ...J TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorsc, City Administrator July 21, 1994 SiTFJECT: 1994 International City Management Association (ICMA) Conference The 1994 ICMA ?""«*»> conference is scheduled for September 18-21 in Chicago. An overview of the educational topics planned for the conference is attached. The registration fee of S455 is included in the list of bills recommended for approval by the Council as part of the July 25 agenda. ducationalProgram CMA) Conference 21 in Chicago. An overview The registration fee of $455 :ouncil as part of the July 25 : .so •• ' V* '■ ^ 4 - Our Evolving Profession Returning to Chicago. IC.VlAs home from 1929 to 1967. on the occasion of the associations 80th anniversary' pro vides the foundation for this years con ference theme: **Our Evolving Profes sion." An educational program has been designed that invites you to celebrate the profession s 80 years of progress and adaptability', renew your commitment to the essential practices of protessionai management, and explore aspects ot the local government of the future. Concirrtnt Educational Sessions The 1994 Conference Planning Com mittee has identified specific topics for a broad based educational program that will appeal to ail ICMA members. More than 50 educational sessions will give vou the chance to sharpen vour manage ment skills; broaden vour perspective on innovative management techniques: take part in hands-on demonstrations of state-of-the-art technoiog>' with local government applications; and identify' intergovernmental and public/private solutions to problems facing individual communities. A return this year to the popular “nuts-and-bolts" format brings a back-to-basics approach to pract‘cal management issues that will be of special interest to managers of small communi ties. By attending the conference educa tional sessions, you will become better equipped to function successfully as a ocai government manager. Educational Exhibits .\t the 1CNL\ conference e.xhibits — manv directly related to the educational sessions —you can examine products and services that will help you deliver public scn'iccs more effectively and cost-effi- cientiv. New to the Exhibits Hall this vear IS a hands-on technology' area in which conference attendees can experi ment with state-of-the-art equipment. liiMtitMlStssiMlMics Enhance your rtiauonshtps with your governing body ana citizens: • Develop a team council. • Master media relations and successful presentations. • Foster a sense of communin' pride, security', and trust in government. • Replicate success stones in civic education • Empower citizens. • Dcai with diversity' and intolerance. Communuate more effectively at work and at h'^me: • Perff. our leadership skills. • Maxir4i.cC staff development resources. • Optimize tnc manager/assistant relationship • Organize yourself in the first 100 davs on the lob. • Build an effective team with top staff. • Practice humor in the workplace. • Set work and life priorities. • Learn aoDroaches tor dealing with difficult people. Adopt cutting-edge management tools for the future: • Foster interlocal collaborations and public/pnvate partnerships. • Apply the iarcsi management theories, trends, and practices to heip your orga nization adapt CO change. • Enhance service delivery' using state-of- thc-aii technology'. Workshops Optional preconference and in-conrer- ence workshops and other special sessions offer conference attendees an opportu- nirv' for in-depth exploration of manage ment issues in half- and full-day sessions. Continuing Professional Development The conferences educational program is an integral part ot the ICMA University', w'hich was formed in response to ICMA members dialogue on professional devel opment and continuing education. .Many 4 ^ • .\nswcf questions about when to replace and how to finance aging mfrastrucrurc. • Idcncifv' optimal designs for commu nities of the future. Assess your professional goals and values: • Define the boundaries of ethics, morality, and legality’. • Identify', nurture, and aspire to a high standard of intcgrirv • Hear from colleagues who have chosen aieernative careers. Refresh your mastery of nuts-and- bolts issues: • Customer scrv'icc. • Strategic plan implementation. • Performance mcasurcmcnc/indicatorsy benchmarking • Budgeting for small communities. • Tapping Citizen resources. • Doing more with less tax revenue. • Town/eown relationsw • Volume-based trash management. • Economic development and the arts. Deal with the impact of national and international issues: • V'loiencc and crime. • Health care reform. • Free trade. • The information superhighway. • Environmental mandates. • The global economic environment. sessions and workshops will support each members commitment to career-long learning by addressing the eight practice groups identified as essential to effective local government management. In the final conference program, educational session descriptions will include a refer ence to the practice group that the session addresses. Conferees can select sessions that w'ill best advance their professional development needs anu goals. Similarly, preconfcrcnce and in-confcrence work shop descriptions in this publication indicate the workshops correlations with the eight practice groups. r To: From: Date: Subject: Ron Moorse, City Administrator Tom Kuehn, Finance Director ^ • July 21, 1994 Summary Publication of the 1993 Financial Report The Minnesota State Auditor requires that the City publish the attached Annu£d Summary Financial Report for the Year Ended December 31, 1993. The report is required to be published in this format by July 30 in a local newspaper. The report will be included in the agenda packet for the July 25ih council meeting as an information item as no action is required by the City Council. 1 ■ ClfIT I r 753 $1,842,525 721 351,807 897 129,385 034 781,235 429 1,059,388 ---------- ------------------- 934 4,184,298 >45 598,138 83 1,582,709 83 483,710 80 53,590 77 199,114 87 5,149,111 54 403,209 ...1••111t1t1119 8,427,581 !5)(4.283,283) 1,980,582 9 -0- 0)-0- 3 9,052,454 7 ■ « $8,769,753 ... .jV.,_.A-,,i,.:^..<■”'r//l ./?■£.:.A- '..^J- ,.^"IfS ' Ill - in •viilalilcis IMM ScfvicQ Ptah Ckmal IteJ fcv volcil vacnim a«l KimMc ticacfilt AmmM lol« froirkbl lev Ml act vice ■< Total atMlaaod ollKr ddiiu 'ierrv or <)W)Nt>. minm-sota(’nn»NNr«l llalmtir .Slrrl All riOMl1'y|ir« awl A< o<nnI (itiwp* AanTUnTtnlTt «l. 1991(wkli('oMf«Nalivr i'i4.il< a^ <4 Uwnwhrr t|. 1992)Oowi—cwlal rooin>fwt ficfaiciwyJMiyi|e_rUliiriaiyNail1>reGeocfalSfirdBlKtvwwtIKHServksC'aritiitrmjwt r«Nt|im IVwImkIAfency CjemdOnoal toos-TitM rumlAaMn Debt S 1.2112.624 S 2.470,634 t 1.163.068 t 77I..197 1 14154.642 t ---——511.742 f.Tfl —205.4.34 6f.67f 50.567 37.646 3i.(Niri 16.105 - IOf/131 -14.105 “-- 5.145 30.024 2.470 31.663 - --1.060,917 62.612 63,472 - 14,072 ---- - --21,535 1.496 -- 22.^1 —---- 53.226 ---322.306 - ----4.066 - ------ 23.031 ----- ----13.402 - 3.646 ---—— 4I2.WM 351 662.672 .. ----16.725 - 6.644,665 ---“-- •..—-—— ..__ S 1J178^4«0 S 3,021.426 $ 2.740.304 t 869.806 $ 9.479,819 JLJHil42 S 7.242.710 511.742 ajMMis 42MW 215430 207.417 123.134 70.077 1407 jOOl 1*472 23.031 22.301 5.5.12410 -J55J36 366J99 -44M6 4JM ; --tU99 *1 i-13.031 27.603 -13.4m M.9I3 —3.648 1.741 •1.296.007 I.3RJM -18.725 10^499 12.376.095 I2JI043I 'if "11.619.202 1.619.2m i.5iomo j 124.446 129.946 ttijti 5,17.5,7%5.17.5.796 5374410 »*.324.946 yy^W I 3I40I.74I •:'f '1^' '.s • V .= y. ' .. '-K '■' :*^'. .i'Mv.'& ..:n ?»*r ■>*» .-» -wa^ — —V ' ■ la.™ ■.•;■ •'■ ■ '•- K-.. i ' ■■■f®r;f.■'.; IJhWniUi. Bfrily. mJ OiIkt CrcdMi Iciiii^ cn A s latcMral fiUiiaMei* RtawnI Im mu—t tmnrf ifeKi Mtvkr IV' Trial liahilitini. «|Hily. ami f4hrr cmRH fM Wmim (dcfidl) ItiHWiI fnt infaHl kcm* HcMv«iriva4wiic«ilor<lH t ruuil!i UMturvnl IMfiaNcil f<« ivtiiccia OciifMlcd f<« cawrgtacy c«iMliii|n«cic* ifnicil ftv oraMnnlMm fnr Cifiial aMlay lolffvM service lkai|taMc4 fw vacalirai/tevcraiicc licnefiu UWkaiginicil T«eal «|iiily awl WImv crrtlils i.rrriY Oi Ol4( )NC I. MINM Mr IACcwihiiinl ShrrlAll 1‘U ih I Typrs mh I AtttiHNi (irniifii Asiif Drcrmtirr M. 1991(wiihrnfn|«ini|fveT(4als as llrtTiiilicf II. 1992)GtmtmmaM FmwI TypesGcnctalS|«ckil irebiService Cufiiiiil S S9.413 7S,754 2J.0JI 5.113 44My 93.MI UI9.47H 32S.922 1.113 1.121.102 22.9HI 1.01M71 129.946 t.0%.631 1.249.118 1.619.202 3.011.873 1.619.202 $^3,021,426 I 2.740.3CM fNiprktifyrtMTjrpe FNliicfwyrywlTyfieIViMl Mfd ncimlVtmetwl .1 rififcrl GNietprite l^ciiAfMB .IJeN 1993 mt r%-VC'"' ■ 61.3111 t I7,mi t t t S I79M9 1 9M.MI %lyJ46 —-I08..5m •5.911 22.981 - 23301 22.911 27JM SRI9S 1 ' Wt.l23 249 121.1411 -• 44J92 I2I..540 U79442 29J05 13IJV0 I.630.7J9 i‘ 111.742 —-9II.7«42IJ90 -16.109 ---50.509 MMO mm ““—--IlIJitI 1B9.Mn —--09.m IMM iM.462 2.125.000 2.440jm5 _________6.924.946 6.924.946 9.049.940 9416491 111.742 —ii.404.732 -i •.1.132.210 5.532.210 imm J 1.127,8o7 •—5.I27.M7 .91M457 -73. IM -..73. IM IM425l.«3«.70|—-I.0.W.7III 1.641,9511 -----2IJ75 '.i ~—22.901 324.1.53 4 vi 4(W. 126 -409.329 241.49646S.311 —-~-405.311 267445 •——-626495 “—-3.015.873 2.9HUi55 k **—•-1.619.202 IJIMM ■* —--129.946 I2IJ9I(|V|.2tl1)----9.17..3.I8 686.162 ■i 71V344 7.(139.814 —,vri2.2io -i9.i72.0DI 'J H69.W>6 JL9.479.8I9 $ 3I_I.742_S 1.132.210 1 6.924.946 1 .10.658.733 1 32J97.74I •j . I ~*i ii ?i9TSTir*I'l 1?Tiiiiii.will 'iitii I w-IRVftaiA'n rrSTf^ C l IY 0| (me INII. MINNI'M U AC'lwiNiiril filMniiCfil Revcmir, rj|«ri«liliiir<. ami Cliaii|tr9 •» fimil Hiilnwr All Cic*vfviiiiM*iifeit riHHl ’i'ypi*« riprmhMr Irutf rwiil YmTiiilriliVrrndhri .11, 1^'(willi C'^nmfwalivr Tnlal!c f<« Yrar Tmlrtl l)rrrnil«rr 1|. If^2)iMwiriuMciial Fuml l ypgtSfriialIMH 1 apftii I'NlvniiiyKipcwiiHf (Mgwfy«imlMiii 0»ly i'm Rt»HIW UCM^Rcvcniie On vice l^i^l Tim FmiI 1W imIVnpaijrimnf I.M(i.K|4 $% 271.939 $1 1 1.010.733 t I.M2.525Sfwtiil Mwtiwrmt --423.400 21.113 -448,721 J5I.B07LkcMH Mi perMki 451.120 44.043 1.290 163.097 490.433 129..165 451.891 ClHMpCt lot tCf vices tmjdH ---—066.034 T8I.235 FiMMidldrfcii OrtKf 6M91 ~———61.491 62.458 lleicK csfWdi nn luvtslmrms 16.17P 140.652 77.024 60.173 -322.227 440.829 IUHaii4fcfiiwi«22.M5 --—-22.045 I7.4U6 ■<^ MIsodlMKflllS 20,930 27.970 195 13.470 MJ3D 12.3.411 106.782 ItitolrcvcmK CspCB^taVCB Cwrtal VI73,509 11^.601 010.611 ' ilio.234 6«.ii»4.329.0 M '4.164.298' OcMval ffwcf mnrm 656.M3 •-•—636.843 596.158 NUktsMy l,579,W3 - - --1.379.063 I.M2.709 Simtt 493,903 - --493.903 465.710 Nritt ami rrcrtMlififi 30.0101 ----30.080 55.590 lUcjRliiit 03.W ----03.393 97.638 67,134 ~--60.030 127,904 101.476 GifM cMlUiy MUicrvict .34.003 13.600 •913.«14 —902.307 5.149.1 II ftMpI rctiremrnt -—130.000 --130.000 155.000 istcfcn --403J91 --403J91 242.095 Hsai »fe«l fret sm culicf --0,963 —0.963 6.114 Tmal ci|icmMiirct _2.97fi21 ] i3.60ii “ Hzjii 933.RM 60,030 4,.54^709 i.427.581 Eicctf (dcfictriicy) <4 fcvrmie iwrr cifieiiiiliirct 193.300 104.930 236.337 (023.630)-(210.9.35)(4.265.28.1) dker finswclwit tinwcrt (Mtet) llniMl|vnccc«li ------1.9801.582 flincr^ fffim tsknf IsMisfiil nllirr -2W.I79 —-•2W.I7# Opcmlifig Inmtlrft in 04.693 vi.mn ji.itf 600.920 -»I.1.6(IR 168.600 0|«fstiiig Imntlcf t (oiH)(94,900)(7IH.7JW)(24ljmiU)--(1.054.6811)(I68jt00) Tnl.il <4licr niiaiiciiig tiHif ret (iitei) llicctt (ikficiritcy) nf rcvriiir ami nllicT finiiiKriiif unircrt over ripi*n- (10.203)(i.1.l.7(»9)‘ (207^35)WMK9i0 4».I79 _.J.?«».582 tlilurrt nml oilier Ciiiauciiif* utrt 103.103 (I7K.759)4R.522 (224.722)-(169.776)(2.282.701) runilliAlnficn ncpiiviinK of yrar 1.064.373 1.I'M.6.12 I.570.6M)910.066 -6.769.733 9.0.52.454 riuf i»f yraf S 1 :• 19.3^0 f «<il<)»7»f I/.I02O7 S 7|9I|.|t 1 6.5IMMI77 $ 6.7697%5 —.. ... - ... .. . ... >.• vv' - • ■ r - \««ii ■• ' •' ♦ :-, v-r-i «v-. .'!: '%5 ■', iv: •m:' rsw-------- in -r^ V' ' ■ wm r***’ ■ ' ■ ■' Kl ^ • t - V CriY OFORONO, NUNNESOTA StaieoKm of iUveaue. Expenses, aod Quiiges in Retained Earnings ftoprietaty FundType Yean EndedDecoi^ 31.19^ and 1992 Safes and cost of sal» Cost of ales Gloss piofit Ibial opoaciif iwcooe Total giosi piofit and opeming levcnne sopplfes Haat, Itgll. and power aadicpatn cipeiisc Qpnatinf losi () Amoctization of deCencd credits InietestszpMse Total oonopeming revenue (expense) Loss before operating tisnsfen Opciating tnnsfen in Operating tnusfers (out) Total opeiating tiansfen in (out) NetkMS Credit for deprectatioa on contributed assets Increase in retained eamings Retained eanings Beginning of year End of year Btieipriae Funds 1993 1992 S 14351 S 15362 8.601 9.639 5,750 5.623 151.798 169.470 397,993 397,139 112308 114320 23.751 27.055 47.151 7367 733,001 716.171 738.751 721.794 246.420 242.681 11,635 35,904 293336 225.469 12368 9,165 19.866 21332 46.630 38,859 202387 196,106 7,194 6,779 43,692 80322 88,744 62367 4,806 3335 977,978 923,419 (239327)(201.625) 122,047 186391 9330 9330 (138355)(147,474) (419)(ITT) 1.760 (7.097)49.^ (246324)(151.695) 261.088 - (20.088)— — (5324)(151.695) 156.488 156,488 151.164 4,793 1.760.783 1.753.990 $ 1.911.947 S 1.760.783, 1 i ■: » ■% f 'Ji. i ’-e .V " r»^r r- V •i & r-r x'- /cr - ;r^'r )<c’/? Mc-c /^/y/?A/, ^ UJcuc O 7» 77^/J- ^ ^ y^/^ye£■C/^rf^^^ 7-0 ■T^/^c^ec/tr r-^^" ^ -TW^y^/Cs 7Z> ^ CA^ir /9iii/^ 3i/r /^£>ay9^^^y i*y'^ ova <sa />^y /9/B^i /V asi/a cay ay/?yS£/>^ s/>i^iucaoi^r^-a eaay/^ yy xj^/?V4> <?■<' ^'/s’/t*-' /??yA/yar<?^yA , 's^y aTSpay isy/y<^7r'a£> n/asy'^at. Osao.. ^ ..y^s 7crau.y y^aycy-^ai^y y'^^'7y'^<=‘ /V ^.w^V ayy-yca^Q 7z>'''fCf^ia<^Ky ^^5 A/yyasr, M>Tycaz> yty a>ataarfia . /^a //»M^i?^A7vy.r ^■oA7y^cWaji ya^y yyo a ye^y^y a^^ar tz > <T/94i 9// aajo r^e- ivyraa y>yraa^ u>,ry o/aacncAJ^ ^ -rc T/aa scayya aa raa a)cooa^/y /^a £<^aaA/iro 7>->osa ior^^> c^aaa- Ma^^aa yf^ir /^/fya ai aa^Ka^/ A/aca y>A/c Ta ayaaora £y7ra/-?a aAor,o^ u)^'^a cy/rr/Vcn yy>a aara a> sc-y'^ a^ayaay^t. ^a>»^ /Ot/d^a aa Baj^aa/y aao U>/9J 7Si<?/t.'/V<» /3n.aa. aa '77-/aA/. /^D/>7/a/araeaa> /}?jart^^ 72 /y>aora /^sosCnayo fijjo £ai//ya/:> Aia• 'T^a' ii/^Tay o^aaa C a / yaa sca^/a u>/r/-y/AJ A;>/aaraz . '^‘^^‘■ /y?a ayyaa^J aaia STaapaa/^ a^a (S^7o 7^ syac/AL B£i/9A€> . 7~asr TTfa^/ 77eaaaa::arcy> a7a /? ai-A^y: oA/ay/aaa uy/ae<r aaa yy^ara //£-c,C£Araa Cyc-y-o yaao- 7aa //ac/aaaT^a TTfsa y/eaAAiaaar.a7^ ,va 7d y/2ar/7 y^a/aa.a/A£. 1 A i . ;a- •.. *> r,.a*, - A... c€) ^ /9/yi d7V T/i'iT 7Z> /x^c£'iy^rj^Y<. 'T/'/d^ a /^6a /. /A9/^y:£^/e a ^y A^€?c7d>/e A?:s-^’iy>e^j:> /??^^ AA/9A VAYdrAp^r. A'o /^ycrr/Y=ye ^/^/y?/9'd:ir A7y j^ A/y/£ /PAr>r/p //y/r'//?^. y3(Pdr>^yY ASAAc.yy' AAi/s^a YS'A y>^''S/YAAAd. X U'As X2Tc,o .-2T d^As i/c/ey LcTdAi'y —6? /yy?A,'iT r^x yZey/y^yr A m'jO AAy^y^£‘^/d>/JA l Cy?jPdT /^o/rA/Aj/sr^yfdl/^ SY Y'A-A/Adrye 'Ty^Afy/z^y/Y. /Z^o x a /a /y^yc^AdyA ZZA/JOd/A/Y. yyA'r^A Ayy/yyiTAA jzr may /ZAi/£ AyA/yAA/U^yjryx A/9/eAdX<£A£A X/AY O/rYsr' ZXuW . ^ (PAAyXd>p^ AYA^yx £>/? d:^xx/cxy XZ'AypAd c'/Y y£AJou(5/Y z^/e /Z/^ ^^'£c Ad c?s s X/9AX . X 0/?a J d?Ayc Y 77-//9Ay/<Z /Z//y x /Za Y y ?a /s Ccy7ti/^ Xa JO /ZdP/^Af A£' A a Jo <£>y=X/cXA^ d^/X<y ^'/M /PXc'£Y///£^ c£‘y>/y><y' r,y£,ex /Y^cc'CAJ/yycy\/ xyAAyyj xyA/ye X^Px^ZMBfj _zr A A) AdSt} ^i^/PX XTypy/xXc yT/yx yyZy yYYyZo /PyA. /cX XyAxAYA^y^y/' AXAiZ/oys tyax /YyA/Y) yY' 7)ey?/AyyAyd^ XA T/yy/>e yxamx ^s xyat zwx z-xxc YX. Z5//Zd£P£y/ tP/aaay Xul Y/y/iYX SiZcc/i^'A/J » O/Qy^yo C'/y^d'y x /ZP- cy/yAJ a . APAj^sof^. Ypy^' yfc^A^/s P (ZAO'Oo c/r'' poA/z/Z/SrAAro Cry aa o. Zap A/ 7VAfc/y6rc'Yc'’MCP0 zy>rpoL. y£X/c>E/^ cV/. aa /l rAeP/zry 7“ A> ,/~' =^^;'V-'^ \.v: lj-^^D.,.r i ■ *mim«^‘»r itm rW p.i f >- i,. TO:Mayor and City Council FROM: DATE: Ron Moorsc, City Administralor July 20, 1994 SUBJECT: Auditoi’s Report Regard Segregation of Finance Duties At its June 27 meeting Council directed the City's Auditor to prepare recommendations to address the issue of segregation of duties in the Finance Department. The Council requested that this recommendation be provided within a 30 day period. Staff has met with the Auditor to review the operation of the department and to identify options for addressing the segregation of duties issue. The Auditor will provide a draft report of his recommendations to the staff by July 27. % ■> . ^ m u r TO:Mayor and City Council FROM:Ron Moorse, City Administrator DATE: July 20, 1994 SUBJECT: Payment to Orono Baseball Association for Youth Baseball Field Facilities 1 have attached a memo directing the Finance Director to prepare a check tor the $20,000 Davment to the Orono Baseball Association which was approved by the City Council at the time iTapprovcd the ball field project on Old Crystal Bay Road. This payment is included in the list of bills recommended for approval by Council as part of the July 25 Council agenda. ; H i, ;?r. r TO: FROM: DATE; SlIBJECr Tom Kuchn. Finance Director Ron Moerse. City Administrator July 19. 1994 Payment to Orono Baseball Association for Youth Baseball Field Facilities At tt’e time Council approved the construction, by the Orono Baseball Association, of two (2) vouui baseball fieldr ’.t the southeast corner of Old Crystal Bay Road and County 6, the Council also approved the payment of $20,000 to the OBA for the existing you* ba«ball facilities in Bederwood Park. This was part of an agreement whereby the Bederwood Park facilities, t^ich had been constructed by the OBA. would be used only two (2) evenings per week by the OBA once the new fields were constructed. 1 he lease agreements regarding the construction of the two (2) youth b^ball fields at Crystal Bay Road and County 6 have now been approved and signed by all parties. The construction of the ball fields is proceeding. Based on the Council’s migmal a^ion S'ooo payment, please prepare a check in the amount of S20 m to *e Orono Baseball Association. The funds for the payment are to be taken from the Park Dedication Fund. r AMM Urban Strategies Task Force Draft Report for AMM Member CoiIf 1 M In September 1993 the AMM Board of Directors fonned the Urban Strategies Task Force in response to ccmcems raised about problems facing the central cities and inner ring suburbs. The task force was asked to define problems facing the region and to respond to them through all cities working together. The task force was asked to examine Icmg-term and short-term answers to these problems and make recommendations to the board, the Legislature, and others about what can be done to deal with the troubles at the core. Using data from the 1990 census and other surveys, concerns about the troubles at the core and the impact of those problems on the region as a whole have been raised by legislators and other organizations. The legislature has debated alternative solutions to these problems in the last two sessions. In 1993 the AMM Metropolitan Issues Task F<Mce made recommendations to the Board regarding housing and development controls. This task force agreed that government action is necessary to arrest deterioration m the metropolitan area. The Metropolitan Council issued the report, “Trouble at the Core,** in 1992 and prepared a plan to address these problems in 1994. A Governor’s Task Force on Metropolitan Housing Policy and the Citizens’ League have also recently coixlucted studies and prepared reports related to these problems. AMM recognizes the need for cities to forge consensus in order to support legislative mandates or other recommendations, and for cities to devetc^ their own capacity to deal with the issues raised by these studies. By providing a broad-based forum to discuss these issues, AMM can be proactive in addressing problems and preparing recommendations. The Urban Strategies Task Force has gathered information in a variety of ways over the last 10 months: - Members have toured distressed areas of the central cities and the first ring suburb of Richfield. - Expert speakers, including Dr. John Adams of the University of Minnesota, Search Institute, and neighborhood and planning groups, have addressed the task force. - A task force meeting was held with suburban legislators regarding proposed legislation. Members have shared books and articles on related topics. The Task Force now presents a draft of its principles, findings, and recommendations for review and comment by AMM members. This draft will serve as the basis for discussions at Outreach Breakfast meetings with members. The task force will review the comments from the membership before a final report is submitted to the AMM Board of Directors. AMM Urban Strategies Task Force - Discussion Draft Page I >- r Issue Identification: Detcrioratine nciehboThoods -- Concentration of low income residents living in deteriorating housing in centra' c-vy and suburban neighborhoods with increasing or high rales of crime arnl decreasing public and private investment. A range of factors -- economic, social, and personal -- can contribute to people living in poor economic conditions. People without basic life cho'ces often lack the ability to improve their economic condition. They can become concentrated in areas where inadequate housing and job opportunities exist, and their conditions arc further worsened. This corxlition is made ev'en more dimcult when people in these neighborhoods exhibit behaviors detrimental to the well being of themselves, their neighborhood, and the metropolitan area in general. Principles The Urban Strategies Task Force's work and report arc based on the following principles: • It is tlw respoftisibility of governments at all levels to encourage problem solving through meaningful citizen involvement and to participate in a unified effort to provide: tunities for people to be self sufficient and to live and work in safe, viable, diverse communities; choice in affordable housing and job of^minities; and a reduction in concentration of poverty. It is the role of government to actively support diversity within their communities. AMM agrees wi^ the statement in the Citizen's League ’s Committee on Homing Policy and Metropolitan Development conclusion that “policy makers must lead the way toward a new vision of community that includes tolerance of socioeconomic and racial difterences." Government must maximize the efficient use of public and private funds by planning coordinated local, sub-regional, and regional strategies to address the identified issues Barriers to reducing concentrations of poverty, and therefore deteriorating neighborhoods, have developed over time as the result of geographic and social patterns, public policy, and market forces. These barriers can be social, economic, legislative, housing, racial, or educatiofud barriers. Although governments may not have ritentionally created such barriers, the fact that governments have failed to address these barriers contributes to the problems seen today in areas with concentrations of poverty. Each community in the region as a w hole should identify and address such barriers that exist within their communities. AMM Urban Strategies Task Force - Discussion Draft Page 2 i J r . «General Findings Impact of Problem Concenirations of poverty, deteriorated housing, inadequate employment opportunities^, and increasing crime rates are currently found in Minneapolis and St. Paul and are growing elemenis in the inner first ring suburbs. Once a certain level of concentration of deteriorated housing occurs and when there is a perception that an area is no longer safe, people and businesses with adequate resources tend to leave the area and public and private disinvestment occurs. The future vitality of the metrc^litan area as a whole is dependent on maintaining strong, healthy, and viable core cities. There is a tendency to stereotype low income people. The term “low income" refers to many different kinds of people living in many different circumstances with a variety of needs, and these people can tMX all be served by the same solution. Racism and prejudice can not be condoned. There can be strength in diversity and communities need to know how to build on and support diversity of all kinds — economic, racial, age, etc. Findings: The Twin Cities are not unique in facing problems of urban decay, for the challenge is facing most major metrc^olitan areas. The causes of urban decay are complex and no single solution exists for solving the problem. The social, economic, as well as physical aspects of the problem are interrelated. Since poverty will not be eliminated, the goal should be to reduce the extent of poverty and to mainstream people in poverty into society. Governments and orgariizations can only do a certain amount to address the characteristics and ramifications of urban decay. Individual motivation and assumption of individual responsibility are key to long term solutions. Concentration of poverty and a sense of hopelessness generate increased violence and accelerate the loss of middle and upper income residents. Historical development patterns, age of housing stock, and market trends have led to a concentration of low income housing and often to neighborhood deterioration. The creation of barriers to affordable housing, often due to development pressures, is not as big a problem as is government ’s lack of action to address and attempt to prevent or reduce such barriers. By choice or for economic reasons, more people are spending more or most of their lives in rental housing. Rental housing ne^ not be viewed just as a buffer for owner-occupied, single family housing, but could be a housing alternative where occupants are encouraged to value, take pride in, and invest in their housing choice. AMM Urtwn Strategics Task Force - Discussion Draft Page 3 ♦ ,^-w - ,_J r L Tax policies and financing mechanisms favorer subsidize home ownership and encourage stability in and commitment toactMnmunity. There are not similar policies for rental property. A significant portion of the demand for low income housing is currently met by using older, market-obsdete housing located in the central cities and inner ring suburbs. Current public policy and market forces favor new structures and newr facilities over redevelopment of existing structures and areas. Public policy docs rKH currently provide incentives or resources to remove cr replace market- obsolere housing. Increasing the supply of low income hcxising alone will not solve the problems of poverty, human service needs, and urban decay. Dispersion of low income housing reduces the problem of concentration but also creates social sen ice delivery p^lems. The creation of newly dispersed low income housing will only reduce concentration if there is an equivalent elimination of deteriorated housing units in the aieas of concentration. Many resources necessary to serve low income people with special needs are concentrated in the centnd cities. The human and social service delivery systems are generally uncoordinated. There are increasing demands on local governments to address human service needs not currently being met. Lack of job opportunities and training limit the resources available to low income residents to increase their ^ility to be self-sufficient. The most job grow th is occurring in new ly dev eloped areas in the suburbs. Transportation systems do not link low income housing in the core cities with jobs in the suburbs. Populations in all communities within the metropolitan area.s will likely become more diverse. Few suburban communities have mechanisms in place to address increasing diversity. It is as important to look at programs that prevent decay in the inner ring suburbs as it is in the core cities. Organized and empowered neighborhoods have developed models for successfully addressing elements of urban blight. ANfM Urban Strategies Task Force - Discussion Draft Page 4 r Rccoamiendations The UfbM StiMoies Task IkKce fCCQiBues Uttt fovcnunent alone can ’t solve probtems fd«ed to conccimioM Bik the taek force calb for fowenunemio take a Icadmhip role and pfovidefcgkiariop|K»tiinitktforpnMcmfolviq|,wo^ in pannmhip with inetro^itm area private aoniMofit afeiicics» residcats and businesses. ions -ill * * to fcgional probleRis Its should provide icsoufces, set policy, and facilitate coordination itaa Council should provide data and facilitate cooidiiMtioa and regional piming. * Sob-icgiooal goveca mc nt dusters should ptkipatc in joint planning and problem solving activities in areas of shared concern. * City and county govcnmeals should be responsible for implementaikm. nraendations around the following areas. AMMThe task force has bqun to formulate leoomincnaauqnsarouiMiuieioiiowuia areas. AMM members are asked to comnmt on the dhectioo the lecommendations should take and to suggest specific action items or policies to be considered under each area JXvgij^ Stien^hen the ability of communities to support diversity within their community . (Diversity can lefor to racial, ciuturol, age. ability, or economic diversity.) |gl Eivpower people in communities to craft solutions to their own Mem solving on a subregional basis and tie job- brts to providiiig affordable housing for those who would fill 1 1 • I h > Establish a nietfopolitan choice housing counseling service. Establish a metropolitan i source to assist in affordable housing choice opportunities. u V * A. •*** Addreu redevelopment ofblightedneighboiSoods with a multi roach that conidm the desires of neicMiorhaod residents, neiehhrwhond andwets the desires of neighborhood residents, neigi i.» 11 II*rod sufraunduig land uses, siie, density, transportation impacts, and other relevant considerations in determinmg a ppropria te action ste^. Education and training: To be formulated Finanet|ig||tenMgives: to be formulated Social Services: to be formulated Rroional: to be formulated ion: to be formulated Irieas for final format/or^ganlaatlon of recommendations: Recommendations to state agencies, metropolitan agencies, and local agencies/units of government. AMM Urtisn Strategies Task Force - Discussion Draft PSgei —- ^ ‘ a;.Dear AMM City Official:In order to make the Urban Strategies Task Force final product representative of our organization, we would appreciate your input and suggestions for recoonendations to be considered by tne task force. Comments are welcome on all parts of the preliminary report.Thank you for your assistance.Jim Prosser, Chair 1 Hecommendations/Comments: Mail to: Roger Peterson (or) Fax 490-0072 Assoc, of Metro. Munic. 3490 Lexington Ave., No. St. Paul, MN. 55126 (use additional pages as appropriate) _ _ rce final product ippreciate IS to be welcome on all PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLLCTED jLUie 1994 91t t PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO ~ PAGE: 1REQUESTER: CAROLE-- CURRENT RANGE - 06/01/94 - 06/30/94 -- PREVIOUS RANGE - 06/01/93 - 06/30/93BASE FEE5,B17.00 2,364,50215.00 00.000.00 0.00 30.00243.00 0,449.50*VALUATION1,253,600.00 200,213.0014.700.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0039.840.00 1,500,353.00*PLAN REVIEW QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW3,506.06 6 4,450.50 830,224.00 2,092.85917.40 21 3,780.50 420,064.00 2,195.3903.20 3 720.50 81,200.00 458.580.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 1 54.00 3,000.00 35.100.00 1 30.00 0.00 0.000.00 2 60.00 0.00 0.00292.50 3 1,320.00 246,000.00 858.004,079.24*37*10,415.50*1,508,400.00*6,439.92210.61 16,850.00 0.00 7 879.59 70,367.00 0.0081.25 6,500.00 0.00 1 30.00 1,000.00 0 CO70.00 3,200.00 0.00 2 70.00 2,300.00 . . JO0.00 0.00 0.00 1 639.11 51,129.00 0.00 35.00 1,700.00 0.00 1 35.00 275.00 0.00 0.00 C.90 0,00 2 70.00 2,000.00 0.00 105.00 1,450.00 0.00 1 35.00 1,200.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 . CO 1 35.00 1,900.00 0.00 501.06*29,700.00*0.00*16*1,793.70*130,171.00*0.00* 723.75 53,500.00 C . 00 16 1,084.76 70,621.25 0.00 655.00 6,000.00 0.00 1 235.00 0.00 0.00 1,378.75*59,500.on*0.00*17*1,319.76*70,621.25*0.00* 200.00 0.00 0.00 14 490,00 0.00 0.00 175.00 0.00 0.00 0 O.CO 0.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 0.00 3 300.00 0.00 0.00 150.00 0.00 C . 00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,000.00 0.00 0.00 6 6,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 2 140.00 0.00 0.00 5,105.00*0.00*0.00*27*6,930.00*0.00*0.00* 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 140.00 0.00 0.00 0.00*0.00*0,00^4*140.00*0.00*0.00* 50.00 0.00 0.00 1 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 30.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 117.00 9,700.00 0.00 140.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 190.00*0.00*0.00*3*197.00*9,700.00*0.00* 15.625.11**1,597,553.00**4,079.24**] 04* *20,795,96*•1,790,900,25**6,439.92* PAGE: 1REQUESTER: CAROLE- - PREVIOUS RANGE - 06/01/93 - 06/30/93BASE FEE1.150.503.760.50 720.500.0054.0030.0060.00 1.320.00<15.50*879307063935703535 59 00 00 11 .00 .00 .00 . 001,793.70* 1,084.76 235.00 1,319.76* VALUATION838.224.00420.064.00 81,200.000.003,000.000.000.00246,000.001,588,488.00*70,367 1.000 2,300 51,129 275 2,000 1,200 1,900 130,171 .00 . 00 . 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 . 00* 70,621.25 0.00 70,621.25* 490.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 300.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,COO..30 0.00 140.00 0.00 6,930.00*0.00* 140.00 0.00 140.00*0.00* 50.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 117.00 9,700.00 C.PO 0.00 197.00*9,700.00' •'0,795.96**1,798,980.25 PLAN RBVIBII2,892.852,195.39458.580.0035.100.000.00858.006,439.92*0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00* 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTEDRBP0R7 NBR^ BPBERPTl-l DATE OP RUN 07/01/94 JUNE 1994PERMIT FEE REPORT •*»** CITY OF ORONO FROM 06/01/94 TO 06/30/94 REPORT HER. BFEERPTl-l DATE OP RON 07/01/94 REPORT TOTAL BASE PEE 15,625.11 PLAN REVIEW 4,879.24 SURCHARGE 803.22 Lie. SEARCH PEE 0.00 SAC 800.00 INVESTIGATION €3.00 DEPOSIT oooMAIL IN 12 00 PERMIT TOTAL 22,18? ' ** PERMIT F='E REPORT *• CITY /F ORONO FROM 06/Ol/'»4 TO 0b/30/94 PAGE: 31kEQUESTER: CAROLEBUILDINGMECHANICALPLUMBINGSEVIER k WATER USER SIGN FIREBASE PEE 8,449.50 501 .86 1. 378 .75 5,105.00 190,00 0.00 0.00PLAN REVIEW 4,079.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00SURCHARGE745.34 15.63 29.75 10.00 2.00 0.00 0.00Lie. SEARCH PEE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n, 00 0.00SAC800.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00INVESTIGATION63.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00DEPOSIT0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00MAIL IN 4.50 6.00 1.50PERMIT TOTAL 14,937.58 521 .99 1,414.50 5,115.00 193,50 0.00 0.00PAGE: 32 REQUESTER: CAROLE 6,439.92** I/fFRI, JUL 1, 1994, 1:33 PMPERMITS ISSUED FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 1994PERMIT WORK ADDR NBR STREET PAGE 1ISSUED PERMIT NBR ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATION 38C ME 2677271510902006224025256502660585366024253615362525260534203405146143255001240 920 2166 1179 275 3195 60 485 3430 1275 1945 2685 2640 2760 3468 3650 3237 315 4545 4300 649 2240 420 170 1485 2500 3329 90 275 1405 CASCO POINT RD WATERTOWN RD COX FARM RD SUGARWOOD DR SHADYWOOD RD KELLY AVE BROWN RD N SILVER VIEW DR BROWN RD S LIVINGSTON AVE MAPLE LA LYRIC AVE LYRIC AVEORONO ORCHARD RD N KELLY AVE NORTH SHORE DR 6TH AVE N NORTH ARM DR CHIPPEWA LA HANLON AVE SPRUCE PL FOREST ARMS LA SHADYWOOD RD NORTH ARM DR HOLLANDER RD CASCO CIR SMITH AVE STUBBS BAY RD r NORTH SHORE DR BROWN RD S FOX RIDGE RD NORTH SHORE DR KELLY AVE WHITE OAK CIR LYRIC AVE CASCO AVE CASCO CIR TONKAWA RD WATERTOWN RD NORTH SHORE DR MINNETONKA HGLD ABINGDON WAY NORTH ARM DR WEAR LA N GREEN TREES RD CASCO POINT RD CRYSTAL BAY RD MYRTLEWOOD RD HOLLANDER RD GREEN TREES RD 94/06/22 OR 94/06/20 OR 94/06/27 OR 94/06/27 OR 94/06/20 OR 94/06/20 OR 94/06/20 OR 94/06/01 OR 94/06/13 OR 94/06/20 OR 94/06/10 OR 94/06/07 OR 94/06/07 OR 94/06/10 OR 94/06/13 OR 94/06/14 OR 94/06/15 OR 94/06/29 OR 94/06/30 OR 94/06/06 OR 94/06/14 OR 94/06/03 OR 94/06/13 OR 94/06/15 OR 94/06/17 OR 94/06/23 OR 94/06/23 OR 94/06/27 OR 94/06/23 OR 94/06/15 OR 94/06/16 OR 94/06/15 OR 94/06/21 OR 94/06/20 OR 94/06/01 OR 94/06/10 OR 94/06/01 OR 94/06/15 OR 006145006174006200006204006205006217005556006135006164006100006146006147006140006149006163006168006176006216006221006142 006167 006140 006160 006181 006105 006197 006198 006202 006102 006170 006183 006175 006192 006215 006099 006119 006133 006150 94/06/09 94/06/02 94/06/14 94/06/17 94/06/22 94/06/20 94/06/27 94/06/29 94/06/15 94/06/27 OR-006129 OR-006131 OR-006165 OR-OObl06 OR-006193 OR-006199 OR-006208 OR-006219 OR-006180 OR-006210 94/06/01 OR-006130 94/06/01 OR-006137 15531417 15590251 14735173 19206996 14555142 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 19276595 14792495 14743130 14743130 00000000 14903481 00000000 17206691 12347418 00000000 14723216 00000000 00000000 14721321 00000000 19333620 16991990 14719124 19386511 19421060 14793216 14774923 15445950 12347410 147*^6502 OOOOOOOO 13603511 00000000 14750548 30904045 36332561 34432819 34718548 54734361 34740366 36332561 54775649 00000000 35595900 ^37200 M357 RSI RESTORATION SERVICES EIDEN CONSTRUCTION INC HOME REFLECTIONS INC REBERS CONSTRUCTION MCDONALD HOMES INCHERITAGE BUILDERS DONALD AHLSTROM SEAMANS CONSTRUCTION SEAMANS CONSTRUCTIONDELMER HAUX CONSTRUCTIONLANDSCAPING PLUS COUNTRY CUSTOM HOMESSTEFFENSON CARPENTRY HINCK MIKE COTY CONST OWENS REMODELING NORTH SHORE ROOFING fit EXCE TOM MASON INC KEITH WATERS fit ASSOC SCHOENING JOHN PAUL MOLITOR CRYSTAL KITCHEN CENTER COUNTRY CUSTOM HOMES STEPHENSON CONSTRUCTION EDGEWORK BUILDERS INC JENSEN HOMES TOTALAIRE FIRESIDE CORNER NARKIE HTG fit AC INC MINNESOTA FIREPLACE JOHNSON JERRY EXC ABEL HEATING INC FIRESIDE CORNER RITTER EXCAVATING MIDWEST FIREPLACE CO CULLIGAN PLYMOUTH PLUMBING BUCEYKUNZSCHROLLFREEMANTROYAKSEIBOLDMORRISONHILLTHOMASHINKLEGRAHAMFINESPENCERSTODDARDKIVUSFORSYTHEKOCHDEMULLINGFLEISHMAN WALLNEP MEAKINS HENSON CHRISTIANSON BRUER BOYLAN GLAMPE JOCHIMS SMITH KIRKMAN SEARLE VOKMAR SHANNEN MITTBLSTAEDT SMITH NASIADLAK BENNETT FREEMAN METZ SWANTEK EIDEN CASHMORfi BERKEY PAURUS HOLTZ THOMPSON 8, 600.00000.00000.00000.00000.00500.00200.00640.00 000.00400.00186.00 500.00 500.00 000.00 500.00500.00850.00380.00520.00500.00 500.00 170.00 000.00 000.00 911.00 100.00 500.00 500.00 000 196 000 000 200 000 500 000 BRUER 6.500.00 1.700.00 3.850.00 6.500.00 650.00 6.500.00 2.200.00 500.00 300.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 19,000.00 Z' ;b 100.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0086.0000.0000.0000.0000.0000.0050.0080.00 20.00 00.00 00.00 70.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 50.00 00.00 50.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 FRI, JUL 1, 1994, 1:33 PMPERMITS ISSUED FOR THE MONTH OF June 1994PERMIT WORK ADDR NBR STREET ISSUED PAGE 213C 91C 6491200252537041701445268510504030250025105W012400150701240012350138001170*01 185*01 16001340701370401370401370401255013310 01 235 01 4545 01 1050 01 4675 01 295 OL 3865o:80 . 01 2500 01 2510 01 90 24 4605 25C 25C UD 01 1135 01 521 01 840 01 970 22 884 5C 5C MINNETONKA HOLD LA PHILLIPS DR KELLY AVE CASCO AVE WEAR LA N CHERRY PL NORTH SHORE DR COX FARM RD ELM STCASCO POINT RD CASCO POINT RDCRESTVIEW AVE FERNDALE RD N CRESTVIEW AVE CRESTVIEW AVE TURNHAM RD WEAR LA N L7VNDMARK DR CYGNET PL EASTLAKE ST CASCO AVE CASCO AVE CASCO AVE LANDMARK DR BAYSIDE RD CRESTVIEW AVE WATERTOWN RD COX FARM RD CREEKWOOD TR TONKA AVE BAYSIDE RD CYGNET PL CASCO POINT R CASCO POINT R CYGNET PL WATERTOWN RD HERITAGE LA NORTH STREAM RD HUNT FARM RD TONKAWA RD DAKOTA AVE 94/06/02 OR 94/06/02 OR 94/06/10 OR 94/06/16 OR 94/06/14 OR 94/06/21 OR 94/06/21 OR 94/06/22 OR 94/06/27 OR 94/06/28 OR 94/06/20 OR 0061380061J9006100G15900617000618900619000619500620600621100621394/06/0194/06/0194/06/0194/06/0694/06/0694/06/0694/06/0994/06/0994/06/0994/06/1394/06/1394/06/1394/06/1394/06/1394/06/14 94/06/14 94/06/14 94/06/14 94/06/15 94/06/16 94/06/27 94/06/28 94/06/20 94/06/30 94/06/23 OR-006132 OR-006134 OR-006136 OR-006141 OR-006143 OR-006144 OR-006151 OR-006153 OR-006154 OR-006156 CR-006157 OR-006150 OR-006161 OR-006162 OR-006166 OR-006171 OR-006172 OR-006173 OR-006179 OR-006184 OR-006203 OR-006212 OR-006214 OR-006220 OR'006196 94/06/09 OR-006152 94/06/15 OR-006177 94/06/21 OR-006191 94/06/24 OR-006201 94/06/17 OR-OC61B7 ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATION24721977 MADSEN PLBG h HTG SWANTEK 3,700.0024549297JANECKY PLBG PRAUS 5,300.0024791942DOLDER PLBG k HTG TROYAK 6,000.0024724959WESTONKA MECH CONTRACTORS SCHRADER .0024725920OLSON LARRY BERKEY 9,500.0029337200 CULLIGAN DONGOSKE 1,000.0028663057SOUTHTOWN PLBG SEARLE 2,000.0025334357PLYMOUTH PLUMBING .0027863555 GALAXY MECHANICAL CONTRACT CRAIG 12,000.0029723110BROWN LOREN PLBG PAURUS .0029723110BROWN LOREN PLBG MORRIS .0000000000MELBY.0054412053KOBER EXCAVATING SAJJADI .0024461495WIDMER INC MELBY .0000000000SHEA.0054710151PETERSON ELMER J CO MERE .0054718151PETERSON ELMER J CO BERKEY .0054734300SULLIVAN'S SERVICES INC KYLE .0024738793CITYVIEW PLBG fit HTG OLSON .0024730793CITYVIEW PLBG fit HTG BURNS .0024724959WESTONKA MECH CONTRACTORS SCHRADER .0024724959WESTONKA MECH CONTRACTORS SCHRADER .0024724959WESTONKA MECH CONTRACTORS SCHRADER .0027044792HOKANSON PLUMBING INC CASEY .00OOOCOOOOWOJCIK.0024461495 WIDMER INC SHEA .00 59723521 HAYES EXCAVATING FREEMAN .00 59723521 HAYES EXCAVATING .00 59723521 HAYES EXCAVATING BAUMAN .00 26704891 LEVASSEUR PLBG fit HTG SCHMITZ .00 00000000 DIANIS .00 00000000 VITKO .00 29723110 BROWN LOREN PLBG PAURUS .00 29723110 BROWN LOREN PLBG MORRIS .00 24730793 CITYVIEW PLBG k HTG VITKO .00 54734300 SULLIVAN'S SERVICES INC SERENA .00 05460436 GREENKEEPER INC HOFFMAN .00 85460436 GREENKEEPER INC HOFFMAN .00 84737224 MIDWESTERN LAWN SPRINKLERS WILSON .00 05071066 ALL SEASONS BOOTH .00 00000000 GASNER .00 1,597,553.00* 00.00 00.00 01 Residence 24 02 Addition 25 03 Garage/Attached 26 04 Garage/Detached 27 05 Porch 28 06 Deck 29 07 Fence 30 08 Gazebo 31 09 Pool 32 10 Re-side 33 11 Re-roof 34 12 Tennis Court 13 Sign 14 Dock 15 Shed 16 Demo-Principal Structure 17 Demo-Accessory Structure 18 Move 19 Commercial 20 Institutional 21 Storm Deunage Repair 22 1-100 Cxibic Yards 23 101 Cubic Yards or More 99 Undefined WORK ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATION0400000000SEIBOLD19,200.003000000000MITTELSTAEDT1,200.003113683511EDGEWORK BUILDERS INC SMITH 5,000.000130984045TOTALAIREFREEMAN6,500.000129337200culliga:;BRUER 1,000.000136332561FIRESIDE CORNER METZ 1,700.000100000000MELBY.003300000000NASIADLAK500.000154412853KOBER EXCAVATING SAJJADI .000400000000MORRISON8,640.000124461495WIDMER INC MELBY . 000125334357PLYMOUTH PLUMBING 19,000.000124721977MADSEN PLBG & HTG SWANTEK 3,700.000124549297JANECKY PLBG PRAUS 5,300.001100000000MEAKINS1,170.000100000000SHEA.001014723216STEFFENSON CARPENTRY FLEISHMAN 1,500.000154710151PETERSON ELMER J CO MERZ .000154710151PETERSON ELMER J CO BBRKEY .000115531417RSI RESTORATION SERVICES BUCEY 193,600.00 06 14792495 DONALD AHLSTROM SHINKLE 3,186.000614743130SEAMANS CONSTRUCTION GRAHAM 2,500.00 06 14743130 SEAMANS CONSTRUCTION FINE 2,500.000600000000SPENCER9,000.003314750540JENSEN HOMES BENNETT 8,000.000154734300SULLIVAN'S SERVICES INC KYLE . 00 01 05460436 GREENKEEPER INC HOFFMAN .000124738793CITYVIEW PLBG & HTG OLSON .000124738793CITYVIEW PLBG k HTG BURNS .00 01 24791942 DOLDER PLBG k HTG TROYAK 6,000.00 01 24724959 WESTONKA MECH CONTRACTORS SCHRADER .00 01 24724959 WESTONKA MECH CONTRACTORS SCHRADER .00 01 24724959 WESTONKA MECH CONTRACTORS SCHRADER .00 01 24724959 WESTONKA MECH CONTRACTCRS SCHRADER .00 11 14721321 HINCK MIKE HENSON 3,000.00 01 27844792 HOKANSON PLUMBING INC CASEY .00 01 00000000 WOJCIK .00 06 14903481 DELMER HAUX CONSTRUCTION STODDARD 3,500.00 04 00000000 HILL 12,000.00 01 34432819 NARKIE HTG k AC INC SWANTEK 3,850.00 01 24461495 WIDMER INC SHEA .00 10 00000000 WALLNER 8,500.00 06 00000000 KIVUS 1,500.00 01 24725920 OLSON LARRY BERKEY 9,500.00 01 59723521 HAYES EXCAVATING FREEMAN .00 01 59723521 HAYES EXCAVATING .00 01 59723521 HAYES EXCAVATING BAUMAN .00 01 15590251 EIDEN CONSTRUCTION INC 275,000.00 29 15445950 CRYSTAL KITCHEN CENTER SEARLE 13,196.00 06 17206691 LANDSCAPING PLUS FORSYTHE 2,850.00 01 85460436 GREENKEEPER INC HOFFMAN . 001714793216SCHOENING JOHN .000126704891LEVASSEUR PLBG fir HTG SCHMITZ .00 29 00000000 HOLTZ 300.00 PAGE 1VALUATION 19.200.00 1,200.00 5.000. 00 6.500.00 1.000. 00 1.700.00 .00 500.00 .00 8.640.00 .00 19.000. 00 3.700.00 5.300.00 1.170.00 .00 1.500.00 .00 .00 193,600.00 3.186.00 2.500.00 2.500.00 9.000. 00 8.000. 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 6,000.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 3,000.00 .00 .00 3.500.00 12.000. 00 3.850.00 .00 8.500.00 1.500.00 9.500.00 .00 .00 .00 275,000.00 13.196.00 2.850.00 .00 .00 .00 300.00 THEPRECEDING DOCUMENKS) HAVE BEEN REFILMED FOR LEGIBILITY •■■nr OR-006152 94/06/09 N 1135 OR-006153 94/06/09 N 160 OR-006154 94/06/09 N 3407 OR-006155 94/06/10 N 2525 OR-006156 94/06/13 N 3704 OR-006157 94/06/13 N 3704 OR-006158 94/06/13 N 3704 OR-006159 94/06/16 N 3704 OR-006160 94/06/13 N 2166 OR-006161 94/06/13 N 255 OR-006162 94/06/13 N 3310 OR-006163 94/06/13 N 2605 OR-006164 94/06/13 N 585 OR-006165 94/06/14 N 649 OR-006166 94/06/14 N 235 OR-006167 94/06/14 N 1240 OR-006168 94/06/14 N 3420 OR-006170 94/06/14 N 170 OR-006171 94/06/14 N 4545 OR-006172 94/06/14 N 1050 OR-006173 94/06/14 N 4675 OR-006174 94/06/20 N 2715 OR-006175 94/06/15 N 2685 OR-006176 94/06/15 N 3405 OR-006177 94/06/15 N 521 OR-006178 94/06/15 N 1275 OR-006179 94/06/15 N 295 OR-006180 94/06/15 N 3329 PAGE 1DU,200.00 ,200.00 ,000.00 ,500.00 , 000.00 ,700.00, 000 ,700 ,300 , 170,5001,600.00 1,186.00 t,500.00 t,500.00 >,000.00 >,000>,000 00 00 00 00 00 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 3.000. 00 .00 00 00 00 00 .00 B,500.00 1.500.00 9.500.00 .00 .00 .00 5.000. 00 3.196.00 2.850.00 .00 .00 .00 300.00 3,500 2,000 3,850 FRI, JUL 1, 1994, 1:33 PMNUMERICAL LISTING PERMIT NBR ISSUED June 1994CANCEL ADDR NBR STREETOR-006181OR-006182OR-006183OR-006184OR-006185OR-006186OR-006187OR-006188OR-006189OR-006190OR-006191OR-006192OR-006193OR-006195OR-006196OR-006197OR-006198OR-006199OR-006200OR-006201OR-006202OR-006203OR-006204OR-006205OR-006206OR-006208OR-006210OR-006211OR-006212OR-006213OR-006214 OR-006215 OR-006216 OR-006217 OR-006219 OR-006220 OR-006221 91C 94/06/15 94/06/23 94/06/16 94/06/16 94/06/17 94/06/17 94/06/17 94/06/20 94/06/21 94/06/21 94/06/21 94/06/21 94/06/22 94/06/22 94/06/23 94/06/23 94/06/23 94/06/28 94 '06/27 94/06/24 94/06/27 94/06/27 94/06/27 94/06/28 94/06/27 94/06/27 94/06/27 94/06/28 94/06/28 94/06/20 94/06/28 94/06/28 94/06/29 94/06/28 94/06/29 94/06/30 94/06/30 117934301945386527522408843660144526658402640420105046053195601701090970435802006224040301485902500250025102510 2760 3461 2525 2500 80 4325 NORTH ARM DR NORTH SHORE DR FOX RIDGE RD BAYSIDE RD HOLLANDER RD ABINGDON WAY DAKOTA AVE LIVINGSTON AVE CHERRY PL NORTH SHORE DR HUNT FARM RD KELLY AVE NORTH ARM DR COX FARM RD WATERTOWN RD CASCO CIR SMITH AVE WEAR LA N COX FARM RD TONKAWA RD STUBBS BAY RD ^ CYGNET PL SUGARWOOD DR SHADYWOOD RD ELM STGREEN TREES RD MYRTLEWOOD RD CASCO POINT RD CASCO POINT RD CASCO POINT RD CASCO POINT RD WHITE OAK CIR NORTH ARM DR KELLY AVE CASCO POINT RD CYGNET PL CHIPPEWA LA PAGE 2WORK ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATION00000000194210601477492300000000193336283471854800000000192765952933720028663057847372241234741854734361253343575473430016991990147191243474836614735173858710661938651100000000192069961455514227863555363325613559590029723110297231102972311029723110 14786502 12347418 00000000 54775649 24738793 00000000 KEITH WATERS ASSOC PAUL MOLITORCOTY CONST MINNESOTA FIREPLACEHERITAGE BUILDERSCULLIGANSOUTHTOWN PLBGMIDWESTERN LAWN SPRINKLERSCOUNTRY CUSTOM HOMESJOHNSON JERRY EXCPLYMOUTH PLUMBINGSULLIVAN'S SERVICES INCOWENS REMODELINGNORTH SHORE ROOFING k EXCEABEL HEATING INCHOME REFLECTIONS INCALL SEASONSTOM MASON INC CHRISTIANSONSMITHKIRKMANDIANISBRUEREIDENGASNERTHOMADONGOSKESEARLEWILSONVOKMARCASHMOREREBERS CONSTRUCTION MCDONALD HOMES INC GALAXY MECHANICAL CONTRACT FIRESIDE CORNER MIDWEST FIREPLACE CO BROWN LOREN PLBG BROWN LOREN PLBG BROWN LOREN PLBG BROWN LOREN PLBG STEPHENSON CONSTRUCTION COUNTRY CUSTOM HOMES SERENA80YLANGLAMPEBERKEYKUNZBOOTHJOCHIMSVITKOSCHRCLLFREEMANCRAIG RITTER EXCAVATING CITYVIEW PLBG k HTG THOMPSONPAURUSPAURUSMORRISMORRIS SHANNEN KOCH TROYAK PAURUS VITKO DEMULLING 1,000.00.007.000. 00 .004.911.006.500.00 .009.400.001.000. 00 2,000.00.004,000.00650.00.00.003.100.002.500.006.500.00225.000. 00 .004.500.00 .00560.000. 0038.000. 0012.000. 002.200.00 1,000 00 .00 .00 .00 .00 4,000.00 4.380.00 62,500.00 500.00 .00 2.520.00 RBPdilT' DATE 01permitUser Dt VARIANC CUPSKETCH Sub-totGrand-tREPORT DATE OFBASE FE] PLAN RE^ SURCHARC Lie. SE? SAC INVESTIC DEPOSIT PERMIT 1 A PAGE 2 PERMIT TYPEUser DefinedVARIANCECUPSKETCH PLAN Sub-totalGrand-total1,000.00.007.000. 00 .004.911.006.500.00 .009.400.001.000. 00 2,000.00.004.000. 00650.00 .00 .003.100.002.500.006.500.0015.000. 00 .004.500.00 .00»0,000.0018.000. 00 L2,000.002.200.00 1,000.00.00.00.00.00 4,000.00 4.380.00 ;2,500.00 500.00 .00 2.520.00 RBPdfeT-NBit. BPRMTISS°^^ PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COIXTCTED j^ne 1994DATE OF RUN 07/01/94 * * *'cITy'^OF^OROn"''^''^^ REPORT *****-- CURRENT RANGE 06/01/94 - 06/30/944217*BASE FEE600.00375.00200.00 1,175.00*1,175.00* *VALUATION0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00*0.00**PLAN REVIEW0.00 0.00 0.00 C . 00** * * * *CITY OF ORONOREPORT NBR. BFEERPT2-1 DATE OF RUN 07/01/94BASE FEB PLAN REVIEW SURCHARGE Lie. SEARCH FEE SAC INVESTIGATION DEPOSIT PERMIT TOTAL USER REPORT TOTAL1,175.00 1,175.000.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,175.00 1,175.00 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSIONMEETING HELD ON JUNE 20, 1994 PAGE: 1 REOUESTER: CAROLE ANGE - /30/93 VALUATION 0.00*» PLAN REVIEW 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00** PAGE: 1 REQUESTER: CAROLE ROLL staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron. and City Recorder Barbara Anderson. Chair Schroeder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. m) #1933 TANDEM PROPERTIES, 2645/3025 WATERTOWN ROAD PI ’^LIMINARY SUBDIVISION - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING Dick Putnam, Jim Deanonic. and Mark Gronberg were present representing Tandem Properties. Chair Schroeder noted that the Certificate of Mailing and the Atfidavit of Publication were on nie with the City. Mabusth reviewed the plans for the second phase of the development. e noted that the Corps of Engineers had asked that the filling be reduced on lots 17 and 18 and the applicant has requested that the Corps reconsider their amended proposal. The Co^s te the amended proposal was reasonable and would present the proposal before the Board. She discussed the drainage plans and the runoff impacts on the adjacent properties. Smith inquired about the drainage beneath the Luce Line Trail and Mark Gronberg responded that they were creating a larger holding pond on their property to reduce the runoff to the south. He stated the culvert goes beneath both the Luce Line Trail and the adjacent horse trail. The issue of the outlot being designated a sacred site was discussed. This land will be plac'^.d in the public Jurisdiction as it was felt to be more fitting than to have it within the jurisdictmn of a homeowners association. Jim Deanonie stated that the Restoration Society was considering moving the barn to a site close to Valley Fair where it would be reconstructed along with othci vintage barns. He believed they should have a determination on whether this barn will he selected within the next month or so. Mabusth reviewed the plans for the Coffin portion of the development, ^he ‘"eyewed the designated wetlands on the property and discussed the lot sumdards. She noted that ots m 17 were considered back lots. Mabusth outlined tne proposed location for the interior trails the project. Dick Putnam stated they would put woodchips down tor a intentions were to give the development residents access to the Luce Line trail. He believed mat wood chips on the surface would be less intrusive, and noted that it would be left as it presa exists, with perhaps the addition of wood chips. He noted that this would be a private trai oi the residents only, and not a public trail. Chair Schroeder noted this was a public hearing. Mike Bursall asked if Outlot C, the privau. driveway would ever serve more than the proposed two lots. Mabusth responded t ai it wo. . only serve the two lots, and if they wanted more lots it would have to come back before tit- Planning Commission for a replat and he would be notilied. 0FTJ« c^v (CONTINUED) r\ K4 r '^Aft Pvcnpt Place asked about the drainage and if the existing drain tile would <ha. U would be replaced wirb a more res.ric.ed ou.le. which v.’ould allow for regulation of the outflow. * %M ^ if fh/» nncciSle widcninc of Watertown Road would impact this project. ChL^chr«d “ respondedL. norhing definUe has been proposed so i. was difr.cul. .o projec. wha. would happ-n regarding Ihe se.backs of .he proposed lou. nick Purnam sured iha. .hey would no. risk developing ihese parcels if 1. appeared .ha. the S »Lav l2 CoTrido was going .0 be along Wa.er.own Road. He conruiemed .hey expec. .he 0.htTgLcy ap7ovals .0 wi.hin^ couple of weeks and .hey would like .o begm .he grading on the property as soon as possible. It was moved by Peterson, seconded by Nolan, to recommend approval of #1933 ^Xron 7 Tandem Proper,ies, 2645/3025 Wa.enown Road, subjec. .0 .he eleven stipulations listed in the staff report and the addition of the following. n There shall be no further land alterations to install trail within the subdivision. The trail IhalX nXed m a maximum wid.h of 4-5’ and only wood chips shall be pu, down on the surface. 13. Lou 15 and 18 .ha. abu. cul-de-sac wi.hin Coffen ponion will no. be required lo mee, the lot width requirements at rear of front street setback line. 14. Lou 16 and 17 will be required .0 mee. 150% of .he required rear and side se.backs - side at 45’ and rear at 75’. Vote: Ayes 7, nays 0. (#2) ZONING AMENDMENT - SECTION 10.56, SHORELAND MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS Gaffron reviewed the proposed amendments to the Shoreland comply^^with number of revisions were necessary due either to statute reference c f . . . nmoosed the DNR’s conditions of approval dating back to May 2, 1993. He French change in classification from Natural Environment Lake Basins to e rontinue to Lake North Basin and French Lake Sewer Lagoon, noting that these basins w be protected wetlands. MINUTES OF THE CITY OF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 20. 1994 r (m ZONING AMENDMENT - SECTION 10.56, SHORELAND MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS (CONTINUED) It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Rowlette, to recommend approval of the amendments to Section 10.56, Shoreland Management Regulations, as recommended by staff. Ayes 7, nays 0. (#3) #1936 CHARLES E. TROYAK, 2525 KELLY AVENUE - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING Charles Troyak was present. Chair Schroeder noted that the Certificate of Mailing and the Affidavit of Publication were on file with the City. Mabusth reviewed the staff repm and outlined the variance request. Chair Schroeder noted this was a public hearing. Charles Troyak stated that there would be adequate buffering between the i\>o houses even after the proposed addition was constructed. It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Rowlette, to recommend approval of #1936 Variance for Charles E. Troyak, 2525 Kelly Avenue. Ayes 7, nays 0. (#4) #1937 ERIKA AND HERBERT F. KAHLER, 2725 RAINEY ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Herb and Erika Kahler were present. Chair Schroeder noted that the Certificate of Mailing and the Affidavit of Publication were on file with the City. Mabusth reviewed the requested variances and discussed the setbacks. Staff was concerned about the direction of the drainage from the tennis court and she reviewed the alternatives that would alleviate the potential drainage problem. Discussion ensued regarding the encroachment of the tennis court drainage into the area of the septic mound. Rowlette inquired if the applicant would be willing to decrease the size of the tennis court by 2.5 feet on each end to shorten the area by 5 feet and avoid impacting the toe of the septic mound. Herb Kahler responded that he did not know what the implications of doing that would be. Chair Schroeder proposed that they approve the variances but locate the tennis court at least: 10 feet from the mound and 10 feet from the lot lines. It was moved by Rowlette, seconded by Lindquist, to recommend approval of the variances for Erika and Herbert F. Kahler, 2725 Rainey Road, with the provision that grading and drainage plans be submitted prior to City Council review showing the drainage being directed away trom the toe of the septic mound, and the tennis court being located a minimum of ten teet trom the toe of the septic system and the side and rear lot lines. Ayes 7, nays 0. MINUTES OF THE CITY OF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 20, 1994 9 I . J (/^5) ;^1938 DOUG OLSON, 537 PARK LANE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Doug Olson was present. Chair Schroeder noted that the Certificate of Mailing and the Affidavit of Publication were on file with the City. Mabusth reviewed the proposal and the variances requested. She reviewed the existing hardcover on the property and noted that the applicant was requesting a 4.7% hardcover variance in the 75-250 setback area. Discussion ensued regarding the distance of the proposed house from the top of the b v.if and the setbacks of other houses in the area from the top of the bluff. It was noted that some ot the houses are built within the bluff. Lindquist commented he would like to see the house moved back 10 feet to put the d^k farther away from the bluff. Rowlette commented she would like to see hardcover at -5 /c. Discussion ensued regarding the size of the house and the deck and garage. It was felt that the house should be moved closer to the street which would reduce the amount of the hardcover because the driveway would be reduced in length. Doug Olson asked if it would be possible to vacate some of the right-of-way and Mabusth responded that it was unlikely until the City Comprehensive Storm Water Plan is completed. Mr. Olson stated he did not have a problem moving the house 10 feet away from the blu . Discussion ensued regarding the decks and whether they could be reduced and Mr. Olson stated he was not willing to remove them. Chair Schroeder commented that given the results of the discussion, he felt the changes recommended by the Planning Commission were too conceptual to forward the application to the Council without theii .viewing it in it’s final form. He recommended that they table the application to allow the applicant to make the recommended changes to the plans. Discussion ensued regarding the changes recommended. The Planning Comrnission recommended that the plans reflect the house being moved 10 feet from the blutf, the hardcover area in the 0-75 setback area at 1.4% and the hardcover area in the 75-250 setback area not to exceed 26% to 29%. The Planning Commission also recommended a 6’ setback from the street. Chair Schroeder stated that the Planning Commission wants to see the final plans before the application is sent on to the City Council. It was moved by Rowlette, seconded by Lindquist to table #1938 Variances for Doug Olson, 537 Park Lane, to allow him to make the recommended changes to the plans. Ayes 7, nays 0. (#6) #1939 TIMOTHY OTTEN, 425 TURNHAM ROAD - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING Timothy Otten was present. Chair Schroeder noted that the Certificate of Mailing and the Affidavit of Publication were on file with the City. Mabusth reviewed the staff report and t e hardships of the property which make it difficult to construct the garage within the required setbacks. MINUTES OF THE CITY OF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 20. 1994 1 * 1 (m #1939 IIMOTHY OTTEN, 425 TURNHAM ROAD - VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) Tim Otten discussed the plans for the garage and noted he plans to add trees along the east side of the garage to provide more buffering from adjacent properties. It was moved by Smith, seconded by Nolan, to recommend approval of #1939 Variance for Timothy Otten, at 425 Turnham Road, including landscape screening on the east side of the garage as recommended by staff, and this is to be installed within one year from the date of building permit issuance. Ayes 7, nays 0. (#7) #1940 KEITH J. SPENCER, 25 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD NORTH - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING Keith Spencer was present. Chair Schroeder noted that the Certificate of Mailing and the Affidavit of Publicatio : were on file with the City, Mabusth reviewed the proposal. Chair Schroeder read a letter regarding the disposal of material from the wildlife pond from City Engineer Shaun Gustafson. He noted the City should obtain a construction schedule from the applicant. Keith Spencer stated they plan to use hay bales as a means of erosion control while the dredging is underway. Lindquist inquired how long the process would take and Spencer responded he would have it completed within 30 days from the time construction commenced. Discussion ensued regarding waterfowl nesting areas and Peterson asked if the applicant intended to construct an island in the pond for that purpose. Spencer responded that he did not intend to construct one. Drainage in the area was discussed. The soils and amount of water in the area were discus.'redl and concern was expressed regarding the potential for equipment getting stuck and mired in the wetland. The restoration process was discussed and the Planning Commission felt that a construction management should be included in an approval. The Planning Commission also felt that a letter ot credit should be posted until the construction was completed to ensure that the streets were kept free of mud and debris from the dredging operation. It was moved by Nolan, seconded by Smith, to recommend approval of #1940 Conditional Use Perm it/Variance for Keith Spencer at 25 Orono Orchard Road North, subject to the five stipulations included in the staff report and the following additional stipulations: 6.A construction management plan shall be submitted for staff review and approval prior to issuance of the permit. Streets shall be kept clean during the construction process. The entire project shall be completed within 90 days from the date of commencemer t The applicant shall submit a Letter of Credit in the estimated amount of restoration of the area. ■■Ji co^l^nssION MINUTES OF THE CITY OF ORONO PLANNING CO>L>USSlON MEETING HELD ON JLTS'E 20. 1994 D - VARIANCE - PUBLIC 5 to add trees along the east side ies. approval of #1939 Variance for creening on the east side of the /ithin one year from the date of ICHARD ROAD NORTH - Lie HEARING e Certificate of Mailing and the th reviewed the proposal. Chair rom the wildlife pond from City a construction schedule from the erosion control while the dredging Id take and Spencer responded he itruction commenced. Discussion iked if the applicant intended to esponded that he did not intend to )f water in the area were discus; cd nent getting stuck and mired in the Planning Commission felt that a The Planning Commission also felt n was completed to ensure that the operation. approval of #1940 Conditional Use 1 Road North, subject to the five dditional stipulations: i for staff review and approval prioi in during the construction process. fs from the date of commencemer t e estimated amount of restoration of (#7) #1940 KEITH J. SPENCER, 25 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD NORTH - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED) 9. A site plan shall be submitted illustrating that 75% of the perimeter will remain in its natural state and 25% may be mowed within 6 feet of the edge of the wetland. Ayes 6. nays 1. Lindquist stated he felt that the pond should be defined prior to work commencing on it’s construction. (#8) #1941 LEROY AND WANDA FISCHBACH, 3135 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - TO BE RESCHEDULED AT A LATER DATE PLANNING COMMISSION CO.M.VIENTS (#9) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 13, 1994 Lindquist reviewed the actions of the City Council at their meeting on June 13, 1994. (#10) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Smith inquired about the Park Survey and Diann Goetten stated that it was being done now, and they expected to have the results in the near future. Smith inquired if it would be beneficial to have a member of the Planning Commission serve as a liaison between the Park Commission and the Planning Commission to enable the Planning Commission to have a better idea of what the future plans were for parks in Orono. After discussion, it was decided to wait until the survey was completed, and then perhaps have a meeting with the Park Commission to decide what the best means of establishing a regular method of communication would be. Mabusth suggested that perhaps the Planning Commission could receive Park Commission packets, which would provide them with that information. (#11) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE MAY 16, 1994 MEETING It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Peterson, to approve the May 16, 1994 Planning Commission Minutes as submitted. Ayes 6, abstentions 1. Chair Schroeder commented he had to abstain because he had not read them. Vice-chair Peterson stated that he would sign the Minutes. MINUTES OF THE CITY OF ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUN'E 20, 1994 (#12) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THE JULY 11, 1994 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL Smith stated she would attend the July II, 1994 City Council meeting. Rowlette stated she would attend the June 27. 1994 City Council meeting because there were several I lanning Commission items scheduled for that agenda. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Lindquist, seconded by Peterson, to adjourn the meeting. Ayes 7, nays 0. The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. r LHCC LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION OEEPHAVEN EXCELSIOR GREENWOOD LONG LAKE MEDINA MINNETONKA BEACH MINNETRISTA ORONO ST. BONIFACIUS SMOREWOOD SPRING PARK TONKA BAY VICTORIA WOODLAND July 20, 1994 540 SECOND STREET • RO. BOX 473 ■ EXCELSIOR. MN 55331-0473 612. 474-5539 • FAX 612. 474-0430 ^ ^oA A Mayor Edward Callahan and City Council Members City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 1 Dear Mayor Callahan and Council Members: I was very unhappy that Congress voted overwhelmingly to approve H.R. 3636, which has a negative effect on continuing regulation of cable/future communications. Apparently our dedicated effort to prove how devastating this bill would be, failed to swing a vote our way, and the bill passed 431 to 4. Incidently, it didn't help that the Chairman of the House Committee sent a two page letter to all Congress members, stating that the bill met with approval from local regulatory authority. To further support my point, I have enclosed a copy of^ a memo from Ann Higgins, who is stcff at the League of Cities. It calls for an official letter from your city, to support S. 1822 and retain local authority over cable, telephone and any other future distributors of video programming/services. I hope you can respond to both Senator(s) Durenberger and Wellstone, as this could be before the United States Senate as early as next week. I would also ask that a copy of this correspondence be sent to the LMCC office. Regards, LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION r James W. Daniels Administrator JWD/cl Enclosure /> 1 -7 ACTION ;VLERT ACTION ALERT ACTION ALERT DATE;July 19, 1994 TO:City Managers ana Cable Commission Executive Directors PROM; Ann Higgins, Intergovernmental Relations Representative The U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to approve H.R. 3636 on June 28. It sent a signal tliat House members are prepared to support private industry *s design of the new telecommunications infrastructure (information superhighway) while denying to cities supp^^i'. for local irancliising authority to regulate cable companies or telephone industry delivery of video programming/cabic services. By a vote of 431 -4 (witli none of the opposing votes coming from the Minnesota Congressional Delegation), the House nearly unanimously indicated support for coaipctition among tclcconiniunicaiions providers which would override state regulations to permit local telephone compeiiiion; give competitors equal access and connections to local phone facilities and wires; allow cable and phone companies to compete in their own services areas; * deny phone cor panics permission to purchase cable systems in their own service ar^, except in rural areas with populations of less tlian 10,000; • establish a federal/state board which would determine universal service issues. In the rush to promote competition, Congress is poise^J to allow private, for-profit interests to take cliarge of tlie design of revolutionary changes in the ways in wliich individuals and communities will communicate and receive information without regard for the public interest in how and at what cost these new services will be provided. m m nr City officials must contact Senators Durenberger and Wellstone now and express concern over the House pre*eiuptioii of local franchising authority for cablc/video services, whether carried by current cable operators or the local (or long distance) phone company - or any otlxr provider. Tlic Senate Commerce Committee is expected to vote this week on S. !822, a bill authored by committee chair, Senator Ernest HoUings (D-SC), which maintains local cable franchising authority and provides that phone companies that carry video programming arc cable operators and subject to local regulation. City officials should also strongly encourage members of the Senate from Minnesota to su^ort provisions contained in S. 2195, authored by Senator Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), who is the co-author of S. 1822. S. 2195 would require capacity to be reserved on all telecommunications nctwoxJcs for public use to guarantee delivery of public services by all providers of these new services. Senator Inouye is expected to request that these provisions be added to S. 1822. The League agrees with Senator Inouyc’s objectives of providing for intcreonnccted comtnunications for the public that can make possible great opportunity for individuals and communities to gain knowledge and pariicipaie in government decision making, obtain cultural, civic, and educational programming, and ensure that there is a diversity of intsr-changc and creativity in the operation of iiuonnation networks throughout the nation. action alert dcutivc Directors Representative y to approve H.R. 3636 pared to support private industry ’s jnnation superhighway) while 0 regulate cable companies or sep/ices. By a vote of 431 -4 isola Congressional Delegation), the tion among telecommunications ic competition; local phone facilities and wires; jtcir own services areas; ,ble systems in their own service ss tlian 10,000; mine universal service issues. poiscsd to allow private, for-profil unges in the ways in wliich ive iiuonnation without regard for the ■es will be provided. • and Wellsione now and express g authority for cablc/video services, (or long distance) phone company ' or is expected to vote this week on mest HoUit»gs (D-SC), which 1 that phone companies that carry ocal regulation. jmbers of the Senate from Minnesota y Senator Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), lire capacity to be reserved on all BC delivery of public services by all jected to request that tficse provisions Inouye’s objectives of providing for make possible great opportunity for LTlicipaie in government decision- nming, and ensure that there is a 1 of iiifonnaiion networks throughout > FI Members of congress liave commented tliat iliey are not hearing from citizens or community groups which currently use and have access tu a bsoad range of community, educational and government information over local cable franchise systems. Local elected officials juust speak up to explain the importance of giving ciUes a voice In the design and operation of the vast electronic information networks being developed by private industry. Communities and individuals must be guaranteed access to Uiis powerful electronic network to promote local interests and to produce educational, govermnent, and public programs and services that the convergence of electronic information technologies makes possible. Federal lawntakers need to hear from local officials that city franchising authority will make possible a design for tlie operation of tliis information supcrhigliway to sen'e people at tlie local level. It will be critical to know where and at what cost the public will be able to get information and entertainment services available over these systems. There is a role for local govcmjtient to play to sec to it iliat there is capacity on systems operated by telcos, cable conijianies or other providers of electronic information services for programming dial serves community Interests in public, educational and government infonnaiion. Cities are in the best position to hold telecommunications providers accountable for providing new services throughout the community, not just to the most profitable locations and to make sure that the use of public rights of way is prorceted. It is clear that transmission of video signals and information services by telephone companies must be carried out with the satno concern for local interests contained in the ’92 federal cable act. City officials must strongly urge both our Senators to support provisions bi S. 1822 that provide for universal service, local franchising and fax authority and to argue for final committee recommendations on measures in the bill that: retain local cable franchising authority and define a plione company that provides video programming as a cable operator; permit phone companies to compete with cable operators in (heir own service areas; require all telecommunications operators to contribute to a universal service fund to assure that electronic information (video, voice, and data) services arc widely available at an affordable price and guarantee low-cosi (basic) services (o all; provide access for local government to intrastate and interstate telecommunications services without charge (for system operators using local rights of way). iiey are not hearing from citizens or :wS3 to a bsoad range of community, :able franchise systems. Local elected giving cities a voice in the design and 5 being developed by private industry :css to Uiis powcif •! electronic network . govemment, and public progmins and on technologies makes possible, hat city franchising authority will make 1 supcrhigfiway to sene people at the what cost the public will be able to get these systems. There is a role for icity on systems operated by telcos, maiion services for programming dial govemment infonnaiion. lunications providers accountable for t just to the most profitable locations IS protected. It is clear that t by telephone companies must be mtained in the ’92 federal cable act. ors 10 support provisions in S. 1822 1 tax authority and to argue for final it: le a phone company that provides 3perators ill their own service areas; ribute to a universal service fund to* and data) services arc widely [basic) services to all; and interstate tclecomniimicallons iig local rights of way). t1\ \ s REGIONAL BLUEPRINT fvtvi. ii)|> ;«M (vi*M I'.i'fti.iNri .'0.'^ RONALO MOORSE administrator CITY OF ORONO CRTSTAL bay HH 553230066 4A92 0 F^ocyclpd p.ippf Conl.Tns nt Ir.iM SO% po«;i consumof vw.»r.!o r| BLUEPRINT DIRECTIONS AFFIRMED BUT SOME CHANGES NEEDED A competitive regional economy, revitalized neighborhoods, well- planned growth and a healthy environment — all key directions of the Metropolitan Council's proposed Regional Blueprint — received broad support from groups and individuals who commented on the draft action plan in April and May. The Blueprint is an action plan for sha^H the future economic growth an^^Btlo|Mi«en^ the region. ^ ^ Six open houses cosponsored^ the Council and 23 other organiza tions. and a two-day public hearing, brought together Council policy makers and staff, local government officials, business people, the public and others to discuss the Blueprint. The Council’s Community Development Committee will begin discussing the comments July 11 (see calendar) Council action on a final version of the Blueprint is expected August 25 Most people commenting on the draft acknowledged that achieving the Blueprint's goals is necessary for the region to remain strong and healthy. Many urged refinements to the strategies, v/hile others took issue with specific action steps ■ QUALITY OF LIFE AND SENSE OF COMMUNITY UNDERSCORED The Blueprint should put the "public" back in "public policy." some people recommended The Blueprint should emphasize meeting people's needs and developing their capabilities Other people suggested that the Blueprint build a stronger sense of community locally and 'egion-wide through transportation, land use. urban design and community services. STRONG SUPPORT FOR A COMPETITIVE ECONOMY People commenting on the Blueprint strongly supported its strategies to strengthen the region's economy by: © Ensuring high-quality, cost- effective metropolitan systems, like highways, airports and sewers; • Bolstering education and job training; and • Working for a stronger business climate %anv underscored the importance of [proving the skills of the region's litoor force and supporting the efforts existing economic development orMnizations. Some questioned what 7ole the Council should play in graining and education. Others said the Blueprint should emphasize "quality" employment, with decent wages and benefidi and it should put a priority on growing or expanding existing businesses before attracting new ones « Several people urged the Council tc^ address the role of future airport^ development to support the region's • economic grov4h ** ■ REVITALIZING DETERIORATED AREAS; HOW BEST TO DO IT? 1 I I Many comments offered differing 9 views on revitalization strategies, _ even though most people agreed* that maintaining a strong, vital cor^ is essential to the region * The Blueprint proposes 4o strengthen the employment base and livability of target areas bv^ July 1994 • Lowering barriers to economic growth, like cleaning up polluted sites; • Using redevelopment tools more effectively, like tax-increment financing, industrial revenue bonds, rezoning and eminent domain; • Explqggft property • Poss enterpris • Exp options t with jobs Some Council core tf I • . - economic : aeveiopmerit.! >^r,Others urged bafanc rtg the heeds of central- ; cities and suburbs. ' Some supported limiting tax- increment financing to older areas, but others suggested using the program in suburban areas as well. Many people favored not only providing housing assistance in older areas but also using public funds to ensure affordable housing opportunities region-wide. The need to clean up polluted sites for future redevelopment was also strongly supported ■ GOOD PLANNING FAVORED, BUT HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH? Comments on the Blueprint split over how carefully to plan new growth The Blueprint's goal is to meet residents’ changing needs and provide urban services while containing infrastructure costs by: • Encouraging development to occur within on urban service area while discouraging urban development in the rural area; RPGIONAl Bl. UEPR'NT n Coun« tl (Vntr** 111 Slrrrl ; r^r.ioi ;r.M i. l UD:'H 0.M1I MMSI ClAyoKlAll US rosiAr.r TAIl) Si Paul. MN P»»rm.lf4o 7QP9 IALO hoorse UNISTRATOR It OF ORONO ?STn bay MH 55325-0066 4492 flla'fls nt W''« poit consumpf w.isip t- e b ;s :e \e lie ne cil nd jld nt. md or les % I tCk )orr m’s 1 July 1994 • Lowering barriers to economic growth, like cleaning up polluted sites; • U sing redevelopment tools more effectively, like tax-increment financing, industrial revenue bonds, rezoning and eminent domain; • Explq property • Poss enterpris • Exp options t with jobs ar - mmm - i#» - - i i m»M • • r; i' j'--'"-"..v.i •>'< Some Council core tl economid . iraeveiopmeni.; rjyxnor* urged balanclrt^ We heeds bl centraK^ f cities and suburbs. ^ i - ' i 1 I I ring lies.- reed* cor I I Some supported limiting tax- increment financing to older areas, but others suggested using the program in suburban areas as well. Many people favored not only providing housing assistance in older areas but also using public funds to ensure affordable housing opportunities region-wide. The need to clean up polluted sites for future redevelopment was also strongly supported. I GOOD PLANNING FAVORED, BUT HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH? Comments on the Blueprint split over how carefully to plan new growth. The Blueprint’s goal is to meet residents' changing needs and provide urban services while containing infrastructure costs by: • Encouraging development to occur within on urban service area \while discouraging urban • Encouraging communities to plan together in "clusters" to solve common problems, • Fostering a range of housing types throughout the region to meet people’s life-cycle needs and incomes, and • Keeping regional system costs and debt within bounds to preserve the region’s tnple-A bond rating Some people argued for limiting expansion of the urban service area, while others said the urban service boundary should be more flexible to accommodate growth Many suggested that the Council improve its methods for calculating the amount of land available for development within the urban service area Others said the urban service area should not be expanded piece-meal, it should be determined by looking further into the future, perhaps to the years 2010 or 2020 The Council should manage development and regional infrastructure investments to better support transit development, higher densities and energy conservation, according to some comments. Support was vocal for giving older areas higher funding priorities for regional infrastructure, and for a more balanc|d development pattern arourttf^^Bg ion Several IBple said fflB SffifeprffifIV>| icortshould incorporate the principles of sustainable development, to meet present needs without sacrificing the ability of future generations to meet theirs Interest was strong in clarifying how cluster planning would work. Some suggested that old and new communities could join in solving problems It’s clear that communities are already planning jointly, and that the process should be cooperative, voluntary and based on partnerships Many people called for greater coordination with adjacent counties to control leapfrog development Strong support v^as offered for measures to control large-lot residential development in rural areas, and to protect agriculture as a legitimate long-term land use Concerns were expressed that increasing the diversity of housing might rely on penalties rather than incentives, while others favored requirements that housing strategies be included in local comprehensive plans ■ BALANCE SOUGHT IN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION The draft Blueprint calls for protecting the environment to enhance the region's economic vitality and livability, by. • Developing a regional water management plan. • Incorporating environmental protections in local comprehensive plans, and • Coordinating the management of the region’s major rivers — the Mississippi, Minnesota and St. Croix Many people supported strong environmental protection as part of the Blueprint’s regional economic and development strategies Some suggested that development plans be assessed to determine their "environmental suitability" and that the land's ability to support development be carefully observed to prevent environmental damage. But a significant number urged the Council to avoid duplicating the work of other agencies and to weigh the needs for protection against the costs, especially the broad goal of 4^ "no adverse impact" on the reg*^’s waters ^ Also questioned wvbs the feasibility of cooyiinaling the management of ‘ til?region’s three major rivers. OTHER TOOLS TO IMPLEMENT THE BLUEPRINT Many thoughtful suggestions were offered for clarifying the Council’s authority and role in regional housing issues The Blueprint proposes designating housing as a regional "system." Such a designation would enable the Council to require changes in local comprehensive plans to meet regional housing and development objectives Others, however, disagreed Seme argued for a regional housing policy, but did not support a system designation Others called for more clarity in describing what it would mean to make the Blueprint itself a "system" The proposed comprehensive planning requirements in the Blueprint also drew comments Some people said there’s a need for greater "teeth" in the Council's authority to ensure good local planning Others questioned this appr^ch, saying that many communijjes do not follow their own comprehensive plans1^' •m MEETING CALENDAR I The Council will consider the comments receivdb on the Blueprint and final Blueprint revisions at the meetings listed befcw. All meetings will ftie held at the Council offices Meeting times and agendas are occa^nally changed, so please call to confirm (291- 6312) I July 11 — Comnfiinity Development Cc^nmittee. noon. Conference Room 1-A: Overview of public comrynls. July 14 mmunity DevelopmeriT Committee, noon- 4 pm. Coi^rence Room 1-A; Work session to consider revisions on the ifcllowing topics: Overview. Goals. Mission - ‘Regional Economic Strategy ^ Regional Reinvestment Strategy Possible new policy on sense of community July 19 — Community Development Committee, noon- 4 pm. Conference Room 1-A: Work session to consider revisions on the following topics; Regional Strategy for Guiding Growth - Regional Strategy. Implementlii August 8 — Development 9) Conference final Blueprint ' August 9 — Co Development-Coi Conference Room 1-A: Review of final draft. Ef ■ iJiTflitlt h") August 22 — Community Development Committee, noon. Conference Room 1-A; Action on final draft August 25 — Metropolitan Council, 4 p m.. Chambers; Adoption of final draft. L BOARD MEMBERS William A. Johnstone Chair. Minnetonka Tom Penn Vice Chair. Tonka Bay Douglas E. Babcock Secretary. Soring Park Robea Rascoo Treasurer. ShorewooO Mike Bloom Minnetonka Beach Albert (Bert) Foster Deeohaven James N Grathwol Excelsior Eugene Partyka Minnetrista Duane Markus Wayzata Craig Mollet Victoria Tomas W. Reese Mound Herb J. Suerth Woodland Joseph Zwak Greenwood Orono o Becvc #0 Conrem 30**. Pcsi Cor«sum#f Waste LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 160 • WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391 • TELEPHONE 612 473-'033 EUGENE R. STROMMEN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOH JUL Z 2 YOU AND YOUR GUEST ARE INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PUBLIC OFFICIALS LAKE INSPECTION TOUR SATURDAY, AUGUST 13, 1994 ON LAKE MINNETONKA CONDUCTED BY THE LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Please note earlier starting time All aboard at 10:00 AM Return to Port at 12:30 PM Al & Alma's Charter Dock 5201 Piper Road, Mound Coffee, juice, fruit & rolls courtesy of Al & Alma's Restaurant Aboard Al & Alma ’s new 100 passenger Avant Garde Please RSVP by Monday, August 8 including guest's name, 473-7033 (directions on reverse side) A1 & Alma's By Car DIRECTIONS TO AL & ALMA'S^ .• t •(A) 3<»4 West or 12 Wost In Cl. RD. IS West, 614 miles lo third stoplight by Spur Station Left on Interlachen Rd. or Cty. 125, */• mile to "Y" in road, stay left on Tuxedo Blvd., po VA miles lo Al & Alma's. Al & Alma's Supper Club & Charier loadingarea. (^) 7 West, turn right on 19 No., go 4 miles to stop light in Navarre. Take left on 15 West, go 1 mile to 2nd stoplight by Spur Station. Follow directions B & C above. AlandAima's SUPPER CLUB & CHARTER’S f)POI PlI’Fn nOAD • MOUND. MIfJNFSOTA 5S3G1 472-3098 OR 472-6016 ► i m . - • • - ' • • • \•fc • • • t I ^ •'N * •\ 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345-1597 / ■ ,/ office: (612) 939-6320 fax: (612) 939-8244 OISTF.ICT ADMINISTRATOR: £!'en8 Sones LA k£ MINNETCHKA BOARD OF MANAGERS: Tho-nas Maoie. Jr. Pr»». • C Woocrow Love • Jort^ E. TTwnas C^fKSon Lnoley • fhomas N UBountv • Marra 3. Harwei • ®ameia G. Blixt July 13, 1994 / • A Ms. Luvume Hanson City of Long Lake P.O. Box 606 Long Lake, MN 55356 ' , A y JUL 2 2 1994 Dear Ms. Hanson: 1 have enclosed a copy of the Long Lake Diagnostic Feasibility Study. This study shows that Long Lake is hypereutrophic and has water quality similar to Lake of the Isles and some of the poorer bays of Lake Minnetonka. Compared with the water quaUty of other lakes in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Long Lake would fall in the bottom third. In the northern hardwoods area of Minnesota, roughly a 100-150 mile wide arc in central Minnesota following the Mississippi River, Long Lake would not be considered swimmable about half the time during the summer months. This is due primarily to nuisance algae and other aesthetic factors and not to health risk favtors. Farther south, where people are used to poorer quality lakes. Long Lake would be considered swimmable for longer periods during the summer. I hope this answers your questions. If you would like any additional intormation please give me a call at (612) 479-4208. Sincerely, MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT District Engineer PJM/elm X. \ i AH— WEST SUBURBAN MEDIATIOIN L 1011 First Street South, Suite 200, Hopkins, MN 55343 (612) 933-0005 Fax: (612) 933-8455 July 22.1994 Mayor aad City (^uacil City of Oroao 2750 Kelley Parkvay Oroao, MN 55323 Dear Mayor and City (Council. As community mediaUon programs are often asked to prcscnl traming area of conflict resolution, our Center is nov prepared to offer training, prefer^ly for a four hour Ume period. The ouUine is attached. There is a charge for the training. The program begins by introducing the group to the concept of alternative dispute resolution techniques and processes, particularly mediation. There is time devoted to definiUons and to the nature of conflict and the intervenUons that have been proven to be effective. We examine tvo very specific skills that are especially helpful--Active Listening and Problem Solving Methods Our program consists of approximately 25% lecture. 30% discussion and 40% practice and feedback. The remainder of the Ume is allotted for breaks and a few miscellaneous minutes spent on handing out materials, giving instrucuons. etc. As you can see from the time allocation, our emphasis is on participation and skill pracuce. For ciUes. the case studies are aU designed to be as realisUc as possible. The subjects range from neighbor disputes over such issues as Fences height. locaUon and appearance; Noise: irritating but not an ordinance violation; Business, houreof operation. lighUng. traffic, etc. for city staff The practice sessions have all been designed to allow the participants to explore these techniques in non-threatening situaUons where feedback from peers and from the trainers enhance and reinforce the learning experience. The trainers are two of our experienced mediators. Tom Phillips, owner. Personnel Systems and Ernie Petersen. Division Head. Inspectional Services. City of St. Louis Pv^ groups, we have trainers who will be offering similar material but adapting the exercises to the types of problems the participants would customarUy We believe our program on conflict resoluuon can provide a working knowledge of problem solving techniques that you will find most u^ful and applicable to your everyday affairs, both at work and in other ’conflict situaL,.4.s. If you are interested in more information, please give us a call. Executive Director JUL 2 5 1994 CITY OF ORONO • t CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROGRAM OUTLINE: I. Introduction A. Program Qoal(s) B. WSMC C. Mediation II. Conflict A. Definitions B. Nature of conflict C. Differences V Sameness D. Causes and Interventions E. Positions and Interests III. Methods A. Basic Methods B. Conflict Mode-1 C. Individual Style(s) Thomas • Kilmann IV. Skills and Techniques • Active Listening A. Listening B. Listening Responses C. Practice V. Problem Solving Methods A. Strategies . . B. Problem Solving Model C. Practic'’ VI. Situational Application A. Team Assignments B. Practice Case studies applicable to job situation C. Critique / Feedback VI. Summary A. Review B. Question and Answer C. Critique and Evaluation Lake Minnetonka Lakeshore Owners Association, Inc. P.O. Box 596 Excelsior. MN 5533 1-0596 612/472-9876 To Whom it may concern,July 13,1994 The Lake Minnetonka Lakeshore Owners Association (LMLOA) has as it’s Mission Statement three objectives, two of which pertain to the preservation and reasonable use of Lake Minnetonka ,as well as serving as an information source and advocate of lakeshore owners in appropriate matters. It is in this vein that this letter is being written. Recently it was noted that there are insufficient, if ANY trash containers at public boat ramps, i.e.,Spring Park and Gray’s Bay. Dumpsters had previously been provided at the major public ramps to control debris and rubbish from blowing into eighborhoods.etc. I do not believe that the general public hauls their weekly trash out to the public boat launch to dump it there on Saturday or Sunday morning when they launch their boats. The trash that no longer has adequate or any containers is the product of “a day on the lake.” As a lakeshore owner and taxpayer, I’d like to see these larger garbage containers provided once again. The LMLOA is asking the governmental agency responsible for this to step forward and provide suitable trash containers for the publics use. The LMCD, each City where the ramps are located and the DNR are being asked to take responsibility for this effort and furnish these containers immediately With Respect, ^ Jane Best Regnier President LMLOA Enclosed are photos that establish the integrity of this request. cc LMCD DNR City Councils of LMCD member Cities LMLOA Newsletter Hennepin County Public Works/ Vern Deshlinger Senator Olsen Representative Smith Representative Van Dellen Representative Workman Representative Knicker bocker Representative Abrams Sun Sailor Laker/Pioneer Weekly News JUL S 5 1994 Cn Y CFCHO.NC