Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-25-1993 Council PacketMIMlTKS OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETINGHELD OCTOBER 25, 1993 ROLL The Council met on the above date with the following members present; Mayor Edward Callalian, Councilmembers J. Diann Goetten, Charles Kelley. JoEllen Hurr and Gabriel Jabbour. The following represented staff: City Administrator Ron Moorsc, Assistant Plannimi & Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, City Attorney Kevin Staunton. Public Works Director John Gerhardson, Assistant City Engineer Shawm Gustafson and Recorder Marva Hurst. Mayor Callahan called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. (Ul) COUNTY ROAD 15 SAFETY IMPR0VEMF:NTS Hurr gave a brief introduction regarding the plan and asked Steve Peterson from the Planning Commission to describe the original plan and the changed plan. Present from Hennepin County were Vem Gcnzlingcr. Head County Engineer; Pat NIurphy. Head of Hennepin County Public Works, and Bruce Polacek. Engineer for the project. Bruce Polacek talked for a few minutes about the study Hennepin County prepared, noting that the accident rate in the Brackett’s Point area is 3 times higher than other areas. He commented how County Road 16 in Minnetonka, which was a similar situation, has improved in regard to safetv when turn lanes were created. Mayor Callahan asked if the road would be worked on in segments and if some segments could be eliminated. Polacek stated that the road was reviewed in segments due to the sensitivity of certain sections. Murphy added that certain segments could be eliminated if necessar)’. Goetten stated her concerns are as follows: center turn lanes could cause some confusion, especially at night because the area is poorly lighted; the blacktop increase will be massive; and that speed is not generally enforced unless a car is travelling more than 10 mph over the speed limit. Mavor Callahan invited members of the public to comment. David Halper, 1420 Shoreline Drive, commented that it took him 11 minutes to exit his driveway recentlv. He felt that the impro\ements to the road would increase tratiic on the road and he was'perplexed why the City Council is going ahead with the proposal when there were no positive comments at the last public meeting he attended. Lowell Janke. Eo.\ Hills area, slated his concern is that the shoulders are very narrow »md it s difficult to make a right hand turn and would prefer to see a right turn exit lane. He felt that widening the road would increase traffic, especially trucks and buses and would like to see the speed limit he 30 mph. Bob Stierna. 1930 Shoreline Drive, read a letter referencing Minnesota Rules. Chapter 8820 regarding natural preser\ation rt>uies. staling ’.hat the ^rea could be considered for review tor designation as a natural preser\alion route. Barbara Halper, 1420 Shoreline Drive, staled that she felt Council should consider redirecting traffic onto Highway 12. 394 just as it was done when the bridges were under repair. Jim Rivers slated that the Countv should have to operate by the same standards as the City of Orono regarding hardcover issues and adding acres of blacktop would be ''Tong. H<? commented that the real problem is not left turn lanes or sht>ulder. but rather the speed limit should be reduced. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETINGHELD OCTOBER 25, 1993 h COUNTY ROAD 15 SAFETY IMPROV EMENTS CONT. Several other residents commented on similar issues, saying that the proposed changes would onlv encourage an increase in traffic and speed, thereby making the road less safe. Other comments were that the City needs to look at other alternatives and also the long term picture of the freeway (394). .labbour asked whether a lower speed could be posted. Polacek stated that the City would have to petition the County to petition the State to do a speed study. The Commissioner of Transportation has authority for setting speed limits. He cautioned that a speed study might indicate that a higher speed could be set. Kelley aereed with the public and commented on the difficulty of crossing the road to use the lake and^the hardcover issues, but stated that he'd like to see safety concerns reviewed. Goetten commented that she agreed with Kelley and would like to sec County Road 15 remain a scenic parkway...not a scenic freeway. Ilurr reminded evervone that the Resolution only asks the County to further study the situation, and tliat there is no commitment at this time to make the changes. Jabbour stated that he felt Hennepin County should be told now whether to continue with more detailed plans and if the City has no intention of making the changes, the County should be informed before spending additional time on the project. Mayor Callahan stated the purpose of the Resolution would allow further study of the situation and that it would not be possible to know whether impro\ements should be made to County Road 15 until the study is done. Pat Murphv stated that the proposed plan shows the minimum improvements the County would be vvilling to build and that there would be nothing that the County could eliminate and still improve the safety of the read, Kelley asked what the maintenance plan would be if the Resolution is turned down. Murphy replied that the road and shoulders would be repaved and right turn lanes installed if needed. He asked that the City Council make its decision to proceed or not tonight. It was moved by Hurr to recommend approval of the resolution as written. The motion failed due to lake of a second. The Council directed that the plan for the major maintenance activities on the roadway address as many salcty concerns as possible. (#2) CONSENT Jabbour removed item #3. Mayor Callahan added items #7. 13, 14. It was moved by Hurr. seconded by Jabbour to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Ayes 5, Nays 0. Motions for all items adopted by consent agenda will be included in the minutes in their respective numerical order. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETINGHELD OCTOBER 25, 1993 (#3) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES - REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 11, 1993 labbour requested that the minutes be amended referencing the motion made by Jabbour recardinu #18, Park Commission Recommendation regarding the Provision of Ball Fields on School District Property to reflect approval of the $20,000 expenditure to acquire the assets (equipment). It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Hurr. to adopt the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 11. 1993 as amended. Ayes 5. Nays 0. PARK CO.MMISSION COMMENTS There was no one present from the Park Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION COM.MENTS Steve Pelet.son and Sandra Smith represented the Planning Commission, to report. PUBLIC COMMENTS There was nothing There were no comments from the public. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT (#4) #1850 JAMES SPINNER. 940 NORTH ARM DRIVE - VARIANCES Mr. Spinner's contractor was present. Gaffron reviewed the proposal stating that the applicant has proposed additional reduction in hardcover of 250 s.f. in the 0-75’ zone. It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Kelley to deny the application per the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Ayes 5. Nays 0. Mr. Spinner's contractor reminded the Council that the applicants have agreed to remo%e some hardcover and stated that there is no other hardcover that could be removed. It was moved by Jabbour. seconded by Callahan, to reconsider the application. Ayes 5, Nays 0. It was nuived by Jabbour. seconded by Goetten to refer the application back to the Planning Commission for review. Ayes 4. Nays I. Hurr voted nay. (#5) #1877 TANDEM ^ ROAD AND 2645 WATERTOWN ROAD - SKETCH PLAN REVIEW FOR PROPOSED SUBDIVISION Mr. and Mrs. Dickey were present along with the developers, Dick Putnam and Jim Osienson. Gaffron explained that the sketch plan review is before the Council bcca-isc of the size of the properties involved. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 25, 1993 ZONING FILE #1877 CONT. Mr. Pulnam gave a brief description of the parcels and Mrs. Dickey talked about the historical significance of the site Kelley asked if the barn would come down and if not, is it structurally sound. Jabbour asked if anyone from the Native American organizations have reviewed the plans and approved them. Mrs. Dickey replied that they had. Kellev asked if the land would be deeded to the City of Orono. Mrs. Dickey replied that it would. Mr Putnam talked about the various ideas regarding roads platted in the developments. There was discussion by all members regarding these roads and the mature woods on the Coffin property. Jabbour stated that he would like more information and input from the Native American community. Sandra Smith. Planning Commission, eonimented that the Planning Commission suggested a meeting with individuals representing the Native American community to review plans to be sure that their input would be included. Mr Putnam reviewed the wetland issues regarding each property. He hired a specialist to do a wetland study on the Coffia'Dickey properties and presented a map indicating the wetlands (using rules of other agencies) and setbacks per Orono ordinances. Flic results of the wetlands and setbacks po.se a serious problem in the usefulness of the parcels. Gaffron noted that the code required a 75' setback for septic purposes. He indicated setbacks may not be appropriate, necessarv' or justified in relation to Type 1 wetlands. He went on the discuss mitigation matters. There was some diseussimi as to where mitigation should be done. Hurr and Jabbour felt mitigation should be done on site. problem is to primarily determine whether Type 1 s should be considered dr>^ buildablc, and secondly mitigation issues. Jabbour asked for the staff's position regarding Type 1 wetland setbacks. from a Type 1 wetland. Gaffron felt that mitigation should be done up front to protect future residents hus inyi to deul with the issue indi\iduall\. L_ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 25, 1993 («6) #1884 ORVILLE FISHER, 475 OXFORD ROAD - VARIANCE Mr. Fisher was present. Gaffron explained that 12 large trees and several dozen smaller tr« • s were removed from the property in the 0-75 ’ zone. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the application for variances Gaffron recommends denial of the request for variances. Gaffron noted a proposed restoration plan has been revised to address the concerns of the Planning Commission. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Kelley, to deny the application for variances and to approve the revised restoration plan subject to DNR review. Ayes 5, Nays 0. *(#7) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 5 - MUSA BOUNDARYASTORM WA'iER MANAGEMENT POLICIES - RESOLUTION #3348 It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Jabbour, to approve Resolution #3348 approving Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 5. Ayes 5, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT 1. Mavor Callalian discussed the letter and draft of resolution he distributed earlier suggesting Congress and the State appropriate funds for the mandates they pt^s down to cities. It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Jabbour to adopt Resolution #3349. Ayes 5, .4ays 0. 2. Mayor Callahan suggested that a cop\ of revised budget figures regarding Police Contracts should be shared with Spring Park and Long Lake. 3. Mayor Callahan suggested administrative action regarding liquor violations should be taken after the prosecution process is completed. 4. It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Jabbour. to approve Resolution #3350 to dissolve the Lake Minnetonka Conser\ation District, and to determine whether, through a cooperative effort, a regulatory body needs to be created to perform any of tlie function of the District, and if so, to join in forming such a body. A\yes 4. Nays 0. Hurr abstained. Hurr stated that she supports reorganization of the LMCD. 5. Goetten asked for comments from the Council regarding the letter from Bob Vasek regarding Highway 12 and Willow. POLICE CHIEF REPORT Chief Sullivan handed out three reports indicating that the first described all occurrences for the month, the second compares the four cities through August, and »he third report, from the State of Mimiesota. describes Part 1 and Part 11 offenses, broken dov.. by each city through September. 5 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 25, 1993 ENGINEER REPORT (#9) PAY REQUEST U1 - STUBBS BAY SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENT It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Jabbour, to recommend payment of request #7 to Progressive Contractors. Inc. in the amount of $138,006.14 but to hold the check until Bederw'ood Park is cleaned up. Ayes 5. Nays 0. (#10) RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR COOPERATIVE SERVICE STUDIES It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Kelley, to deny the resolution in support. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#11) LEGAL SERVICES Mr. Barrett from Popham Haik was present. Moorse explained the 1993 proposal for legal services by Popham Haik, along with information for civil legal services for the past three years. Hurr asked what other cities Popham Haik represents. Mr. Barrett replied they represent St. L.ouis Park. .Afton, Minnetrista, Excelsior and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. I lurr stated she would like to know the retainer chaige for the other cities. It was moved by Hurr, seconded by Jabbour to recommend continuation of the contract for the next three months and to request the City Administrator to prepare an RFP for 1994 within the next two weeks. Ayes 3, Nays 2. Mayor Callahan and Kelley voted nay. (#12) STEP ADJUSTMENT FOR STEVE SULLIVAN, POLICE CHIEF It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Jabbour to table the adju-stment until Januar> of 1994. or such earlier lime as may be appropriate. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#13) STEP ADJUSTMENT FOR SCOIT OBERAIGNER It was moved bv Hurr, seconded by Jabbour to recommend approval of the for Scott Oberaigner from Step 3, Level 5 ($12,864 per hour) to Step 4, Level S ($1:>.S41 per hour) effective October 25, 1993. Ayes 5, Nays 0. *(#14) GRASS SEEDING .AT NEW CITY FACILITIES It was moved by Hurr. seconded by Jabbour to recommend approval of the crass seeding. Aves 5. Navs 0. (#15) SPRING PARK POLICE CON I R.\CT Moorse explained that the language of the hold hartnU-ss causing some concern for Spring Park. Spring Park has suggested that it the contract terminated for cau.se. they not ha\e to pay the termination costs. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCI OBER 25, 1993 SPRING PARK POLICE CONTRACT CONT. Tlierc was discussion as to what could be considered just cause. It was moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Jabbour, to recommend approval of the contract subject to working out llie issues of the hold harmless clause and the termination clause. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#16) LONG LAKE POLICE CONTRACT It w'as moved by Mayor Callahan, seconded by Jabbour, to recommend approval of the Long Lake Police Contract' Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#17) SCHEDULING OF A BUDGET WORK SESSION The budget work session was scheduled for Thursday, November 4, 1993 at 7:45 a.m. (#17A) NATURE CONSERVANCY LAND ACQUISITION It was moved by Jabbour. seconded by Goetten, to approve payment of the costs of related to the donation of property from the Nature Conservancy, including an environmental review of llie property, costs for title commitment, and costs of recording the deed. Ayes 5. Nays 0. (*#18) LICENSES It was moved by Ilurr, seconded by Jabbour to approve the following licenses. Septic System Installer - Groth Sewer & Water (*#19) BILLS It was moved by Ilurr. seconded by Jabbour, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Ayes 5, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT It was moved bv Hurr, seconded by Jabbour, to adjourn at 11.24 p.rn. Hdwa'rd J. CallahaJl. Jr.TvIayor ATtEST: MSthy M./TTallln, City CierE PLANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL 3 PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE 9 AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 1993, 7:00 P M ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon b' one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on “he agenda. Memo? regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet whicn may be obtained upon request from the Recorder. [• Ik* ROLL CALL ^ ^1. County Road 15 Safety Improvements r i *'• * 2. CONSENT AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES * 3. Regular Meeting of October 11, 1993 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Janice Berg Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT ** APPLICANTS **Immediately after the Council has reviewed your application please sign the three (3) original resolutions at the Recorder's desk. Appl.icants need not execute resolutions for subdivisions, 'vacations and denials 4 5 6 7 It 1 Torres Soinner. 940 North Arm Drive ~ Variances iii877 Tandem Properties/Peter Andrea Co., 3025 Watertown Road and Sketch Flan Review for Proposed Subdivisror. ;MiQQ4 Orville Fisher, 475 Oxford Road - Variance comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 5 - MUSA Boundary/Storm Water Management Policies - Resolution MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT a. LMCD Resolution POLICE CHIEF REPORT *"”P"pay Request #7 - Stubbs Ba<- Sanitary Sewer Improvement Sitl^^Pluppoft of Orant Applications for Cooperative Service Studies Legal Services , , . - Step Adjustment for Steve Sullivan, Police Chier Step Adjustment for Scott Oberaigner Grass Seeding at New City Facilities Spring Park Police Contract Long Lake Police Contract Scheduling of a Budget Work Session 11 ^2 13 14 15 16 17 17A.Nature Conservancy Land A«-.qui9iticn •LICENSES (18) •BILLS (19) ADJOURNMENT AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1993, 7:30 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINITISOTA UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 10/20 - 5:30 p.m. Highway 12 Policy Committee Meeting 10/21 - 8:00 a.m. Planning Commission Public Hearing 10/25 - 7*45 a.m. Council Work Session 10/25 - C<^’incil meeting 7:00 p.m. 11/01 - Park Commission meeting 7:15 p.m. 11/08 - Council meeting 7:30 p.m. 11/11 - Holiday - Veterans' Day Observance 11/15 - Planning Commission meeting 7:00 p.m. 11/22 - Council meeting 7:30 p.m. 11/25 - Holiday - Thanksgiving Day 11/26 - Holiday - City Office Closed 12/01 - Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. - Truth In Taxation 12/06 - Park Commission meeting 7:15 p.m. 12/08 - Reconvened Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. - Truth In Taxation 12/13 - Council meeting 7:30 p.m. (Last scheduled 1993 meeting) 12/24 - Holiday - Friday 12/27 - Holiday - Monday 12/31 - Holiday - Friday / TO;Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmenibers • j0iFROM: Jo Ellen Ilurr, Chair of County Road 15 Safety Iniprovement Coiftnyttee DATE: October 21 , 1993 ^ S' /<? SUBJECT: County Road 15 Safety Improvement Project CjA % % As a result of a public information meeting August 30, 1993 the City Council heard comments and concerns from residents regarding the proposed safety improvements to County Road 15 from the eastern City limits westerly to the Areola Bridge. Hennepin County has made revisions to the plan and will explain the changes at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, October 25. 1993. Also attached is information regarding amount of pavement increase and accident history, and a resolution directing Hennepin County to proceed with detailed plans. ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT 9222 700 FT. IN THE AREA OF NAVARRE PLUS FROM ARCOLA BRIDGE TO EAST CITY LIMMITS 3.0 MILES (INCLUDES BRIDGES) INPLACE BITUMINOUS SURFACING 12.3 ACRES PROPOSED BITUMINOUS SURFACING 18.4 ACRES INCREASE 6.1 ACRES PROPOSED PERCENT OF TWO WAV ^EFT TURN lANE PROPOSED PERCENT OF TWO LANE ROADWAY 39% 61% 20-Oct-93 CSAH 15 - 500 ’ West to 500 ’ North of BRACKETT’S POINT ROAD 1989-1991 AVERAGE ACCIDENT RATE Total accidents = 7* Average AADT = 16.800 3 yr. Avc. Acc. Rate = 5.44 ACC/MVM 3 yr. Couniy Ave. - 2 land rural = 1.9 ACC/MVM •Includes: 3 sideswipe-meeting. 2 head-on and 2 single vehicle-off road CSAH 15 - Areola Bridge to Hillside Drive 1992 ACCIDENT RATES (Prel. Acc. Listing) Acc,AADT ACC/MVM Areola Bridge to South of CSAH 51 (E. Jet) 4 13400 1.28 CSAH 15 at CSAH 51 (E. Jet)5 18000 0.76 Nonh of CSAH 51 (E. Jet) to Hillside Drive IS 17800 1.16 ACCIDENT Ri\TES ACCIDENT RATH ARCOLA BRIDGE TO S. CSAH 51 CSAH 51 N. CSAH 51 TO HILLSIDE DR. 3 Year County Average 1.77 .92 1.90 3 Year Accident Rate 1.69 .50 1.60 HJ92 Accide.'U Rate 1.28 .76 1.16 3 Year County Average 3 Year Accident Rate BRACK Errs POINT 1.9 5.44 YEAR SEGMENT ACCIDENT RATE• r A^r/i LOCATION; CSAH 16 (Excluding Maior Intersections) » ROADWAY TYPE: CNT- LT-TN '' /.009^ / SEGMENT ACCIDENT RATE (3 YR) » ACC/MVM ACCVMILIJON VEHICLE MILES = NO. AOC. % t.000,000 / AADT x 365 x LENGTH I Toiwrs 074 100.00 13147.3 MILE POINT LOCATION SEG. LENGTH %OF TOTAL SEG. 19B8 AADT TOTAL ACC 1989 AADT TOTAL AOC 1990 AADT TOTAL AOC 6.05 6.44 E OF C^ 73 W.OFGREENSRIARRD. 040 54.05 12600 4 14GOO 4 13000 4 6.62 660 etsfttfksbbiq dr. W OF FORD RD. 0.19 25.68 12600 2 14G00 1 i:0 6.67 itiJhrtCliiiU 70t E. oP Ford to. USTH 169 0.15 20.27 15300 1 0 11 017600 njhnj;;ii;|;! i:! Ihruhli';;;; i 1 {I 1 1 J1 \ 1 i'rilhfU'Mitiv 7 1520B1 5 1364&6 3YTT AVGRATE- 3 YR. COUNTY AVQ (R- 2 LANE) « 1 41 190H I19B8-I99C) 1906-1890)ANNUAL RATE i19«9....., 1.97] (1969) r 1.22] fi»a 1.00 MENN. CO DfJ*r OF PUD WORKS TRAT«P0RTA110N PLANNING SECTION WJM lorzorca J 1990 ADT \ total Acx: taooo 4 13000 0 i6S00 0 i , i .. !l 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 11, 1993 n % % U % Jo ROLL % \\^i?The Council met on the above date with the following members present: Mayor Edward Callal Councilmembcrs J. Diann Goetten, Charles Kelley, JoEllen Hurr and Gabriel Jabbour. The follow ing represented staff: City Administrator Ron Moorse. Building & Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth. City Attorney Kevin Staunton and Recorder Marva Hurst. Mayor Callahan called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. («1) CONSENT Kelley added items #6, #11. Mayor Callalian added items #15, #22. It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Hurr, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Ayes 5, Nays 0. Motions for all items adopted by Consent Agenda will be included in the minutes in their respective numerical order. (*2) APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Goetten. seconded by Hurr. to approve the minutes of the September 27, 1993 Council meeting. Ayes 5. Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COM.MENTS Item #18, Park Commission Recommendation regarding the Provision of Ball Fields on School District Property was included for discussion at this time. Randy Bosma and Steve Carlson from OB A were present. Bosma handed out some information and gave a brief description of what was included. Kelley asked abou' OBA’s proposal iOi- Bederwood if the work won't be completed until July. Bosma stated that OBA would need Bederwood through the end ot 1994, at which time they hope to have the new fields up and running for use through 199.‘>. OBA would then revert to using Bedenvood 2 nights per week. Kcllcv asked about the total cost of Bederwood Park to OBA. Bosma stated that it w.*s $29,000. .Appro.ximatcly $8,200 w,as spent repairing a drainage problem. I lurr asked about the ownership of the improvements. Bosnia st.ited that OBA was to install the improvements at their cost and at thejime of moving the program. OB.A could move the improvements or leave them intact. The Park Commission recommended that the improvements be left intact. OBA prefers to leave the improvements intact. Hurr asked how much children from non-participating cities would pay. Bosma stated that these children would pay a sur-charge. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 11, 1993 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS CONT. Park Commission Cliair Flint was present and commented on the OBA proposal stating that the three objectives are as folh)ws: 1. Operation of an excellent program. 2. FuUillment of promises to residents that it would be a non-pennanem program. 3. That the project is compatible to the overall Park Plan. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Kelley, to recommend approval of Park Commission Recommendation regarding Provision of Ball* Fields on School District Property to be used by OBA two nights per weeL Ay v 4, Nays I. Mayor Callahan voted nay stating he feels it i., undesirable to spend public money for a private organization and that if the School Board declined to be involved there may be reason tu tv.ok at the proposal more carefully and that there is a concern that the Hockey Association iua> i-.ake a similar proposal in the future. (W) CABLE COMMISSION COMMENTS Jim Daniels was present. Mr. Daniels gave a brief presentation of the budget for the Cable Commission stat ng that it is similar to the previous year's budget w ith the exception of two additional council n-.^etings scheduled. It was moved by llurr, .seconded b\ Callahan, to approve the 1994 Budget for the Cable Commission. Ayes 5, Nays 0. PLANNING CO.M.MISSION COMMENTS Dale I indquist was present. There were no comments from the Planning Commission. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from the public. ZONIN<; ADMINLSTRATORS REPORT (#4) #1850 JAMES SPINNER. 940 NORTH ARM DRIVE - VARIANCES It was moved by Kcllev. seconded by Gocltcn to table the application for Variance until Mr. Spinner ci>uld be present. Aves 5. Nays 0. (#5) #1854 TROY ANDERSON. 1490 LONG LAKE BOULEVARD - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION #3337 Mr. Anderson was present. Mabusth explained that applicant is seeking side and rear setback variances for a garage addition to be installed on tlic north side of the residence. Applicant will be installing additional plantings to minimize visual impact. Tlie septic svstem wi I need to be rchKated and installed. llurr asked if primary and alternate septic sites arc required. .MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 11, 1993 ZONING FILE #1854 CONT. Mabiisth explained that the code does not require alternate testing for developed properties seeking improvements. It was moved by Hurr. seconded by Goetten. to adopt Resolution #3337 for applicant Troy Aii'lerson. 1490 Long Lake Boulevard, granting setback variances for construction of an attached garage. A>cs 5, Nays 0. (*#6) #1855 PAUL E. BOW^LkN, 3458 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION #3336 Mr. Bowman was present. It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Hurr to adopt Resolution #3336 for applicant Paul L. Bowman, 3458 North Shore Drive, granting setback variances for construction of a second stoiy above the existing residence. Ayes 5. Nays 0. (#7) # 1857 JAMES L. STINSON, 2623 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCES Mr. and Mrs. Stinson were present. Mabusth explained that applicant is proposing a principle structure addition to the lakeside of the residence along with a deck reconstruction adjacent to that addition. She explained further that the Greatest concern is that this addition of the principle structure extending into the average lakeshore setback could allow neighboring stnicturcs to expand lakeward without need of variances. Structure does meet the 75' setback however. Hurr a.sked why there is no date or signature on the survey provided and questions whether Council should use and depend on this survey. Mr. Stinson stated that this was the survey the building inspector provided to him. Kelley stated he would like to know from the applicant in writing what the hardship is. Hurr stated she would like to know if there were any stipulations added at the time the deck was installed. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Callahan, to send application back to the Planning Commission and have the applicants present the revised proposal and updated survey and state their hardships. Aves 5. Navs 0. (#8) #1859 JEFFREY D. .MUELLER, 222 BEDERWOOD DRIVE - VARIANCES - RESOLUTION #3338 Mr. Mueller was present Mabusth explained that applicant seeks a variance to side setback for a detached garage addition, and a variance allowing the accessorj" structure to be placed in front of the front line of the existing residence. MAkirntfian iM MINUTES OF THE RFTUILAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER II, 1993 ZONING FILE #1859 CONT. It was moved by Hurr. seconded by Kelley, to adopt Resolution #3338 for applicant Jelfrey D. Mueller. 222 Bederwood Drive, granting side and front line setback variances to permit reconstruction of a detached garage subject to applicant applying for the legal combination of all three separate parcels. Ayes 5. Nays 0. (#9) #1860 ZEL\U MCKINNEY, 3599 LIVINGSTON AVENUE - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Mrs. McKinney and her daughter. Ga: Ic Siegler were present. Mabusth explained that applicant is applying for a conditional use permit to allow the continuation of a nonconfonning duplex use. She went on to explain that Planning Commission members viewed the property and felt it appeared to fit in with neighboring residences. The Planning Commission also questioned whether the City could legally not approve the Conditional Use Permit. There was no deadline for applying for a conditioiiTil use permit to allow the continuation of a nonconforming use in the cod'J. Hurr asked when the propertv was sewered. Mabusth stated it was sewered sometime in the early 1960’s. Mayor Callahan asked if the City can enforce the ow ner-occupancy status of the property. Citv Attomev Staunton staled that he would have to re\ iew the information. 1 here was discussion regarding the various possible olT-street parking spaces in addition to the two- stall garage and where they could be placed. It was moved b\ Kelley, seconded by Jabbour to table action until the City Attorney can review the case and determine whether the Citv can enforce the owner-occupied status. Ayes 4. Nays 1. Hurr voted nay. stating that she feels the'use should be allowed because there was no deadline required in which residents had to apply. (#10) #1861 JEFFREY S. LEECH. 720 NORTH ARM DRIVE - VARIANCES RESOLUTION #3339 Mrs. Leech was present. Mabusth explained that applicant seeks approval to pemiit installation of a new foundation under an e.xistinu detached garage require side and street setbacks and hardcover variance. The proposal will reduce the already excessive structural lot coverage on the property. Planning commission recommended approval. Hurr expressed ci>ncem abmit inadequate documentation in t lat the survey does ru>t show all impriwements It w.as moved bv Hurr. seconded bv Kellev. to adopt Resolution #33 j 9 for applicant Jeffrev S. Leech. 720 North Arm'Drivc for setback, hardcover and lot coverage variances to permit the installation of a new foundation beneath the existing detached gara*_.v Aves 5. Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER II, 1993 (*«1I) #1865 DAVID OWEN, 2248 SllADV^VOOD ROAD - VARIANCES RESOLUTION #3340 It was moved by Goetien. seconded by Ilurr. to adopt Resolution #3340 for applicant David Owen. 2248 Shadywood Road for hardcover and setback variances to permit the installation of a new concrete garage floor and concrete parking pad to the immediate west. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#12) #1866, #1867, #1868 JAMES AND JOANN JUNDT, 1400 BRACKETT'S POINT ROAD - VARIANCES - RESOLUTIONS #3341, #3342, #3343 Marcus Jundt, representing Mr. and Mrs. Jundt, was present. ^1866 . ... iMabusth explained that application #1866 involves a conditional use permit to allow' a second floor caretaker apartment w ithin principle structure. The issue of internal access was reviewed noting principle access is via interior of residence and a secondarv staircase from the garage. There is no intention of the applicant to rent this unit. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Hurr to adopt Resolution #3341 for applicants James and Joanne Jundt 1400 Brackett’s Point Road erantinc a Conditional Use Permit to allow the continued use of a caretaker apartment located in theWond floor level of the existing principal residence. Ayes 5. Navs 0. ^ 1867 Mabu.sth explained that applicant is requesting variances for a lakeside deck which will be used to store dock sections and irrigation structure/equipment. Jabbour asked about the elevations from the water landward and whether or not they would be cutting into the hill to install the deck. Mr. Jundt explained that the deck would not require cufling into the hill. Goetten inquired about the need to house the irrigation equipment on the deck. Kelley asked where the current irrigation system exists. Applicants representatives explained there is a karge bunker-t>pe structure underground that houses the irriitation equipmem now. The problem with using the existing structure is that the existing equipment does not work and there are no plans indicating where the piping'electrical service are located and thus would be very dilTicult to install new equipment. It was clarified that the proposed structure that will house the irrigation system is only 4 feet high, and is not a substantial structure. It is a lock-box type structure. I lurr stated that she felt the proposed deck in front of the lock-box is not necessary. and that she would not approve it. Mayor Callahan commented that the Planning Commission approved the deck with conditions that it be used only for dock storage and not for entertaining It was imwed by Ilurr. seconded by Kelley, to adopt Resolution #3342 for applicants James and 5 MINUTES OF THE RFTJIJLAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER II, i9‘‘3 ZONIN(; FILE «I866, #1867, #1968 Joann Jundt. 1400 Brackett's Point Road granting variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22. Subdivision 1 (B) and 2 to pennil construction of an access stair with landing and lock bo.\ structure for irrigation equipment, but w ithout the deck in front of the irrigation structure w ith 4 ,\ 4 landing deck located 2 ‘ from the shoreline where a 75' setback would be required and resulting in a .60% hardcover where no hardcover is allowed. Ayes 3, Nays 2. Mayor Callahan and Councilmember Jabbour voted nay. # 1868 Mabusth explained that applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow the continued use of the detached euest house structure. There are no proposed improvements to the structure. She explained furTher that applicant requests a change in the Resolution, page 2. Section 3b. where it says "this structure would never remain as a principal structure" to be rewritten "it is unlikely that this structure would remain as a pruiciple stnicture". It was moved by Jabbour. seconded by Callahan, to adopt Resolution #3343 as drafted for applicants urantinu a Conditional Use Permit and accessory structure floor area variance to allow continued use of the detached guest house structure w ith caretaker apartment. Axes 5, Nays 0. (#13) #1873 JACK EDWARDS, 1340 REST POINT CIRCLE - VARIANCES RESOLUTION #3344 Mr. Edwards was present. Mabusth c.xplained that applicant proposes a multi-purpose two-level detached structure, and storage addition, requiring street setback and hardcover variances. Applicant proposes to exchange new structural hardcover for removal of non-structural hardcover. It was moved by Ilurr. seconded b\' Goetten, to adopt Resolution #3344 for applicant Jack Edwards. 1340 Rest Point Circle granting setback and hardcover variances to permit the construction of an upper level garage additiim and lower level storage addition to the existing accessory stnicture. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#14) #1663 .MARK fOHNSON, 4465 BAYSIDE ROAD A) REQU»^.ST T<) EXTEND EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION approv al - RESOLUTION #3345 B) FINAL PLAT APPROVAL RESOLITION #3346 Mabusth exjilained that the elTective period ol Preliminary Subdivision .Approval expired in September. 1992 and applicant could not tile final plat approva' as . result of circumstances beyond applicant's a>nlrol. It was nu^Ncd by Ciocitcn, scciMiJcd b\ Jabbour, to adopt resolution #^3345 for application Mark Johnson. 4465 Bayside Road, granting an extension of the Effective Period of Preliminary Approval for a Plat at 4465 Bayside Street. It was moved bv Jabbour, seconded by Callahan, to adopt Resolution #3346 approving the Plat of Johnson Wheeler 1st Addition. Ayes 5. Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COIWCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER II, 199J (*«15) «1869 BARBARA AND SIDNEY REBERS, 2080 WAYZATA BOULEVARD - VACATION OF EASEMENTS AND SUBDIVISION CREATING NEW EASEMENTS - RESOLUTION W347 It was moved by Gocltcii, seconded by lliirr, to adopt Resolution #3347 for applicants Barbara and Sidney Rebers, 2080 Wayzata Boulevard to vacate a Drainage and Utility Easement within the plat of Sugar Woods. Ayes 5. Na\s 0. (#16) REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. 6 AND FINAL - 400,000 GALLON ELEVATED TANK It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Goetten to approve water tower pavment No. 6 and Final, including change order No. 2, to Pitt-Des Vloincs. Inc. in the amount of $62,596.50. Ayes 5. Nays 0. (*#17) RESOLUTION - COMPLIANCE WITH METROPOLITAN COUNCIL "INTERIM STRATEGY" #3336 It was moved b> Goetten, seconded by Hurr, to adopt Resolution #3336 indicating the City of Orono's Intent to Comply with Metropolitan Council's "Interim Strategy to Reduce Nonpoint Source Pollution to all Metropolitan Water Bodies". Ayes 5, Nays 0. (18) PARK COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE PROVISION OF BALL FIELDS ON SCHOOL DLSTRICT PROPERTY I his item was discussed under Park Commission Comments. #19 ALAN NETTLES SEWER CONNECTION CILVRGE Hurr asked if this would be .setting precedent. City Attorne> stated that this would cause a precedent so that in the future, an identical situation would have to be handled similarly. Jabbour felt it would be w ise to collect the .assessment at the proposed interest rate. It was moved by Jabbour. seconded by Goetten. to approve Mr. Nettles proposal with the understanding that it is because this is an c.xisting structure with a failing septic system. Ayes 3, N ws 2. Kelley and Mayor Callahan voted riy. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT I. 3. It was mo\ed by Gi>etten. seconded b\ Hurr. that the Council will give more direction to the Park Commission regarding planning and the City s vision for the future regarduig City parks. Ases 5. Na\s 0. «p • Goetten noted that a letter is forthcoming from Bob Va.sek of MNDOF answering questions posed by the Willow Task Force. Kelley wondered when Council would set aside some time to assist City staff with direction on various issues, i.c.; how to bring issues to council; adequacy and completeness of material in planning applications. Mayor Callalian added tliat Council needs to complete a review of the City Administrator in October. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER II, 1993 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT CONT. 4.Hurr requested that Council set meeting date to evaluate the City Administrator . It was set for October 18. 1993 at 7:30 a.m. 5.Mayor Callahan stated that he will be recommending a resolution at the next council meeting suggesting that the LMCD be abolished and that a Joint task force should be substituted 6.Jabbour requested that meetings regarding County Road 15 be published 2 or 3 times so that residents have an opportunity Ui become aware and attend these meetings. Hurr commented that the next meeting is scheduled for October 25. 1993 at 7:00 p m. ENGINEERS REPORT There was no one present from the City Engineers OHicc. (WO) DRAFT WORK PLAN - SEPTIC MORATORIUM Moorse explained that this is an infonnation item. (*W1) TRANSFER TO FIRE EQUIPMENT FUND It was moved b> Goetten. seconded by Hurr. to authorize pavment of S30.000 from the 1993 General Fund Fire Protection Buduet to the Improvement and Equipment Outlay Fund, to establish the Reserve for Fire Truck account and to increase the Revenue Budget $30,000 in the Imprcvement and Equipment Outlay Fund. Ayes 5. Na>s 0. (*W2) SCHEDULING OF ADDITIONAL HEARING DATE FOR THE TRUTH IN TAXATION HEARING PROCESS It was moved by Goenen, seconded by Hurr. to approv e scheduling of additional hearing date of December 8. 1993 at 7:00 p.m. Ayes 5. Nays 0. (#23) LOGIS WIDE AREA NETWORK Ron Moorse explained the situation as it exists and potential problems with the systems. Goetten and Hurr both felt this topic should be discussed at a budget meeting. Kelley felt tliat anv under*budget monies Irom the 1993 Budget should be earmarked for this need. It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Jabbour ti> accept the information and table action. Aves 5, Navs 0. (*#24) LICENSES It was movetl by Giurtten. seconded by Hurr to approve the folU)vving licenses. Site Evaluator License • Larry 's On-Site Septic Septic System Installers License - Ingleside MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD OCTOBER II, 1993 (*#25) BILLS It was moved by Goctlcn, seconded b\ llurr, .o approve payment of the All Funds Account. Ayes 5. Navs 0. 0 ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Hurr, to adjourn at 10:26 p.m. Ivdward J. Callalian, Jr. Mavor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallln, City Clerk RlHSZr.t|^tllli*U!l££n§sSrlr=i£S:i:;.t’&z22STSi:«lsssi..l2^it£££JJ:..?S££?t^s£t; = wr5.t.:;itj».it::l;;;:j:i:5i7i|rii-i<j*43253ls2Sfii®««»oouuuo6 6 666uSuuuoujouuoooi2ooSo25SSSw«£*2*£i^*-»N^h.fc.fc^i!i;C!o^oo^5 5lc = c*lB5^^2£5£2,3JJ^u ^ • • «v«««e c>>c S yt yj m *> l•»w^cec•••’^•*ujCMigiUfeC> m C m m ^6 c ^ k. h- ^ 6 »«•—>«• «»K # m ■It'" J'l ◄ » To:Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator % From: Date: Subject: List of Exhibits Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Admji^ra^^ % October 21, 1993 [miAsirL... y|^1850 James Spinner, 940 North Arm Drive - Variances - Revis^^proposal A - Revised Hardcover Plan B - Notice of Council Action 10/15/93 C > Memo and Exhibits of 10/7/93 Council tabled this application on October 11 because the applicant was not present. Pursuant to the Notice of Council Action, applicant has contacted staff with a proposed additional hardcover reduction of 250 s.f. in the 0-75 ’ zone (see Exhibit A). The variances noted in the staff memo of October 7 remain the same, except that in tht 0-75 ’ zone: 0-75 ’ area = 10,822 s.f. Existing hardcover = 2.697 s.f. or 24.92% Proposed hardcover = 1.681 s.f. or 15 5% (Adding 209 s.f. of new structural hardcover over existing non-struc'ural; removing 1,016 s.f. of non- structural hardcover) Applicant has stated he will be at the October 25 meeting. Please review the memo and exhibits of October 7, 1993 and give consideration to the proposed revision. Staff Reconmiendatioii Council may w ish to consider the tollowing options for action: 1. •7(*• 3. 4. 5. Approve as revised. Table for further revisions. Refer back to Planning Commission for further review Conceptual denial. Other. / \ ^;v isetoroposal was not present, with a proposed except that in tht ot new structural ,016 s.f. of non- kfiew the memo and 1. f • \ p CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 APPLICATION NO. #1850 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION Date of Notice: October 15, 1993 TO: Mr. and Mrs. James Spinner 940 North Arm Drive Orono, MN 55364 COPIES:Mr. Don Herstein 10205 Greenbriar Road Minnetonka. MN 55305 TYPE OF APPLIC/iTlON: Variances DATE OF MEETING: October 11, 1993 VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST COUNCIL ACTION - MOTION: Council voted to table your application until either you or an authorized representative can appear before the Council at their October 25, 1993 meeting. If the City fails to hear any further from you. Council has advised that they will act on your application in your absence. Please contact my office if you have any questions pertaining to the Council’s directive or if you are unable to attend tlie October 25th meeting and wish to be rescheduled to a later meeting. r- r A. TO;Mavor Callahan and Oiono Councilmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Jeanne A. Mabnsth. Building & Zoning Administrator October 7. 1993 SUBJECT: ^1850 Janies Spinner, 940 North Arm Drive - Variances List of Exhibits A - Application A1 - Staff memos for August/September Planning Commission Meeting B - Property Owners List C - Plat Map D - Hardcover Fact Sheets E - Original Survey F - Average Lakeshore Setback Line G - New Sur\'ey H - Floor Plan 1 - Elevation The Planning Commission reviewed Mr. Spinner ’s variance application at both their August and September meetings. Applicant proposes a 12’x22 ’ garage stall addition to the existing attached garage located to the lakeside of the residence. At the August meeting, the application was tabled. Applicant was advised to obtain a new survey and hardcover inventory covering all current improvements on the property. Review Exhibit E, in the original survey, the house was located completely out of the 0-75’ setback area. The only variances sought were an average lakeshore setback and hardcover variances within the 75-250’ setback area. Review Exhibit G. the new survey shows that major portions of the existing improvements on the property are located within the 0-75’ setback area. The proposed garage is now located almost completely within the 0-75 setback. The applicant seeks the following variances based on the amended survey/application: Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) A. Garage addition to be installed at the lakeside of the existing residence will located in front of the average lakeshore setback line as the entire residence is located in front o^ the average lakeshore setback. Lakeshore setback variance Required = 75’ Existing = 57' Proposed = 65 ’ Variance for new structure 10’ or 13.3% C J Zoning File #1850 October 7, 1993 Pace 2 Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - hardcover A. 0-75’ setback = 10,822 s.f. Existing = 2,697 s.f. or 24.92% Proposed = 1,931 s.f. or 17.8% (addition of 209 s.f. of new structural hardcover and removal of 766 s.f. of nonstructural hardcover) B.75-250’ setback area = 28,040 s.f. Existing = 12,089 s.f. or 43.1% Proposed = 9,122 s.f. or 32.5% (removal of 96 s.f. of concrete area/planter, 2,871 s.f. of plastic underliner) Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) - lot coverage Total lot area = 42,432 s.f. Allowed = 6,364.8 s.f. or 15% Existing — 6,440 s.f. or 15.1%* Proposed = 6,704 s.f. or 15.7% Variance = 339.2 s.f. or .7% ♦Note that ordinance requires areas of pool basin and associated decks or patios in lot coverage consideration. Review of Planning Commission Comments (Please r view Planning Commission minutes of September 20th meeting.) At the August meeting the applicant was asked to reduce hardcover as hardcover was excessive on the property. After reviewing the updated survey and the amended proposal, members felt the applicant had not tried his best to reduce hardcover. Review Exhibit E, outside of the plastic underliner beneath landscape areas, applicant proposed the removal of some 96 s.f. of pavement and planter box. No other improvements were considered for removal. The major objection with the amended proposal was the tact that the entire new structural improvement was located within the 0-75’ setback area. Members asked if the garage stall addition could be installed to the west side of the garage. Applicant ’s contractor advised that this would have a major and negative impact on the entrance to the principal structure. Mer'bers questioned whether existing paving improvements could be removed at least to the north side of the residence. Applicant s contractor advised that the concrete paving along the nonh side of the residence was needed to redirect drainage to drainage way between lot lines and also protect the foundation ot house. J Zoning File /j'lSSO October 7, 1993 Page 3 Members were also concerned that structural hardcover was being placed closer to the lakeshore directing more and more drainage and debris direct to the lake. The Planning Commission could not approve the amended application as proposed. They made every attempt to obtain additional removals of hardcover but all attempts failed. They asked the applicant ’s representative if he wished the application to be tabled to allow applicant more time to consider additional removals but members were directed to act on the application as presented. The Planning Commission recommended unanimous denial of the application finding hardship representations unacceptable as they felt the applicant had not demonstrated good faith in his consideration of hardcover reduction. Options of Action To accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and to deny the application as proposed; or Table application asking applicant to reduce hardcover within the 0-75 ’ and 75-250 ’ setback area by removing existing improvements; or To approve application as proposed. Council Action To provide staff with conceptual direction so that an appropriate resolution can be drafted for Council ’s review and action at your October 25, 1993 meeting. V f-CITY OP ORONO - VARIANC: # 1 b/ ^PT.TCjfl^Ti -N 1^, I* ,.*• , ■' •/! O t..' %J Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) 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 9^/0 A/o^rH _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Property Identif. Number (P.I.D ) // Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _^(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property; residential other(specify) Zoning District:^_ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLICANT Naune » R^nE//J Phone (home) Phone (wor)c) ^O Address; \ ^ City; MjA/xy^To/s/^/h Zip; Phone (home)OWNER (if different than applicant) Ham. jMUgc. SpitJUeA-________________ Phone (work) ?ff-/VCO — Address: ‘f>te _ _ _ _ _ City: Q^e^q- - - - -Zip: ^>'34V. DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost ^ Qf^ci t QCi Describe request in detail; jul (cl 4 - - - - - - VARIANCES REQUIRED _ _ Lot Area SetbacJc: Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be axibmitted by the application dead 1 ine date in order for your application to be considered complete; 1. Completed Application Form 2. y/ 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. Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). 4. ^ Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required (provide one (1) copy 8*3"xll'' for reproduction). 5. _ _Topographic* survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8J5"xll"). e^it^._v;^S}cetches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8%"xll”). _ _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 your variance application is not complete if the above infomiation has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agfees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her Icnowledge. Applicant's Signature Date /^3 OWNERS SIGHATURB The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members,^*^^ Counc4>t;^embers for purposes of investiga­ tion and verification of/^fu^ reque Owner's Signature A Date Applicant must have ^1 submi^^ls into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. A>lanning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of eacfi month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please ma)ce arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. tTO: FROM: DATE: Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building & Zoning Administrator September 14, 1993 SUBJECT: ^1850 James Spinner, 940 North Arm Drive - Variances - Continuation of Public Hearing List of Exhibits A - Location Map B - Original Survey C - Current Survey D Hardcover Fact Sheets 0-75’, 75-250’ and 250-500 ’ E - Plan for Hardcover Removal F - Average Lakeshore Setback Sketch At your August meeting, Application #1850 was tabled so that an updated survey and hardcover inventory could be provided. In return, applicant was to review the new facts and to present plan for hardcover reductions. Review Exhibits C and D, the 929.4 designation of the shoreline has impacted the original hardcover facts presented for consideration in the original review. There is both structural and nonstructural hardcover within the 0-75’ setback area at 24.92%. The majority of the proposed garage stall will be located within the 0-75 setback and will encroach the setback line by 10’ (65 ’ from shoreline). The closest deck structure to the lakeshore extends 18’ into the lakeshore protected area (57’ setback). The proposed struemre will result in 209 s.f. of new structural hardcover within the 0-75’ and 55 s.f. of structural hardcover in the 75-250’ setback area. Please refer to Exhibits D-2, D-3 and E, as noted in the earlier review from site inspections, it appeared that there was no plastic underlying the landscape areas as shown in Section 3 and 7. Staff did not inspect the north side of the residence to determine if there was a plastic underlincr (Sections 1 and 10 of hardcover inventory). The applicant has lived there over fourteen years and states he has not installed plastic underliner beneath landscape areas. If it was installed, it was installed over fourteen years ago and has probably deteriorated. Thus the reason for sporadic growth also observed by surseyor. Mr. Spinner would agree to removal all areas underlined with plastic and will remove 96 s.f. of planter bo.\ and concrete walkway to west side of residence (refer to E.xhibit E). When Mr. Spinner was asked to consider the removal of the concrete pad on the north side of the structure (8 and 11 per inventory key) and the section to die north and east side of the proposed garage stall within the 0-75’ setback area (a portion of 9), he stated that he could not as the concrete area along the north side was sloped to keep drainage away from foundation. • • • Zoning Memo #1850 September 14, 1993 Page 2 sloping of the concrete was to direct drainage to the north and eventually to the lake. The paved area adjacent to the proposed garage stall would be needed to preserve integrity of new addition and also foundation of residence. He noted the residence was located within a major drainage collection or low area for the local watershed and of the need to protect foundation of structure by redirecting surface runoff away from structure. Don Herstein, Mr. Spinner’s contractor, will be present at your meeting to present photographs depicting the drainage patterns on the property and other information pertaining to protection of foundations given the uniqueness ot topography. The following ordinances are pertinent for the review of the amended application: Section 10.22, Subdivision 1(B) A.As already noted in the earlier reviexv, the garage addition to be installed at the lakeside of the e.xisting residence will be located in front of the average lakeshore setback as the entire residence is located in front of the average lakeshore setback line, review E.xhibit F. B.Lakeshore setback variance Required = 75 ’ Existing = 57 ’ Proposed = 65 ’ Variance for new structure = 10’ or 13.3% Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 - Hardcover A.0-75 ’ setback area = 10,822 s.f. Existing = 2, 697 s.f. or 24.92% Proposed = 1,931 s.f. or 17.8% (addition of 209 s.f. of new structural hardcover and removal of 766 s.f. of nonstructural hardcover) B.75-250’ setback area = 28.040 s.f. Existing = 12,089 s.f. Propt^sed = 9,122 s.f. or 32.5% (rr,:»jovji’, of 96 s.f. of concrete area/planter 2.871 s.f. plastic underliner) Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) - Lot coverage fiUa! lot area — 42,43*. s.f. Alloweo = 6,364.8 s.l. or 15% Existing *6.440 s.f. or 15.1% Proposed * 6,704 s.f. or 15,7% Variance * 339.2 s.f. or .7% *« ‘ • - •• #»••9 Zoning Memo #1850 September 14, 1993 Page 3 *Note that ordinance requires a. eas of pool basin and associated decks or patios in lot coverage consideration Issues for Consideration 1. Will you approve new structural improvements within the 0-75’ setback area? 2 Can garage stall be located to west side of garage out of protected area? 3 Will you approve a lot coverage variance for a property that has 42,432 s.f. in area? 4 Can .7% or 339.2 s.f. of existing decks around pool be removed? This would also result in a hardcover decease within the 75-250 ’ setback area of 339.2 s.f. or 1.2% bringing total hardcover to 31.33 s.f. Members may review existing improvements with applicant’s representative to determine if additional hardcover removals can be considered - - staff tried!!! Refer to Exhibits D and E. Any condition of approval must include the condition that any hardcover improvements scheduled for removal must be completed prior to the footing inspection for new construction. To: From: Date: Subject: Tr Orono Planning Commission Members Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator August 11, 1993 #1850 James Spinnci, 940 North Arm Drive - Variances - Public Hearing Applicant proposes installation of a 12’ x 22’ garage stall addition to the existing attached garage. The structural addition will require the approval of an average lakeshore setback variance and hardcover variances as excesses exist within the 75-250’ setback area. Pertinent Ordinances 1. 2 Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (B) - Average lakeshore setback variance. The garage addition is to be installed to the lake.side of the existing residence The entire residence is located in from of the average lakeshore setback (review Exhibit G). Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Review of hardcover. 75-250’ setback area = 29,840 s.f. . Allowed = 7,460 s.f. or 25% Existing = 9,346 s.f. or 31.3% Proposed = 9,346 s.f. or 31.3% No change proposed. 250-5(X)’ setback area = 13,405 s.f. Allowed *= 4,021.5 s.f. or 30% Existing = 741 s.f. or 5.5% The applicant has not pnwided specific hardcover information on 0-75’ .setback area at 9,375 s.f. Access stair appears to meet ihe 4’ width allowed lor lakeshore lots with steep banks. List of Exhibit.s A B C D E F 0 II 1 Application Addendum Plat Map Property Owners List HanJeover, 75-250’ Fau Sheets Survey Average I^iKesh«'re Setback Sk».*lch Fhxir Plan Elevations Description of Request The applicant proposes construction of a 12’ x 22’ addition to the existing attached garage to the lakeside of tlie residence. The entire structure will be placed over existing hardcover. As already noted, the new addition, as with the existing residence, is located in front of the average lakeshore setback line. An excess of 6.37c hardcover exists within the 75-250 ’ setback area. The garage addition will not result in additional paved hardcover to support backing out maneuvers from garage. Applicant has not offered hardcover removals in exchange for the increase of 240 s.f. of structural hardcover. Applicant’s consultant has been advised to contact applicant to detennine if hardcover removals will be proposed. In reviewing the hardcover inventor}' fact sheet, Hxhibit H. applicant’s consultant considered total lot area in original determinations not realizing there were excesses of hardcover. Hardship Review Exhibit A. Applicant claims new Shoreland Regulations created need for variance review. The specific ordinances that applicant seeks variances from have been in place since 1975. In observing the property, staff would have the following comments: The steep elevations and the dense vegetation minimizes any visual impact of the proposed addition on the adjacent properties. As noted in earlier reviews, a lot with a platted corridor has limited claim on a lakeshore view. The lot to the north would never be allowed under existing zoning standards. The unique topography of this property has resulted in the majority of residential improvements being developed in more gentle sloped area located between two steep sloped banks. Hardcover within the 75*500 ’ setback area is at 10,087 s.f. or 23.3%. Issues for Consideration ■> *1 1. Pending applicant’s response to hardcover removal issue, are there areas of structural or noil-structural hardcover that can be removed from this property? Paving improvements adjacent to garage are needed for safe vehicular use. In fact slaff would suggest that barriers be placed along the lakeside of the steep bank now that a garage stall wiii require backing out maneuvers closer to lakeside. There may be improvements adjacent to pot)l. Pool and family room addition were installed in 1983. At that time, water retention areas of pools would not have been considered hardcover. Changes in policy would now reijuire that water retention areas of pools be included as hardcover. 3. Note landscape areas with rock are not underlined with plastic or geotechnic fabric. This includes the area to the hkeside of the residence beneath the deck and enclosed porches. It may be possible to remove matching area of 240 s.f. of paved area .idjacent to proposed garage addition to the immediate east. Review Exhibit E. If liardcoNer removals are to be included as a condition of variam:c approval, these removals should be completed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. Isv • -•. • RUN OATl 07/19/95BATCH 002PROP AODR ONNER NAH6 TAXPAYIR NAHE/ADDR 50 07-117-25 11 0001 00991 NORTH ARM DR R S I H L NAILACE ROONEY i MARILYN HALLACE 5155 NEEKS ROAD EXCELSIOR HN 55551 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OSIERS LIST58 07-117-25 11 000200960 FOREST ARMS LA D A CHAPMAN 2 J J CHAPMAN B A CHAPMAN A J J CHAPMAN 960 FOREST ARMS LA MOUND MT4 55569 REPORT NO. PI955901 PAGE 250 07-117-25 11 001100060 NINDJAftlER LA DANIEL K KELLY ETAL DANIEL K KELLY 060 HIMDJAI91ER LANE HOUND MN 55569 JuJ J PRW ADOR ONNER NAME TA)9AYER NAME/ADOR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYIR NAHE/AOQR 50 07-117-25 11 0012 00070 NINO JAMMER LA M R MILLER I J L MILLER MICHAEL R A JUDITH L MILLER 070 NlNDJAItlER LA HOUND Hi 55569 50 07-117-25 11 0015 00950 NORTH ARM DR J T OLSON i C L OLSON JOHN T OLSON 950 NORTH Am DR HOUND Hi 55569 50 07-117-25 11 0015 00600 HINDJAMMER LA T A Y NORMAN THOMAS N NORMAN 660 HINDJAltlER LANE MOUND MN 55569 56 07-117-25 11 0016 00960 NORTH ARM DR OAR OICKl^LL ORUCE A A RHOrR)A I OICKNELL 900 NORTH ARM OR H0Ur4D MN 55569 TOTAL BATCH 002 00009 56 07-117-25 11 0019 00990 NORTH ARM OR G A J SPINNER G JAMES A JUDITH SPINNER 990 N ARM DRIVE MOUND MN 55569 56 07-117-25 12 OOr 00920 FOREST ARMS LA R L A T 0 MEAKINS ROGER L MEAKINS 920 F0RES1 ARMS LA MOUND Hi 55569 n CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCl^ATE AND TRUE flEPRESENTATlON OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPEOTY^TAXATION, TQ/^HE BEST OF MY WCHLEOGE AND BELIEF./ / DAT O o o ^ ! J ■ J 3 / i 5I, ; 1 t I I I HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEB* SETBACK ZONE: .(CIRCLE ONE)' 0-75'' (g-250^ 250-500' 500-1000' . • Existing Hardcover in Zone A. ‘ H ouse t * «« LEiNGTH WIDTH -1 «* ••• »«**i ♦ • X 1 Black top driveway ^ <t*>- --------- . , . 12.5 B. Garage 23.92 22.20 ♦ • Concrete c. D riveway -• *•% 120 12 D.. Sidewalk • • • • mm E* Patio / D eck ■ •52.25 - # • ••• F. Landscape AREAS < UNDERLAIN -BY , . •'PLASTIC SHEETING Timber 175 Timber 106 0.5 Pool & Landscaping 6. Other _ ^. .#r*. • ••' • • Total Hardcover in Zone ^ - Total Property Area |N Zone .# m 12089 4 B 28040 2385 S.F •* ■* V - S • F • • i ^ m S • r ,t ^ j S.F. .F. @- S21 (n 1500 S.F. @ — S.F. (E> 1628 308 . sip. (5) dDS.F, ♦. ..i S.F. - 522 S.F.© < • f S.F. » ft# •• 1761 S.F.'(D'. 1110 # ^ 9 • # . ■ 8'7'•- • 1 r ■■■ ■••'53 • .? • 1 • - \ ■‘•:“2154 # • 4 ■ -^12089 • •• * S 28040'''"'s IS.F.© S.F.(D W .F. [3 X 100 42.11 %’■ J <n*h — 9Z.fB ‘37^ “hie. . O. • « I "••.W •' r 1.... ..HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET ScTSACK ZONE! (CIRCLE ONE) (fl-7^ 75^250' 250-500' '500-1000' . . • * * Existing Hardcover in Zone ,.D - 282 S.F. LENGTH #. WIDTH »• • •• • «« \ ‘ . S.F. ' » •• S.F.I ^ • • 'V . .*»• •• . MM . . • • _*____________ X ___S.F.C\‘ . , "'S ■ r ^ • S.F. c ’; iT B. Garage #• S'.F. • • •••i.*•' «>* c. Driveway vV — X . • j io2*a f ; •<% , ''-I-*-:' •* s;f.(9) r- X S.F. M V« • • • % • •• • •• • D.. Sidewalk i • •► *•- S.F. « • «*4r V. » l_ s.F. :r.: •*. • • . .L I E. Patio / . D eck *. ^ 216‘ • .« _ --Tv ----- S.F. (J/• ';:T* iJ.:,. •.*. - •» • % * I .. . _ S.F. (e^r • *•-C- F. Landscape .AREAS •• ». UNDERLAIN " *' BY * ____ PLASTIC _____X SHEETING -------- m •• • • X „ m - 'I i- . ^••582- "’ ;s.F. ®■"• « .S’.F. (5)------------------- - ^ • V * • 264 _ S.F.@7 _____ S.F. i • • *< ^ • ♦ • -••G. Other % . s;fV* .«• I "Total Hardcover in Zone - • • lA.26<?7' ',e. (Tj 5S.F. CK.r*ci* Total Property Area in Zone - —io82Z_ ■ ' X 100 • ?^.Q2. /Q2607B10822^ Ci"CA.r^t* y r.m^------- ^ /fiu TuCh9 7/O anf’: /fj/ ^foszz. « i7.S?o ^ ^ 3 f s ^_ \V . • Avv;..'.'. • V. -. •?I ^-------- Lv^■^J ■ ■>': ' >V‘ .VIt.' ,V . V ^'* ' ' ■ } ' V . ',t • •Jjltk* •**-«'*' '* ;'••'* ‘‘'‘V;* ■■ ■■. ’ kirf- ■'' V • iv; ^ '■ v-i : .v;-'- ■■ -;■•■:. ■ :■' 51 V '■:■;;^y■: : ■ .■K^-'Wvv :-V;-y'. *j ^**i# I 9*1 II I7i*P? j* * ^ V *•••• ■.• * • ,•’#*‘1 ^ ^ ‘;V-- /•:, ^•: - itl : :';• .‘/‘V V ’‘V •; • vi ** -* * ' • ••. ’ . ,M - • ,• •!' '"i » f ; ‘ * • . ' ■ M ^ • : « '%•• . » # 1 ___I :bsI6t. -pP6E e^cpB F£MOVB Z. BtM^T . JKISTAa New I. ■ RB^^OVE S?<l9r P N. (2r/MA6»& _■P^T RBPtACe W/NEW OOO^ Ula.o -k flCoo s/ • I '^Tl ' I F6M0VB EW^T 0?NC. Stf«6 /N THie AA6A < INem MEW FPM WAtt ^0?NC.^IA6 r <^k .7 P.H. &AA^6B Pg 2.-IO* LVU irtr o c4 E9.SQ, 9 ■pr^i t t |5 |l9 3 I 3-4 — t=i I- y rr n FLC>Ot^ KUAN1/4"» I - O MO PW ^/l^41WM ^UB'^ATlcPhl |/4N» 1-0 To:Mavor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorsc. Citv Administrator From: Date: ‘•S\Michael P. Gaffron. Assistant Planninc & Zoninc Adminiswwr ^ . OlVV-%,%October 22. 1993 % Subject:Tandem Properties/Peter Andrea Company. 3025 Watertown ^ad and 2645 Watertown Road - Sketch Plan Review for Proposed Subdivision List of Exhibits A B C D E Memo and Exhibits of 10/15/93 Wetland Brochure U.S.A. Wetland Type Distribution Wetland Credit Options - Type 1 Soils Information Introduction Please review the memo and exhibits of 10/15/93. Briefly. Tandem Properties and Peter Andrea Company arc proposing to develop the Coffin and Dickey properties either side of Old Crv'stal Bay Road south of Watertown Road. This item has been reviewed as a sketch plan by the Pa*k Commission on October 4 and the Planning Commission on October 18. It is being brought forward as a sketch plan to h.e Council because of a number of unique factors including; At 130 acres, the total proposed development is the largest we have seen in many years. The properties abut exist.ng and proposed trail systems in the City, A site of great religious and cultural significance to the Native American pt)pulation is proposed for preservation. Changing State and Federal wetland delineation and preservation regulations require the Citv to re-examine and interpret its codes. The memo of October 15 touches on a number of planning issues that were addressed by Planning Commission. The Park Commission similarly leviev ed the issues of trails, the interpretive cemer/park preservation of the historic site, and the issue of park fees vs. park dedication. Both Park Comtitission and Planning Commission generally had positive comn^nis about the proposal, and were supportive ot the idea of trails and the interpretive center concept, although expressing concern regarding the need for substantial documentation ot the Ancient Ones’" site and how the interpretive cer'er might be carried out absent City funding. Zoning File #1877 October 22, 1993 Page 2 Perhaps a more pressing issue for the dev t loper is a concern about the number and extent of wetlands delineated on the site by the developer’s ct)nsultants under new Federal guidelines. Many areas not mapped as City designated wetlands nor previously preserved under City ordinances, have been identified as "Type 1" wetlands throughout both proj 'ies. The developer needs City decisions on whether these wetlands will be considered as dr^ ‘'uildable. and whether septic system setbacks from these wetlands will be required. Wetlands Issues Orono’s 1975 mapping of wetlands through the Hennepin Conservation District included mainly wetland Types 2, 3. 4. 5 anil 6. Our current code references the following documents in defining the "protected area": a. uses topographic quad maps (1" = 2,000 ’scale). b. Orono's 1975 mapping by Hennepin Conser' ation District (1" = 200 ’ scale). c. Flood Insurance Rate Maps and Flood Boundary Maps of various scales. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1978. Our code defines wetlands as follows: 14. "Wetlands or marshland" - Lowlands covered with shallow and sometimes temporary or intermittent waters and also identifiable by wetlands vegetation and soil types. 15. "Wetlands vegetation types" - Including, but not limited to, bulrushes, cattails, arrowhead, .sedges, marsh grasses as identified by the Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation District and/or Circular 39 of the United Slates Department of the Interior, Fish and W'ildlife Service. 16. "Wetlands soil types" • Including, but not limited to. Marsh (Maf Peal and Peaty Muck (Pa. Pm). Utke Beaches (Lc. Ixl). Hamel (Ha), and Glencoe(Gc) as identified and classified by the Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation District and/or Circular 39 of the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. In 1975 there were certainly dozens if not hundreds of Type 1 wetlands in Orono. but a decision was apparently made to protect mainly Types 2-6. hence only 3% of our protected basins are T’ ne 1. This may have been done in the context that DNR was mainly protecting Types 3. 4 and 5. Zoning File #1877 October 22, 1993 Page 3 Type 1 wetlands are "seasonally flooded basins or flats" (Circular 39) and typical soil types may include Cordova, Dundas, Glencoe, Hamel, Minnetonka and Shields in addition to the more familiar wetlai i soil types known as "Lake Beaches", "Marsh", and "Peaty Muck". Per the Circular 39 distribution maps attached as Exhibit C. you can see that as ot 1956, Minnesota had relatively abundant Types 2 - 6 wetland, with minor amounts of Types 1, 7 and 8. The 1989 Federal manual for delineation of wetlands (now required by various agencies for determining wetland boundaries) requires only one ot three factors (vegetation, soil type, topography/hydrology) to be present in degraded or fanned areas to qualify a Type 1 wetland. The result is that many more acres of land not previously detined on any map as v.eiland, now will be delineated as Type 1. The Army Corp of Engineers, and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (enforced by BWSR and MCWD) now require delineation and protection of Type 1 wetlands; but "protection" may be as simple as requiring a 1:1 replacement for wetlands being destroyed (2:1 after 1/1/94), since they do not seem to have a problem with alteration ot Type 1 s if they are replaced elsewhere. The kev issues for developers and for Orono are: Will Orono allow "dry buildable" credit for : a. newly defined Type 1 (and 2) wetlands not previously protected by the City? b. Type 1 (and 2) wetlands whose boundaries have expanded considerably due to the new delineation methods? Will Orono allow a developer to destroy (use) newly defined Type 1 weUands as long as other agencies mitigation requirements arc met.^ Will the City require maintenance of a 26 ’ land alteration/structure/haidcover setback buffer on newly defined Type 1 wetlands and will the City require that the 15' wetland - septic setback be required? Dry Buildable Credit and Wetland Mitigation Orono Code Section 10.55 requires 2.0 acres of land in each unsewered lot that is "not in the protected area", i.e. not in FUxxlway, Flood Fringe, or General Flood Plain District (wetlands as defined in our code are part of the Flood Fringe district). \4 Zoning File #1877 October 22. 1993 Page 4 Orono Subdivision Code Section 11.03, in the definition of dry buildable land, states that dry buildable is "land area occurring within the property lines of a parcel or lot, excluding: drainageways. flowage areas, flood plains, wetlands, marsh land or slopes of \S7c or greater". In the subdivision code definition of "lot area, minimum", for unsewered property it is stated: "In rural zones not served by sanitary sewer, each lot must contain a minimum of two acres of contiguous dry buildable Ivod e.xclusive of wetlands, public and pr ivate rights-of-way. vehicular or pedestrian easements. .:ar‘ace areas below the Ordinarv' High Water Mark of any surface water or areas at or below the flood plain elevation for a spt*cific property. All rural lots must comply with the City’s on-site septic system provisions of the City code." If we historically have not had a problem w ith allowing development in the tvpe of areas defined now’ as Type 1 wetland, should we now become more restrictive? If we allow a two acre lot to contain one acre of Type I and one acre of non wetland, then the property owner may be very limited in what he can do on the property, since the homeowner would not be allowed by other agencies to fill, excavate or alter that wetland, or build anything on it, without 2:1 mitigation elsewhere. Is this a fair or acceptable position in which to place our homeowners? As an alternative, should the City require the developer to do mitigation up front so that each lot has a min mum 2.0 acres of area that is fullv useable for septic, accessory buildings, landscaping, driveways, etc.? If we do require the developer to do the mitigation up front by moving Type 1 wetlands to areas where they are not "in the way", will the City give dry buildable redit over the area where mitigation wetlands are created? This probably is only a factor in a PRD where overall density credit is required to compensate for lots smaller than two acres each (recall that this concept was a problem in French Creek because of weak controls on the septic sites, in staffs opinion). Please refer to Exhibit D. which suggests some options and concerns regarding how we michi ueal w’iih Type 1 wetlands in a two acre lot. Septic Setbacks .Since the 1970’s Orono’s septic code (Chapter 12) has required a 75 ’ setback between wetlands and septic systems. Q: Why? A: There are two reasons: 1 To protect wetland surface water quality from being degraded by nutriems from treated sewage, or ptillutants from untreated sewage. 2. To maintain adequate horizontal separation such that tlie wetland won’t negatively affect proper function of the drainficid or flood the tanks. Zoning File #1877 October 22, 1993 Pace 5 Q: If a wetland has little or no standing water most of the time (such as Type 1 and 2 wetlands) what surface water quality are we protecting? A: There probably is very little impact on this type of wetland as long as sewage is treated adequately before it travels laterally through the soil to the wetland. Q: How do we provide for this "adequate treatment"? A: Make sure that the drainfield is located in/on soils such that a 3 vertical separation above the seasonal water table is maintained under the treatment area, and such that there is adequate distance down gradient to any long-term saturated zones that might cause ground w'ater mounding it normal waste water load is added. Q: Iknv is this ensured? A: Adequate site evaluation by a qualified site evaluator. Q: What about the horizontal setback from drainfields to Type 1 wetlands? A: If soil in the Type 1 wetland is only seasonally wet, it is likely not acceptable for a drainfield m the Type 1, but suitable soils may e.xist directly adjacent to it, and adequate treatment should not require a setback. Since Orono mainly has mapped and protected wetland Types 2 - 6 which are cenerallv waterlogged or inundated, as opposed to Type Ts which are cenerallv well-drained, it made sense to maintain a setback from the "wetter" wetlands, but probably doesn't make sense for Type I’s. To summarize: There is probably not a goi'd case for requiring any drainfield setback from Type 1 wetlands as long as soil types are suitable. But a draintield should not generally be placed in a Type 1 wetland unless the topography/hydrology of the site is altered (probably requiring Type 1 mitigation) to make site/soil conditions suitable for drainfeld use. Staff Rccoiiuiiendation There are many issues noted in this memo that have been addressed to one decree or another in discussions between the developer, staff, the Park Commission and the Planning Commission As a sketch plan, while the City is not giving formal approval for any specific development plan i)r concept, this is an opportunity for the developer to gain enough direction from the City to be fairly confident of subdivision approval if specific concerns are met. Therefore, it would be helpful if tlie Council can give direction to the developer in the following areas. 1. Public vs. private roads. Zoning File H\%11 October 22, 1993 Page 6 2. Road connections and access to existing roads 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Walking and biking trails. Historic interpretive ccnter/park dedication. Standard plat vs. PRD. Credit for Type 1 wetlands as dry buildable/mitigation of Type 1 wetlands Drainficld setback from Type 1 wetlands. TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning Zoning Administrator October 15, 1993 SUBJECT: #1877 Tandem Propenies/Peter Andrea Company - 3025 Watertown Road and 2645 Watenown Road - Sketch Plan Review for Proposed Subdivision List of Exhibits A - Application B - Location Map C - Plat Map D - Blue Line Sketch E - ll"xl7" Sketches F - PRD Code Section for Discussion G - Orono Wetlands Map Note: Because this 130 acre preliminary sketch plan proposal is perhaps the largest single development proposal in Orono in many years, staff determined that the Park Commission and Council should also provide sketch plan stage input. Therefore, this item is also planned to be scheduled on the Council’s October 25th agenda for review, and was reviewed by Park Commission on October 4th. Discussion Tandem Properties and Peter Andrea Company, represented by Dick Putnam, request Planning Commission’s preliminar}' thoughts on development ot the Gordon Coffin property (southwest quadrant of Watertown Road and Old Crystal Bay Road) and the Dickey property (south of Watertown Road between Willow and Old Crystal Bay Road). The total area of these two properties is approximately 130 acres. The preliminary sketch plan shows twenty-five lots on the 62 acre Coffin properly and twenty-six lots on the 68 acre Dickey property. Both jroperties abut Old Crvstal Bay Road. The Dickey property abuts the DNR woods adjacent to the Luce Line. The Coffin property abuts the Luce Line for a distance of approximately 1,500’. The Dickev property additionally is unique in that it contains an area of great religious and cultural significance to the Native Ameiicaii population, a burial site of the "Ancient Ones" which IS used ceremonially anu for various rites. The subdivider had suggested that the old bam on the historic site be renovated into an interpretive center, however Park Commission felt that the bam may be uh) far gone but the older house to the immediate west might be suitable. Zoning File #1877 October 15, 1993 Page 2 In addition to the historical site is the opportunity for a number of hiking or biking trails to be :!eveloped. Park Commission did indicate they would consider accepting some park lands in lieu of park fees, but did not commit to any specific proposal. Causing the developer (and staff) much consternation is the fact that wetlands designated under new State Wetland Conservation Act guidelines greatly exceed the wetland areas shown on Orono’s 1975 maps. Significant areas of Type *. and 2 wetland nc shown on Orono maps has been identified on both properties, and policy questions must be dealt with as to whether these areas will be considered by the City as dry buildable if the other agencies with jurisdiction allow their use at all. Note that staff, the developer, and representatives from the various agencies involved are meeting on Monday, October 18th to review the issues. Staff Recommendation As a sketch plan review, this is Planning Commission’s opportunity to give the developer early input on various issues. Staff recommends that Planning Commission review with the developer your thoughts on the following: 1. Con.ept of an interpretive center/park at Ancient Burial Site. 2. Concept of trails wandering through the site. 3. Long cul-de-sacs versus "through" roads - provisions for future interconnections. 4. Public roads versus private roads. 5. 6. 7. Access to existing roads. Lt>t width variances for cul-de-sac lots and lots on sharp curves. Standard plat with trail/park private road outlets and fully confonning lot sizes versus PRD concept with clustering. If the delineated Type 1 and 2 wetlands ultimately can’t be credited as dry buildable, applicant may wish to consider a PRD with some clustering, and the question is raised as to whether the City would accept a planned development with some substandard sized lots. Staff can discuss this further at the meeting. (Drainfield site preservation is staffs main concern). Please review the standards of Section 10.32 (Exhibit F) which you will see gives developers significant layout flexibility but virtually no flexibility for overall density increases. Zoning File #1877 October 15. 1993 Page 3 8.There are many additional questions and minor issues that can and should be addressed. Please feel free to bring them up as they occur to you during the discussion. i L. SI ^_iggp.^v VT^'i H ^ <!*?< -------r-T^c * ' PNG LAKE I r»../pe»pin ^ 1 Jgrsig,*^ •• w miSTA|j A i0 / <of w f^' "W" I ' \ I /r v< *• r < _ 1, I’MINNE70NKA\ \* yikF^ /n - ij \ Abn k 4abo p 4400 g 4000 Q E^s^ -^V \ n / V.—' •-rC/ 2800 2400 2000 «00 1200 City of Orono, Minnesota ■ #•• jtXS JDJO 7-%B9000 % A rx i CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION # 1'’’^• *; •./<?'O i « *v Site Address j-ttr MA- ^ Ti / •*•.’* Property Identification Ku-Tiber (P.I.D.)__________ Please check one — Property _ _ _ abstract or ____^ . >-•« - • V • ** f torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT Phone (hcme)_^71 Name ^ iSjcr-AlcjtSg^^^gPhone (work ) _^71 Address : /Uuk:e giwej City: \Aj^Zcd^- OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ^ *^Z^ Phone (home) P^L, Addressi^ City: (attach list if more than one) Phone (work) ^\r£AHc>_ _ _ _ _ Zip : 9^f EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present Use (check) _ _ Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land a -o«? Total, all oarcels Residential; no. of units Other (specify)__ _ _ _ _ _ Present Zoning District PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites; /- 1.Existing l^its « ••, Proposed Gross^ Density^:' Minimum Lot Size: Proposed Use: (check) > •> % . « \. »•« •• • ^ New Units ? Total Units'^* Units per_ _Acres • \ ^ \ ■ V .•m" VFeet Dry Buildable Land .. , ^ ^ I - , • Residential Other (specify) MINIMUM MATERIAL NECESS^Y FOR COMPLETE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION 2; p?eliminLJ'’liarinfSnnation nust obtain .povt center As an addendum to this application, please 1-st any other persons you wish notified of this app Certification by "Zoning Department that Preliminary Plat Application complete* n^teZoning Offi.qiai'^s Signature _____________________________rrrmrrrrrrzrr ir'i;^i^r,rfl.eer(parrieesr.filing £ee,^se«er .and^ter a«^ 2. Signed- Certificate of Survey or mylar'Copies.of orm p 3. Title .opinion. .* • • ^ ' *■** 4. Easements, Covenants,-etc-. ^ 5. Developers Agreement and Letter of creait. Certification by Zoning Department that Final Plat AppUqation is. complete . Zoning Official's Signature _______________________j; ----------------- PEES l/ .•VI «• •. V Sketch Plan Review (Class I, II & III) Subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement Preliminary Review (Class I S II Subdivision) $200.00 300.00 300.00 Pre*liminary Review (Class HI ,.&>11^ nonrre-sidential ) ^s.^'oO/Lt Final Plat Review (Class III) 1/5.00 ♦(Plus any legal or engineering charge) Renewal of Preliminary Subdivision Application 150.00 Renewal of Final Subdivision Application_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ cre'7p7lIVa7t"h;;;;V ‘a;o Jpro Vide^ requested by the Zoning A process this application and ^^21:32 — 4 the City jwTier's Signature ^ . City office25 days before the Applicant must have su p^Jn^ing Commission Meetings arc* held cn the Office of this change prior to the meeting. Cl » K. a a. ^t> I— hJ Vi 1 •^ • •!«*|l AA. « • 9 A f * 1 j- w^- • %\^ A' I 5.1. /X-ygLiSL.r^y^: ...—---------- -..:,;i....’.^..^ --r-.^*-;. oo ct\ t y w ■•i /• •■. ■ •• '-'^K\* \ t< I • V'' w • % # V. y - €l‘• : . * •*' '7(i^W* ’ • " ’ -..ii:__4 U ^ '* t\AV^ ' * ' M /y V »' # ; ^ U c t ^ C . . I »- •iii * t .^ . ---------------------- , , LOCB- Ui^t- tiMlu i i m m a 'tVkdl SEC. 10.32. PRD \NNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. •t. .f Wv I i 1 t 1 ,• .-z n I >M 3 I *5 ff I 0 ^ •4 .1 'J > I i-*< h ■;•I * I •I !4 ! i rj ciMhri 1 Fu JOse. This plan is available to land subdividets subject to Council approval, as alternative to standard suDOiviaers supjeu of l~"d. The purpose of this plan is minimum ^ of neignoorhoods through preservation ofto enhance ‘he appearance^ot^^nej^ effects of urban congestion natural open cohesive structure to neighborhood design, ?S^rf:rr"/cr:atro°n^opyr1uniti^^^^ and to aid in improving the welfare in general of City residents. Snbd 2 Submission of Plans. Land owners may submit a j \irnV for anv "R" District without adherence to minimum lot size ?equirements'for each building lot, provided that ?h^to?a^ dumber of^buil^ lots, or dwelling, units, shall not exceed the'number-.of such lots or units minimum lot size requirements of the zoning district or districts in which such land is situated. CMhfi 3 council Discretion. The dwelling units per.ibted;;a. be -at the aiscreb^^^^^^^^^ ritfpJf'fa°r;^firaweUiS/structur« subject to the limitations provided for in each zoning distriCw. c.,Kri A uoen Space, Etc. The dedication, ownership, ri mfirfttnance of ooe^n spaces created by the application of rhf Plfnned Residential Development shall be subject to conditions deJmed nectciiri b? the Council to assure the preservation of such open spaces for their intended purposes. Subd 5 Dedication of Open Space. The dedication and ownership'ofsuch op^n spaces may be through: (1) Homeowners Secure ,• =,r fon- f20 Landlord Maintenance; (3) Special service Diltricf (4) Municipal Ownership; or (5) any other method deemed appropriate by the Council to accomplish the purposes of this plan. Subd. 6. Site Plan. The proposed site plan, shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Commission Council. Subd. 7. Hearings. The Council may direct that a public hearing be held to review such plans. Subd. 8. Final Approval. ^."°and^ granted until all conditions set by the V,Lt^Rrs?den?ial further the Council shall not approve any such Planned Resiae Development prior to the legally binding £ons, such space dedication, ownership and maintenance ^.r^igctory provisions to be guaranteed by bonding or other means sa- to the Council. Subd. 9. Subdivision Requirements. All as subdivision procedure established by the City t-hia plan, modified herein above, shall govern applications under t. e Source: Municipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 (Sections 10.33 through 10.39, inclusive, reserved for future expansion.} Lable to land ve to standard .f this plan is reservation of ban congestion )orhood design, and to aid in s may submit adherence to provided that Ls, shall not jle under the or districts [welling ^ units and subject to ed, attached or the limitations , ownership, 5olication of to conditions ation of such lication and Homeowners al Service ithod deemed f this plan. Includingplan, incxuuj.^^ lildings, rate) plans, and tional P^cposes, umission and the ct that a public all not b« set: and, lesident lal »f the open ions, such itisfactory visions of except «• ils plao. fvituc« O > c S CJ oD X" «/* i5 <5 3 (i> c < r» = D o ^ 2 < 3 (D f^."S Q- ^ =;^_ ,- IT 3 Q ^ (D 3 Q Q Q (D a cj 3: ;l- (D Q ? 9 5'Sg* S?;‘gi’ gOfl,*. (D^ = > CO c502,0 — ^ 3 5 o 9 i a Q. Q. Q 5< =5 o ^ Q.(Q 3 Qd o •coCQ ^ ^ 5 3 o (D Q -n “^ — 3 Q c g O D o 00 0^0-*> O Q c/> ^? cr ^ o ■< Q ^ o ^ CD g 3 3 5; CD ^ cr 3. c ^ O</> n ID CD ^ CO r;; O (D 0 C -> 3 0 CL _ _ Q 9. Q Q-(5 9i:C O ><■0 a® 0 Q 3 0^0 5 0 0. 0 C.3 0 3 08 O c Da 9-0 Q S’ ^ I? 9,3 2. S Q 0 r^j'OZ 3 o o S < — 33 =0 a 3.0 Q O 0 D ^ 9 3 LO Q Q(0 o 0 O 9 E! < 0 s ^it 0 0 Q K t/t =: D 0-(Q Q 3a</> 0 to p D (Q to 0 Q 0 ^ O CO < 91/’ 0_. 0 —^ qQ 93 a 0 0 Q po a o ^ -H. O 42. O CLO o Q ^—•• CO rag® 0 Q 3 =5 o Q- < "O y- Q D3 0 Q 3 CO Qcr COo a cr 0 3-9 (Q ^ Q CO CO c o CD O CO 00 c O <2.fs a 30 ^ € 9§o s? 3 -4. o (Q zr 0 J^Q ^ tooc ^ 9o O (D ^ C ^O 9-S. €to 3T Q 3 0 3 C € Q 0 3 ac 8-a :;;r D Q D CD X- CD CO j3 §Rc O o 3 9 Q'Z <. or D 0 (Q =^- _1 ^ 3a =^CQ —t®o D" I Q 3 Q. 3 O O CQ a ia ^Q o 9 3 Q I 0(0 3 (O 0 (O .2 o aa ^ r o 5 8a t IIICO zr =f 0 o o o < 0 3 <2 c 0 to a to 0 3-3 a o 0 Z^ 5 cjo o =^Q (O5'0 oo 3 o 0a3 (Q ^ O 0 O Q 3a X) (0 o ID CO <^00 o O 3 9- ? ^ 3O • oia %o< g ^ a o o o o g 3‘ < 0 < 3^ 0•< (Q 0 O to 3 O € 9 ^ o a => oa D O' 9- ■9 o o — < =rQ CD 0 ” "D 0 =f< t-^Q Q O O 8 a®— 5C1 “ ® CO CO Uo Q nc o 5’ 9 3 (Q ^ (O cr •<to 0 Otoo maco 0 3 95 R ^CO 3. 'o !1 o J o ^aT3 r* a^8g ? -O 0 o 0to 0 t 0 8 I O 40 0 o 3c 3cr 0 < Q c 0to O’o o 0 O o a 0o Q 9- 3 9 P- 0 3-0 o C <0 g -D ^ 0 9 9 0|(D 0 0 3 3 9a Q 0 ? Ig9 ^ 00 DT —T* “"♦> 0 9 0 c OLC or O C O Q S Z1 co ‘ IT C>o CD >0 D Q Da CO -< CO0a f z| a 3?^o CO 0 C €'1.0 a o _ o 3 T3 3 a C r> O' 9 3 0 ^ D Q O O D CO CO CO ~r < =^- <0 </> CD ? 3 9 o' o 3 o ^ 0 ii O O ^ C 3 9 9-3 O '^.3 0 9 0 2 C 3 9- <2 '<aoi(D 9 9.^ 9 —*■ to O ' ■ 3- O 0 < 0 3 3<stoo 3- 0 C 3 Q t Si o CD a 9 ^33 p. 9.0 0 O ^ §■ a o Q ™ 530a L- vj 'vj 0 3 ^oO'D 2 ' _ O 0 a o 0 ^ 3 < o O Qtoto O Q O 3 CO to 0 3to•o r a T? T7 Xc C > OD 00 tX o ■” <n 09 X k: > 09 OC 0 ^ %r 5 a 9 liNi5 O ” 3 PI g m ® o S3 5oc CO 2 Zm § 5 § p 5 S 03 CD CD 2 S 2X 0 -n g g M m "o >i % C CO z 'nr'. - S 2 2 m *u 3 > ^ ^ c ?‘S I r a i ® m ^ o <?a 2 03 ••.1..1 .. *:•• ^"1 ■k *.^l - /. - ■■ •;S»-4 3?; •% Lr y. 0K'/^- '•*; /r” "? ''%*. ^ o S ^ ? ?|S §H?- a ? a ^ < o 2 < Q 0 <11 §. 11 O</» = Q</> I s| 5 < *° -,n- 3 Q 3 ^ 9. 9O m c 9 ® ^ ?«h?0 o - g ■2 ■? I g I,S s |lo 8 s S Q <Da m -Q 3 > as/— c CO Q o s z m ^ 2. 2-♦ -3t 3 - ^ ^ 2 ? 0 - ^ 0 •• *“ 05 a 5 a 3: ® ^ ® < a ^ a 01 m « p. 5 * f =i' ^ T7 T? Ti 5 ■T! *n m m 0 0 2^1 *- > ^ >? ft 7 1 O < » ^5,5 ?|i o “ V» ^ c I?-?su O •• rt 8 :J Q TJ ? ICO o c Q i Ca 3 C; 3 I Co Q $ Ml o g 5 S «- * 9 §cx I I Q 3a i Q I 4a ■o $(A Q 3a o <D 3 o 3w =► o m CO nnJC ^ — S I Si ■D 6 O n Q Q ® Soil II:t $ CO 8 O c; o ? 0 |S .1 f ? I Qa 8 2 rt£fi S 0^ 0 o Q ^ S I a a „iH i Q on Q fi.j'? IH(y ^ n 5; D ? je O CO g CD CP O’ il^is »& T3 >r- C CO —4 Z Z to - CO C*J - , ^ ^ ^ 2 2 if ? Q ?a r5? ? :Rc5? S n ^S £ ® 9cn ^ 05 cn 03 -? <Q Z O S § ■* o ® g < < it) d> J 8 'Qa g I a 5 ^ * . Q ? ISsHi Q g ■< n fe - S I ^ 3 ^ a 5 ® Q 3 2 5 3-0ff a ® 2 5 0 6 ‘ i '^i'^l(D 5 =» <D 8S 2o q ^ 5 5 §|c2- a (2. E <6 S 3 8 (D 0 8 cr 8 JT Q 5 o D ® :» Q a •9 01 8 $n 6 3 QH' 0 1 ? 5 0 (S' 2 8 CO ? Q 3t) CO Qo 00 </» o ® 0 2S 1 5 5 I ®Q (5 <0 CO (G q d>^ a R Q jr ^ Z'S > f Q $ 0 o CO -♦ a c CO->« a D ^ Z “n m 29 ^8 :S ^ :9 00000 K) Ko Kj k> k> ^ 1^ Xlb ^ 9 '9 9 9 9 < 5 y §§|0^. ^ a ? o I.^11 cpr <p8S|. 'lilt IC) 8 O(O •5^y bt o 8 D ^ > D ^ ® ® & § 0 I S ^ 8 5 2 ^ 9> c 9> ^ Z P Z o' ^o S o g'c;i (t -- o tk Q: 1^ Q: O 0 5 <D O Q ooaoa > CD O -n U m m X K lit Cl y gQ I a ^ i- jf ■D 30 3 ® COii o? S o? o? ^CO CO CO CO c/> Co ^ N3 Ko ^ k> k) OJ U» U> C*> Ui '1^ lie £e £e fie o s Q o g g o *§ 5 ® ^ < ^ ?r 11, D (D CO ::7£ 9S| l|f! i 9 •5; o < i Q 9 ^ = 8 C 8 -I §8 > 5o > c COS =f o 5 S? ^CD m Cl ^ o> ^ CP o Oc CO —4 2 Z T3 8 iaoa :drt < m H Vo CO Oa I o c :it § ;s; T3 ^ -Tj T?— > > £S^ X •ZZZZc c c > CD CD CD 03 CD I I (D X O mm ie¥''4.-f '•tl*, I,-. 4b.^' K 4A? wm I ■ ■ a pm &* jfe '4£y^. ■ ♦. • ^Wi r4'p» ■Nf.lV , ■hi. i 4 *..e ■ • ii/Printed in cooperation wrtn theM/innesota Khrmesota PoUutof} Contrcrl Agency. Dopartmont of I^^^Natural f^osources * ® * Mryiesota Department of AgriciJtijfe. Division of gators » 1 arxi the United States Peh A Wildlife Service i/» ' * . 'i r ? s '. •• ^'*.' ^ ^ ?,v, ; RsFT ■w Wk^' V '' i' )/^x: r . ■■:^; .i*-' -V •' ' -<-i:r.<J'*;' \ :• /.• k ' . ‘r. \' •! " I \ * ' ‘' ■ \;v^.t-v 5:. A' '4/‘ tf ^ V. »c. / ' • ••' I'. V , ' ' 5 ' . *■ ■f * •• '*' VI • ?.. . (>■■::: Z-«►*t - ^ wiiMvri.----ff^ii^iiU VUyUlUIUII UUI Ireduce erosion along lake and stream banks by reducing forces associated with wave action. Wildlife Habitat. Many species of wildlife spend all or certain seasons of the year in wetland habitats for breeding, brood rearing, feedina or cover purposes. some of our citizens a swamp or marshland is physically unattractive^ an inconvenience to cross by foot and an obstacle to road construction or improvement However, to an increasing number of our citizens who have become concerned enough about the vanishing wetlands to seek legislative relief a swamp or marsh is a thing of beauty. ^Jl^o one who is willing to risk wet feet to walk through it, a marsh frequently contains a springy soft moss, vegetation of many varieties, and wildlife not normally seen on higher ground. Jt is quiet and peaceful - the most ancient of cathedrals - antedating the oldest of manmade structures. More than that, it acts as nature*s sponge, holding heavy moisture to prevent flooding during heavy rainfalls and slowly releasing the moisture and maintaining the water tables during dry cycles. J n short, marshes and swamps are something to protect £ preserve. A From the Minnesota Supreme Coun'M 1976 decision disailowtng the construcUon of a highway through Wtiham Brvsoms nnrsk which he broughi smt to SiSve V \/ c:r::5 IQ WQltflowl (<Kf«l)- ......................... 6.199 000 LttMt ........................... 16,691,000 • m — U-S »«••............... tl.09t.000 oi . . R«d dor 50.000 oc>«« Blocii dol V LtM iKon 15.000 octti Tlati: I • * •• • • 7\‘ • “ ' " . ' • V/.-V\ ;/• •-.U J < .......V../;) (■* . •• • •••-•; * • . I ‘;........••••• . •; \ • •a/i' > —Ar'^<------ IwowHiiii l» iwmfawi («ct.i), ..................... t.tii.ooo \ .................... t,1 M.ooo \ * ................. J.tW.OOO Blocti d*l - Lch tK«« S.ooo ocfti Tyt- i-MiOd lliolle. (.«.!. monk,, Di«,lb«fion. obundont., ond .mportonc. *e woftife^I. rt5Ti: 3 It r\ *V V-’-‘’ ' I*. •'.••• _t~ •. -y -i.’ • I * I tV * 1' CI * *1 • • * ^ 1 • ].... • I . ' *• 1 • \ i ■■• " • 1 • j r ’ir t—Hm S' •• (•«««•> P>i»mv........................ 1010,000 \ 606.000 d#f» S.OOO ««ftt do4- L«m tKwt f ,500 •rt»« u-* *^.......... t,m.ow ‘'—V fpi opM bv.lt «99vr Diittlbvf.9«, obvndofl.., and (mportanct fa waf.flowl 1*1. %TI S . ’ *• I - c 'i‘ c --5 y > impoflon<« *o waterfowl (ocitt): \ ........................... t.054,000 ............................. 5,464,000 \/ Rtd dcf f5,000 oo«t^ * Block dot^LcM tKon It,500 ocfttU. S lolol................... 7.511.000 Typt 2 l.nland frtiK mcadowrt; Diitnbufion, abundance, und imporfonct 1o woltdowl, I’Lati: 2 ;• :r^ -- ) r Iffiportonc* fo ^eafttfotrl (octet): .................... i.7ti,ooo .......................... 615,000 vtpe M Bed do|w 5,000 octet Block dol*-Le«t tKon 1,500 octet'«»«•................... t, 146.000 Typ. 4—Inlond dttp (ttib matihci: DiMiibufion, obundanc*. ond ImpoffaiKV to wotodowt. I’LAte 4 letpOtfonci lo wotetfawl (•&§$)• ................ ... 1,107,060 ......................... 1,706.000 Bed d»tw 10,000 octet liodi dot-LcM iKon 5,000 octetU I ••••I................. 1,111.000 ^ypt V-Sbfob ittompt: DtHfibofton, aboodttct, sod Ii»p9rt««it« fo teedodatel. rtAtr. ft A 0M So, • I :.• I 5i “<ir/^««:Wpti<;a ' ■ j « _ . ,: s: V S •. ; V ^|U * • • .................. __ * I «ij • ^•••» • i • • /fc X 1^. -\\;j?g vGi -' <: ^ o' i,pT-^5 Fro c-KMc. 'ir j »r --------pexcfl 'j >' <T: pemf^pemiS. Q ■ V-.;>NVtuti UU6H,A-'/ > w ^peMF. UC8H4 PuftO , FEMC. . -----■FVB&i^th J P£Mt 4, j _____T-:;- JL ' ep*t: P«UC' t2ue>6. ^ 1l UU6H* •I* •\Bortn* CRYSTAL UUBH a UU6H RA y ORONO TANDEM PROP Wetland Classification, Identification and Delineation Orono. Minnesota (!N r 1309 National Wetlands Inventory franklin J SvoKxla & Associates. Inc figure 1 '•• ■• * •’»* '***.*•»• - , , • * ♦ *f« ^ *• • ’ ■ ' * . ■' •*•; “ * ‘ • ; 0 % •.. \* . V-; vv -vA^ -.'-r-!: *:;;-r-« x‘- *v-*' la. “A* • tiC.' 'V-/,. ..." .•••% • •• ■ • ^ • * » * • • •> * ** *■ * ** t -1- * f«.,* • • *■ "* * "^ je ^ -r'-—■'" 1••. . V.,..vyvv..N»;-/i^ ' - r- .‘ ** • . *’ .V r *:* .•*••-/ W •. .-.s ::•• •'p •. I*:! ' -* -‘•JJ V\" • : p . •. v-» ’ ■ V. :•. 1.■ -■' * * • ’ ' i * • • » .f ^ t » « .» * a . w. ,• • *• %, '^* • * ;•* >:...i'r.-“*-- • - • -V v-'-.*;.'i';; .•• '•'ll ’rT’^**.*.' •■' **. #-^*‘ * • I "a ' .:^4 • '•* * ‘i * • * .aal iJ i ••..• V ‘r ywi liiiiii^wiMnj^ '■■ > ■• V,.- -•■ ■•' • Jk.V***' ••••. ^.. *«*•>. V'*' .•••*•.. ** • ^ •• TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mayor Callahan and Orono Councilmembers Ron Moorse, City Administrator ^ f Michael P. Gal Iron. Asst. Planninu & Zonins Administrator o' #1884 Orville Fisher. 475 Oxford Road - After-the-Fact Variance October 22, 1993 Application The property owner is required to make an after-the-fact application for variances to Sections 10.22. Subdivision 3 and 10.56. Subdivision 16 (I) for removing live trees greater than 6" in diameter within 75’ of the shoreline, and for an approved "intensive vegetation clearing" witliin 75’ of the shoreline. List of Exhibits A - Revised Restoration Proposal B - letter from Land.scape Designer C - Memo and Exhibits of 10/15/93 Summary Twelve 6" or larger live trees and literally dozens of smaller trees ranging from 1" to 6" in diameter were found to have been removed in the 0-75’ lakeshore setback zone, leaving no woody vegetation save for three 24" to 30" hardwoods. Additional trees were removed just outside the 0-75’ zone. The tree cutting and intensive vegetation clearing is a clear violation of two separate code sections. Please review the staff memo of October 15, 1993. Planning Conmiission Review The Planning Commission reviewed this application on October 18th. Statt required that an after-the-fact variance application be filed, and recommended that the variances be denied and that restoration be requ .'ed. I he D.NR concurs with this recommendation but in their letter provided little direction for mitigation of the damage. I'he Planning Commission ’s review and questioning of the applicant established that a college student had been hired and apparently given general direction to not cut trees within 75’ of the lake, however the property owner acknowledges that he is ultimately responsible tor this activity on his property. I Zoning File fflSSA October 22. 1993 Pace 2 It should further be noted that while Mr. Fisher is referred to as the applicant and property owner, he is in the process of purchasing this property from Melvin and Ollie Peterson. However, Fisher is in possession of the property and the tree cutting was done under his authority. The Planning Commission concurred that this was a clear violation and that no possible hardship exists to support the granting of an after-tlie-fact variance. In reviewing the initially proposed restoration plan, which called for a total of nine trees in the 0-75' zone, and three others outside that zone, such trees to include Linden and Ash species of 4" to 5" diameter. Planning Commission found the plan lacking. Planning Commission's recommendation to Council is denial of the variances and conditional approval of a restoration plan subject to additional trees and understory ’ being added to the plan. Planning Commission requested that staff work with the applicant’s landscape desiener to establish a more suitable plan for Council review. w Revised Restoration Plan Staff met with Mr. Gustafson on October 20th and discussed a number of revisions to the initial restoration plan. The underlying premise and intent of the City would be bring the site back as nearly as possible to the vegetation heights and densities that previously existed, using species that will be suitable to the specific shoreland topography of the site. A further goal of the City should be retention or rapid replacement of the root structure and runoff detention ability of the understory and ground cover. To this end, the revised restoration plan shows twelve 4" to 5" trees in the 0-75 zone, including American Linden, Green Ash arJ River Birch species. Gustafson anticipates that in order to accomplish the plantings in the soutlicm 1/3 of the property, the stumps will have to be removed and the soil regraded in an area approximately 30'x60' to allow planting equipment access It is impossible to transplant the size trees proposed without doing some site grading work. Additional plantir.frs in the south side will include Gray Twig Dogwood, Red Twig Dogwood, and .Sumac, with a downhill border of Reed Canary Grass plugs to assist in erosion control. On the north end. the stum s and stems on the sU>pe are proposed to remain, and could l« expected to resprout into a fairly thick screen in a short time period. At the base of the slope, some grading work will be needed in order to place three substantial trees. Zoning File ^1884 October 22, 1993 Page 3 Additionally proposed are trees in the 75-250’ zone along llie south property line. In all areas where grubbing of stumps or regrading is necessar>' to accommodate new plantings, silt fence and a suitable mulch will be required to control erosion. Staff Recommendation As of this writing, staff proposes to submit copies of this proposed restoration plan to the City Engineer, the Hennepin Con.servation District, and the DNR for comments. Time is of the essence if restoration is to be accomplished this fall. For this reason. Council is requested to comment on the restoration proposal and suggest any revisions or additions that might be appropriate. Staff recommends denial of the after-the-fact variances, and recommends that a denial resolution be drafted for your November 8th meeting incorporating requirements for restoration. However, is Council willing to allow the restoration work to begin immediately rather than waiting three weeks? Two additional questions come to mind: 1.Should the property owner file a land alteration conditional use permit application and provide a grading plan for the minor grading required in association with restoration? Aeain. liming is an issue . . . 2, Does Council have any recommendation regarding disposition of the two violation tacs issued? ch o\0 o\ O, 0 . . i . > » 11/ \ 'f I i i i r- mpim gustafson design, inc. I• •• i «b»* aMWV Onoher 22, 140.^ Mr. Michael P. Gaffron Asm. Plannlnjj & Zoning Admlnlsiraior CMy of Orono Z7.‘S0 Kelley Parkway Orono, Minnesota 5S3S6-08I 8 IVar Mr. Gaffron: I have revised the planting plan lor the alter-thc-fai i applkailon for variance at the risher residence at 475 Oxford Koad. I believe we have addre.ssed all the crlilral issues and greatly Increased the densU> and quaiiiliy of materials to be Installed. Ilie major changes to the plan ;ire as follows: On the nonh side of the property we will plant 4 large trees In place of ihe .1 iree.s that were removed. On the steep hillside we will eave the stems and root systems in place so they will regrow to form a dense thicket. on the south side of the property we will plant 8 trees in the 0-75 foot area. The planting In this area will retjuirc the removal of the e.xlstlng stumps, .so we will plant undersiory plantings to teialii the soil and recreate the thicket look that existed in this area. On the lake side we will use Reed Canarv grass to form a dense border on the down-hill side of the plantings. Onder the new trees we will plain Grey twigged and Hediwlgged Dogwood to recreate the density of the plantings. In addition, wc will plant more trees, shrubs and evergreens In the area beyond the 7.5 foot line. These plantings will be in the general atcit where existing maleilals weie iciiujved. It is our lornenilon that ihlx proposal Is an excellent way to rei reale a planting that will be ai least equal to what was removed. Thank you for your assistance In assembling this plan of a< tlon. SirW Irely, I'hile A. GuMwfsun 184ft Wisconsin Ave No Golden Vetfiey. MN 55427 tei (612) 544^215 TO; FROM: DATE: Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator October 15, 1993 SUBJECT: #1884 Orville Fisher, 475 Oxford Road - After-the-Fact Variance Public Hearing Zoning District - LR-IA Application: The proptiiy owner is required to make an after-the-fact application for variances to Sections 10.22, Subdivision 3 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (I) for removing live trees greater than 6" in diameter within 75’ of the shoreline, and for unapproved "intensive vegetation clearing" within 75’ of the shoreline. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Survey E - Staff Sketch F - Building Inspector’s Violation Report/Tag G Photos H - Pertinent Code Sections I - Proposed Tree Planting Diagrani J - DNR Letter 10/14/93'’ K - Neighbor’s Acknowledgment of Application L - "Statement of Need and RcasonableiKSs" (DNR) M - D(Kumentation from Prior Violation Suinmarv Upon complaint by a resident, staff inspected the property and found that virtually every tree and sieniHcant shrub within 75’ of the shoreline of Stubbs Bay (save tor three 24 -30 hardwoods) had been removed. It w*as determined that twelve 6 or larger live trees had been removed in the 0-75’ zone and literally dozens of odier trees ranging from I" to 6" in diameter had been removed in that zone. Siaif determined that this activity was not only a violation of Orono’s long-standing tree- remova o’dinance but was also clearly a violation ot Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (I)(2) which prohibits intensive vegetatiiin clearing within 75‘ for the shoreline. "Intensive vegetation Zoning File #1884 October 15, 1993 Page 2 clearing" is defined in Section 10.56, Subdivision 3.13 as "the complete removal of trees or shrubs in a contiguous patch, strip, row, or block." The property owner upon notification of the violation indicated a knowledge of the code prohibitions on tree cutting. This property owner has been before the Council in the past for grading violations in the 0-75’ zone in conjunction with their previous residence on Maxwell Bay (see Exhibit L). The property owner was issued a violation citation, told to do no further work to remove the stumps which remain today as evidence of the violation, and advised to make this after-the- fact application. Staffs intent for the application process in this case is not to ultimately have the after-the-fact variance approved, but to deny the variance and have Planning Commission and Council review and approve a restoration plan. This is in line with the DNR comments dated October 14, 1993 (Exhibit J). Extent of Clearing Please review Exhibit E. In the north«;rly 1/3 of the 0-75’ zone, three trees 6" or greater in diameter were removed. Two 24" maples and one 30" other hardwood remain. What does not show on the sketch is that approximately two dozen 2" to 6" trees were removed, as well as two to three dozen 0 to 2" tree-. The stumps of all trees are clearly evident if you visit the sue. In the southern third of the 0-75’ zone, the surveyor has identified the location of seven stumps with diameter 6" or greater (staff noted nine such trees, see photos). Again, approximately two dozen 2" to 6" trees were also taken and a virtually uncountable number of 0 to 2" trees and shrubs that were likely 3’ to 15’ in height. Note that no grading was done in the 0-75’ zone. Restoration Plan Please see Exhibit I. Applicant’s landscape designer proposes to replant Linden and Ash species to replace the 6"+ diameter trees removed. He has indicated to sta<i that these trees would be in the 4" to 5" caliper range, the largest size he would expect to survive transplanting in this area. On the north 0-75’ area, he proposes three trees to repla< e the three 6"-»- trees that were removed. In the south 0-75’ he proposes six trees, plus three along the lot line adjacent to the neighbor’s tennis court and just outside the 0-75 zone. Although he has not specifically proposed any additional trees or shrubs to compensate for the many smaller trees that were cut, he has indica*ed verbally that gray twig dogwood would be a suitable understory planting. Zoning File #1884 October 15, 1993 Page 3 From the stumps remaining on the site, one gets the impression that the areas cut down were fairly dense in nature, a thicket which likely provided significant screening of the neighbor’s tennis court and softened the view of applicant ’s and the neighbors’ houses from the lake. In addressing the restoration requirement, applicant ’s landscape designer has suggested that the intensive vegetation clearing ordinance would not, for instance, prohibit the neighboring property owner from removing most of the under stoty vegetation in the 0-75 ’ as long as 6" + trees were not removed. Therefore he asks, why should the Fishers have to replace understory? Staff notes that such activity if done in stages probably would not even be noticed. But the intensive removal of all woody vegetation clearly has a visual impact much greater than if only a portion were removed or if it was selectively removed. Additional Discussion This is the first incident of clear cutting (intensive vegetation clearing) since the new Shoreland Ordinance went into effect, although there have been other incidents of selective large tree cutting. In considering the degree and nature of restoration that should be required, it may be helptui to review the reasons why DNR required this ordinance. The "Statement of Need and Reasonableness(Exhibit K) sugge.sts a number of reasons to protect shoreland vegetation, including reducing the rate of runoff to minimize soil erosion, consumption and utilization of nutrients from the runoff, root systems to assist in bank and slope retention, protection of fish and wildlife habitat values, and screening. The fact that the property owner allowed this intensive vegetation clearing to occur knowing that work in the 0-75 ’ zone is not allowed, does not make the results any worse, but is particularly frustrating from an enforcement standpoint. Final action on the violation tag is expected to be withheld until the Council’s final action on this matter, but staff has recommended to the City Attorney that the applicant be fined. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the after-the-fact variance be denied and that Lhe property owner be required to restore the site. The proposed restoration plan suggests that nine 4 to 5 trees will be planted in the 0-75 ’ zone to replace the dozens of trees that were cut. Planning Commission must determine whether this planting program is adequate or whether additional plantings are needed. If revisions to the plan are required, it should be noted that tune is of the essence if plantings are to be done this fall. Planning Commission may wish to give applicant a guideline for what plantings are necessary ant? send him on to the City Council for final action, rather than tabling for a month. Note (hat applicant did pay an after-the-fact invcsfigalit)n fee with this application L \ CITY OP ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION #1884 A Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) 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 V75 ” \c^d Property Identif. Number (P.I.D.) OSi I'] attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired (month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ^residential - - -other(specify) Zoning District: _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ __ applicant Name DgSigy\ Phone (home) Phone (work) "^2!^_ Address OWNER (if different than applicant) A-o.'[(<r f i^kfx- Phone (home) Name Phone (work) 3** 7^7*^ Address I ^7^ city: DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST Describe request in Estimated Construction Cost $__ detail: VARIANCES REQUIRED __ _ Lot Area Setback: Lot Width Front Other (specify) _ _ Side _ _ Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore 7 i?V^ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OP UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS D.scrib. undue hardship or practical difficulty and unusual property conditions preventing.compliance with Zoning o U)tTK»H .1 ^LJhlc^L uJtHk lL%\PLi)kgg,g-.- - - - - - - - reauirements Ur TSi » t • -•* V. • » !• (attach additional sheets if necessary) required submittals A11 of the ■Follnwina information must be submitted by the application for licatxon considered comole 1 V. Completed Application Form 2’■’^Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain *- -list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 348-3271). 3 Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). . , ^ 4SSTcertificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include *®^hardcover calculations as required (provide one (1) copy 8Ji"xll" for 5 hlfVTopograp^^ survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8%-xH"). 6 A/Asketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8Jj xll ). afaddendSa to this application, please attach a separate list of ’- -any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8.M Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is .not—complex 4nff>rmai:ion has not been included the above APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE < j, The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (s time not covered by original fee payment) an^or consultant incurred in review of this application, and certifies that t e in o supplied is true and cc^ect yp /the b^t/of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature OWNERS SIGNATURE and further The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this app consultants, authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by i Y of investica- agents. Commission members, and Council members for purpo tion and verification of this request. J / / Owner's Signature _ _^- - - - - - - Applicant must have all submittals into a"r^^^ the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Comm ° oresent at all scheduled third Monday of each month. Applicants must *“"^1*^*Vpp\icant is review meetings of the Planning CcWsslon and have an unable to attend a scheduled meeting, ^ the^Building 6 Zoning authorized agent attend in your place and to Office of this change prior to the meeting. Date %• * • • • - •• •*• • * • a —• IHM DATE 09/24/9S HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY Olt4ERS LIST REPORT NO. PI455401 PAGE 4BATCH 005PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR 36 05-li;-23 41 001000475 OXFORD RD H J PETERSON A 0 PETERSON MELVIN J A OLIVE PETERSON 475 OXFORD RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 41 001100495 OXFORD RD DAM GEORGE DONALD E GEORGE 495 OXFORD RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 41 0015OOSOO OXFORD RD A J A S K NELSON ALBIN J A SUSAN K NELSON 500 OXFORD RD ORONO m 55356 PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 36 05-117-23 41 0016 00400 OXFORD RD R L A C D CARTER REX L CARTER 4U0 OXFORD RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 36 05-117-23 41 0022 00405 OXFORD RD F DENNISOr^ SHAH JR ETAL F DENNISON JR A JANET SHAN 405 OXFORD ROAD LONG LAKE MN 55356 36 05-117-23 41 0023 00425 OXFORD RD C 0 A S B KEIL CARL O A SALLY B KEIL 425 OXFORD RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 PROP AODR (»i«R NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR TOTAL BATCH 003 00006 a ) I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESEMTEO ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEOCE AND BELIEF. DATE Mm Srs^ *• -:w«l P- • • I u.1TV?-trC s^ /) S-W<vMpC ^ ^/ » gov«AJLA^7 (yf cl t APlf‘ ^^~- \ _ I l4* l6 -N. O^ P^'^CclKO-Q € OLrid Uf.iif^ E.a.^ev^<n+ 5 l^<I-J .—I \ EK»‘>t rv\<j Wous^e - '/■ Bay Lake '^\kine.- roNKA cl\ -1'^ Tv« -.. . ^1 jr\Stjmfj^ ) '■/ II \’--h lUf I • 0\/r\J t m <0%^ ; V w t/6.%^\ ts.o .• ^ *sC>^ • ^ ftZ* \0V_^ t.uK'»ry ^#»OT *tx> Certificate of Survey for Orville •’Chip** Fisher of Lot 2, Block 1. STIFLOWS ADDITION Hennepin County, Minnesota1 o Q</lit tl Fxistinq Legal Description Lot 2, Block 1« STIELOWS ADDITION. This survey shows the locatio:. of an existing house and a proposed storage shed and some marked tree stumps that were were recently cut down. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. oi Iron marker Bearings shown are baaed on an assumed datum. ■:0 l... b ■ ' ------------=—=——==——rr , (nilIN & r,RONHiR(., Inc 1 hereby certify tnal Ihis wrvey w« prep«red by me or under me diml suprf- vtfkifiw ifid the! I Am i duly refifiered Gvtl Enginetr And Land Sunreyor under Iht Uivs (X the Sure of Minnefou. ----------i OATi , CL7 kau w Mark S Cronbr % MinrwKXA Licmre Number 1275)xmNo 9 2k- s . F VIOLATION REPORT Defendant:Orville "Chip" Fisher 475 Oxford Road Orono, MN 55356 Location of Violation: 475 Oxford Road, Orono Violation of: Orono Municipal Code 10.22, Subdivision 3 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 12 Description of Violation:The defendant removed live trees greater than 6" in diameter and cleared intensive vegetation in a protected 75’ setback zone from the lake. The defendant pled guilty on September 12, 1990 to charges of excavating within a flood plain, excavating withm the protected 75’ setback zone and excavating in the lake shore without City Council approval at his previous residence. Inspector: Lyle Oman, Building Official The City’s objective is tc fme the defendant and bring him before the City Council and require him to conform to an approved replanting schedule. UNIFOnU CITATION NO 393-0 Z9368 H Th# issutog officer tui«s tn«l m« person named beiow comminad me offante dasenped In vioiaoon of IPe lecuoo indcaied.393-029367 Si The issutrtg officac sUiaa mat the person named be»ow commitiad the offanae desenbed In viofalion of lha secSon iryjlcated. :| I Is:hI6|r! lo.gJvjit L.!c-!e! ^ I I I I 10/313 A CITY ^!R.;oiMo; i ! ! i ! state 1 r.p cocff /n A) s s 3> s lanOPtarm_________ffYfS HflOHT na 1 OAY • Yff>a ill t 1 1 1 !i*! M VIOLATlOf4 INPOaMATlOM 1 QATl OP OePtNSi __________TIME UETf a aUMSEM a<? izii 1*1 1 lei o!o ! 1 1 i i 1 ffHCLf UCfNSff nj ; . » 1 * I ■ • kTS . i i ' 1 1 91^1« •; : ! OLon tOCATlON 4 c«ry______ —----------------------------- t 1 D ILiC>A3 o! 'mr^' 1 1 1 1 rAnrra ce onoeuncff « ______________OffSCPiPTion . D (L o*A3 0 1 blS’CrlTlZ *TjM!rleiA/!$ ) r'fri Ivle ^.lelrU T<f 0 /V IcIUel^K 1 NCs I A) CmmCoem CT ont acttvtty 1 ^omc Aeo LL iiog"r'“' aaa Iff»oMtf a M N 1 1 1 1 11 name - lAST FU'ST. MIOOCLMA ri 1 *s'h IsIr »0€N ! loiR'^ ixiLi'tle'1 1 1 e V Xig. ! ! '! ;! ! ! 1 i • •1 1 1 i 1 1 AOOPf 55 t errr H 1 s 6 ^F 0 12. D ie 0 ;o 1 t f 1 1 1 1 ♦ 0‘g.‘o'N 0: 1 irh N.• 1 ! \ 1 )♦ 1 STATE 1 1 S-^ SEX i3 CAT! OPt aTX MO : CAYi 1 i j YtA« 1 ! CYES I • ! i VIOLATIOI 1 1 1 I 4 INFOaMAHCN inMSHff oatt re nrFENSi 1 TiMff 1 !e!o 0 [ M i e ^ C j MffTCa NU 1 1 iMBEP 1 1 UOOEL Vf MCLf UCtNSff P*_ATf i ■ - : ■ 1 5'ATC 1 1 1 ! 1 !t » ( 1 1 1 1 ! 1. t CC lOO_______________ 1 • ■ 1 LOCATION A C<TT___________ q 1 S’ 0 }C F 1 c> <2. 0 i e.i6 ! 0 0 >M •0 ^ '/AH''S-S‘'i> 1 11 1 i STAfi/Tf ce oaoetAM:! »<o 0!^!o Iajo 10 iel j T'^e e (tc rvi'o ivr!»4-lc.l i 1 l/ol T Ih ei *7 A/-T^amr 9 r iZ 0 1 «MC Aorr r-| f ndtnga# Ufe rn Accldant LJ Or Pfoparty rnUniafa LJcondUlona V»nieie Commercial (nLJi^Material SAOcr NCMafw i I I cat xuMain M: N i I 1 J « t,„ to respond To fM, c/tJl on wimlTT. $$esstd a.id * warrant may be Issued V ii*' >"**' » • »*. /-Jnf It td, a penally ol SiO.OO will be added to thr L^sssesitd and a warrant may ba i$3ued for your arrest. If a warrant Is ISBueds a penalty of SJO.Ou will be added to the fine. ftlolrle IcItIc!D! I~7!5i^ eJg| I5 IcItIaIclkI I p!iZ qIiv4 I Aly;le.ls H 0 i2.‘ei 1 1 1!- irr 1 -•1 - l.l.l I I 1 1 1 :l-• *-.-• A 1 1 1-1 1 I I *:; sim W; :• I-': /:•■ •■. /-L' • f-* V' . • , . <- -I ■ • , ‘ ^ r . J • * -• ’ fV ^"■- :'" • i*‘3l>, p*W •:* , vA f' r^i4f mw■M"oN'5? sir^W-ii' . „r.-- .•■ • "-Sr ^-'yTi'wi' H^s'r r'.r- h';f4::r^'^'^ • ' 1 • - N:? V'v ■' j^ ,|V liMur?- .V ■* .^z^x if *x jv ■MSk tn A^'—^^-,iL^___-j Ul v^. " ' • . ■ . ‘Vi ' '. ; -IA-- > ; V >i f rr . ^'•'■' n~'xr. , T- '■f/'4 W- 4‘‘ tlf<• i ' • '. • :' \\' k ’ :;r> ;v» X' -- r \ * ’ \ r'ti.Kf y -V “.'>--vi f . ^r *V« tJ:/1%'i '■ l>^»‘^ >*i-Vf«■*' • •• t • »• bj;-;:-X"<£"X'..‘r : ‘X-V ^ j T' ' • -' ■ ’.ij^v . 5 sjr ' .* '• ■» ^ A , . »• J^.V : . ,^ X ..^'' :V^-X'%' ■• •- . •- ' b' ■• •' ’ ' A' ' S3TjsaiSm ,r:' ■ "I*. ' * ■ • #dS»‘eir ^ V*' U^*. j r3;^">S i5rSC"*f I' . A i I- r '51’^' il wmm •«^v v*< ^ i # 70 , ^ *i» 4 .'^f;,'r. /.r .' ^ f p, V V r>» viT'^ ' .V mmm Pi '41i?‘-' r secnoMS 9s. •• SECTION 10.56. SnOREIAND MANAGEMENT Subd. 3. Definitions. Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this section shall be interpreted as defined elsewhere in this chapter. All other words or phrases shall be interpreted so as to give them the same meaning as they have in common usage and so as tc give this ordinance its most reasonable application. For the purpose of this section, the words "must" and "shall" are mandatory and not permissive. All distances, unless otherwise specified, shall be measured horizontally. 13. "Intensive Vegetation Clearing" - The complete removal of trees or shrubs in a contiguous patch, strip, row, or block. Subd. 16. Shoreland Overlay District Standards. The Shoreland Overlay District Standards are in addition to the requirements set forth in Chapter 10 for the various zoning districts. In case of conflict, the most restrictive provision applies. -------- I. Vegetation Alterations. 1. No live tree within 75 feet of the shoreline with a diameter of 6 inches or more (or 19 inches in circumference or greater) measured 3 feet above the ground may be removed without first obtaining a permit from the City staff provided that at least the equivalent nuziber of replacement trees of a size and nature found acceptable to the staff are planted at the same setback from the shoreline as those removed. Appeals of staff determinations as to type, size and quality of the trees to be replaced will be to the Council. Removal of trees that are dead shall not require a permit but such trees must be inspected by City staff prior to their removal. ___ 2. Intensive vegetation clearing within 75 feet of the shoreline and on steep slopes within the Shoreland Overlay District is prohibited. Limited clearing of shrubs and trees less than 6 inches in diameter and cutting, pruning and trimming of trees of any size is allowed to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site and to accomodate the placement of permitted stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted lock boxes, provided that the screening of structures, vehicles or other as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf^on conditions, is not substantially reduced. SEC. 10.22. REGULATIONS FOR "LR-IA", "LR-lA-l", "LR-IB", ■ *LR~1C~1" ONE FAMILY LAKESOORE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Within any "LR-lA", "LR-lA-1", "LR-IB", "LR-IC", or "LR-lC-1" One Family Lakeshore Residential District the following regulations shall apply: Subd. 3. Tree Removal Regulations. No live tree within 75 feet of the shoreline with a diameter ot six (6) inches or more sh» be removed without first obtaining a permit from the City. Sue;, permits shall be issued by the City staff provided that at least a like number of replacement trees of a size and nature found acceptable to the staff are planted, any question involving the number of trees to be replaced will require approval. Source: Ordinance 26, 2nd Series Adopted: 7-14-86 1.. r n*** ”?r@@ Piaimtiino Ptein--------------------------------------------------------- I guilaftondtilgn,(nc.Fblhier Risslictejnice \ flMil kn.U MiHfiilf.IImV Tfliiitfii; r|t2)|44• laii Ui«UiM.WSiISi Scilr, 11ndi • 50 fwt i •1 tA) fc^y-u. -1 STATf OP /:?' PHONE NO, k DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ^ilTRO waters - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST, PAUL, MN 55106 772-7910 fiueno October 14, 1993 *^lke Gaffron City of Orono P,0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnasota 55323 RE: LAND USE APPLICATIONS, CITY OP ORONO, HOWEPIN COUNTY Dear Mr. Gaffron: I have comments on the following land use applications which are scheduled for public hearing before the Planning Conuniaslon on October 18, 1993. #1874. Sailers World. 1955 Shoreline Drive. The applicant requests several variances in order to place two storage units on a portion of the pioperty that is currently vegetated. DNR Metro Waters recommends that the city deny the variance requests as they are currently proposed. The site is already non-conforming and the proposed addition of storage units would exacerbate the non­ conformity. storage units on a portion of the property that is already hardcover and meets the lakeshore setbacks may be acceptable as an alternative, but not the current proposal. We also question whether hardship exists. Qr-Ville Fisher. 475 oxford Road. The applicant requests after-the-fact approval of a variance to allow intensive vegetation removal within 75 feet of Lake Minnetonka. DNR Metro Waters recommends that the city deny the after—the—fact variance request and require restoration of the site. Selective removal of vegetation in order to obtain a view of the lake from the residence would have been acceptable, but not intensive vegetation removal. The restoration/landscaping plan should Include larger caliper trees to replace the larger diameter trees which were removed, and should place particular emphasis on replanting of vegetation in the area closest to the lake (i.e. the shore impact zone). Following are some additional specific points for the city's consideration that would apply to all the variance requests: Hardship must be demonstrated to justify approval of a variance request. The approval of a variance due to hardship should be based on the following prerequisites: A. The proposed use is reasonable. 1. AN EQUAL opportunity EMPLOYER Mike Gaffron October 14, 1993 Page 2 B.It would be unreasonable to require conformance with the ordinance. Practical difficulties may arise duo to “functional and aeathatic concerns” and economic coneiderations alone do nai constitute practical difficulty. C.The difficulty of conforming to the ordinance is due to circumstances unique to the property, such as peculiar topography. If the problem is common to a number of homes in the area, it is not considered unique. D. The problem must not be created by the landowner. E.Tha variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. The courts have said that the applicant has a "heavy burden of proof” to show that all the prerequisites to the granting of a variance are satisfied. This is because a variance allows property to be used in a manner forbidden by the ordinance. The Department should be advised of the action taken on the two above requests within 10 days of final action and copies of the official record should be forwarded to this office if the variance request is not denied. Please contact me at 772-7910 should you have any questions regarding these comments. Sincerely, Ceil Strauss Area Hydrologist cc:Ed Pick, Shoreland Hydrologist Lake Minnetonka files 27-133, #26 and 27-133, #23 / .V . i 'A. N . ' )?or^ ^ J 1 (we)of [print name(s)][print address] t- 1 1-he c-oDosed imorovement or proposed use of the have reviewed the plans for P- . - referred to as Land Use property located at ___ —-------------------' Application No.--------• ^ ^ .Kat- in evecutinq this tknowledgementi I (we) am (are)'norisked“o declare I NeTtm^urerLare^c^ rermr.olerenrp\^Ts^:nd\^ha=t“tL^r^ nei^-r-s project or use requires Council approval. 1 Property Owner Date Property Owner I (we) ***************** Date ********************* [orint address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed Ose property located at - - - --- - -“ Application No.-------- J .kai- in executino this acknowledgement, 1 (we) am I (we) understand that in exe=ut - ^ of the property or use (are) not asked to declare-^ppro 1 “^^ff-that I (we) am (are) aware of but merely to confirm ^ L orocosed neighbor's project or use the improvement plans and that the propo requires Council approval. Property O'-'nex Date IT Date Property Owner If you have any “-co^tnt's'^'to tht L^\^g"ffi«* a\"^Var lo"-V» P“ - « r L k « MINNESOTA SHORELAND NUNAGEMENT PROGRAM STATEMENT OF NEED AND REASONABLENESS FOR THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO MINNESOTA RULES PARTS 6120.2500 - 61203900 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WATERS '(S # , Vi AUGUST 1988 I Proposed subitem'''''^) requires that the deck not encroach toward the shore inbi;e than 15 percent of the existing setback and- in no ca^e^^^can* it result in a setback of less than 30 feet. This provision'will ensure^h^ the size and setback of the deck are in\reasonabler>r^portion to the existing setback of the struo^re^,,,.^'The 30 foot limit will protect decks froin potential d^in^^e from ice heaving and wind and wave damage during-^tormSs^^ It will also' provide space for maintenance jaf^''^isting screening vegetation or planting of such vegetTation. Proposed subit^ (3) requires these decksN;o be constructed primarily^.o'f wood and prohibits their being^^qofed or screened^ These provisions will ensure that these decks are not significant visual intrusions along the shore and that they function only as outdoor decks, not dwelling additions. Subp. 4. Shoreland Alterations. The existing language on shoreland alterations is being deleted in the introductory paragraph because the entire subpart is being rewritten and reorganized. The first provision alter the deleted text (Fill shall be stabilized...)is needed to assert that vegetative alterations and excavations for sewage treatment systems and structural placement are exempt from the vegetation alterations provisions and that separate permits are not required. It is reasonable to require that the grading and filling conditions are met in lieu of separate permits for structure and sewage system installation, since shoreland managers can add the appropriate conditions to building permits for shoreland areas. It is also necessary and important to require that alterations to vegetation and topography be controlled by local governments since the mismanagement of soil and vegetation can adversely impact the natural resources of shoreland areas. Examples of adverse impacts are erosion and sedimentation to surface waters which impairs or destroys fish and wildlife habitat, soil sedimentation or the intenticnal filling of areas that previously held and filtered surface water runoff for a period before drainage or discharge to a waterbody, or the excessive clearing of shoreland vegetation that once provided natural screening of shoreland development and maintained the scenic vistas of our many lakes and streams. It is necessa'ry to exclude public roads and parking areas from this subpart since they area regulated by another subpart. The definition "Intensive Vegetation Clearing" as defined in 6120.2500 Subp.- 7c. is discussed here,’since it is relevant to this section. Subp. 7c» Intensive Vegetation Clearinci: This definition isneeded to replace and modify the repealed definition of "Clearcutting”. The definition is reasonable since the complete removal of shoreland trees and shrubs in the manner described has a high potential for creating significant non~ point source pollution problems, which can reduce the long term economic value of shorelands. Examples of these problems are damage to shoreland fish and wildlife habitat via a reduction of the nutrient recycling, stormwater runoff filtering and soil protecting properties of vegetation. Vegetation also acts to visually screen shoreland development which maintains the natural values of shorelands. Subp. 4 rsee Repealerl Clearcuttinq;_ This definition is being repealed because a new definition, "Intensive Vegetation Clearing" is being substituted for "Clearcutting". The repeal of this definition is reasonable because the word 'clearcutting' is a term used to describe a technical forest management practice. Private and County forest resource managers had indicated a need for the shoreland regulations to contain a different word and definition to describe and regulate the removal of shoreland vegetation, especially in non-forest management areas, since the regulations address a significant acreage of shoreland that is not being used for industrial or commercial forest management purposes. Item A is necessary to exclude agriculture and forestry from these provisions since the area is managed in subsequent subparts. In subitem 1, it is necessary to prohibit vegetation clearing within the bluff and shore impact zones and on steep slopes to protect the vegetation and soil resources of these areas. The existence of vegetation in these areas is important to reduce the erosive effects of falling precipitation on the soil. Vegetation can also reduce the velocities or disperse the flow of surface water runoff, which is important since high velocity or concentrated surface water runoff can readily erode soils. Vegetation in these areas will also consume and utilize nutrients that may be in runoff waters or in the soil profile which could degrade the shoreland water quality if not consumed. Additionally, vegetation root systems in these areas will assist in binding the soil column to prevent or reduce the likelihood of bank and slope failure, which further protects the fish and wildlife habitat values associated with shoreland areas. The existence of vegetation in these areas also acts to screen shoreland development activities which IMl«liJ l•r^ViPV^J [•H*] !_iiii^»,itni •iviarsi •V*]•T*I*I documents usually are the best sources of information concerning the capability of soils for agricultural or development activity. When these documents are not available, it is necessary and reasonable to define steep slopes as lands that are in excess of 12% slope or more, since county soil surveys and technical reports generally begin to include cautionary statements about soils capability when these conditions exist. The requirement that the slope horizontal component be 50 feet or more is based on the relationship that slope length has to soil erosion potential. Generally, the longer the slope the greater the potential for erosion. A slope length of 50 feet is necessary to exclude those areas commonly found in shoreland that may have a 12% slope or greater but only over relatively short areas with minimal potential for soil erosion. For example, ice ridges and small natural terraces or benches of land along lake or river shorelines would not be considered as steep slopes unless they are long enough to meet the above definition. It is reasonable to allow vegetation clearing outside of the previously mentioned areas if the activity is consistent with accepted forest management practices and soil erosion control practices since this is where development will take place according to the structure setback requirements for the particular shoreland area. It is also reasonable to allow limited clearing of trees and shrubs within these areas as long as it is the minimum necessary to meet the specific needs of the landowner to place the facilities or conduct the activities that are allowed in these areas. As a condition of allowing vegetative alterations in the shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes, it is necessary to specify performance standards and provisions to ensure that soil, vegetation, water and aesthetic resources of these areas will be properly managed. A notable benefit of the proposed rule language and arrangement is that local units of government are not required to issue written permits for vegetative alteration, thereby reducing costs to these units. Instead, landowners wishing to conduct vegetative alteration activities need only comply with the listed performance criteria, which is intended to be published in informational brochures and distributed to local units and handed out to shoreland owners. As stated in item B it is necessary to require the issuance of local permits for the grading or filling of the topography in shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes that involves ten or more cubic yards of material HENNEPIN COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT DISPOSITION SUMMARY CITY OF ORONO /O- TO; FROM: City Administrator Chief of Police _ • i vr . . Bryan L. Crawford Prosecuting Actorney DATE: October 2, 1990 DEFENDANT; Orville E. Fisher, Jr. DATE OF OFFENSE: August 14, 1990 ARRESTING OFFICER: Lyle Oman CONTROL NO.: SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS: The defendant September A 1 ^ X.'^ t 1990 to all three charges ano paid the tines. 94 DCTY -10- #•' * ■ J* I- • V'-' •'^V ,* • * V •4%^ • - •» JSSlSiS'^S'U BAOGI f5tl OimDMIT XVfOMATXM ■ ::::5 ’^;lV»t«^>^^oi^lla"B. Fi*h«r Junior *;;;« u.v»*"v.v« «“ •“ * tho ▼iolntlon. - Dotcrlptlon JJibock*lonVwhoro no%*cnv«tlon 1» «llwd.*° Violation ®*®p\®®B^°*JiolatKnV^ Soction Excavating within tho ^ --Fj-- altar oxiating gradaa KJ.55, Subdlvialon oao pornit iaauadwithin 73* of lak« Jhout a t Soction 10.03# by tho City Council. Vloi*«i«J dofondant . Stobdlvioion 19 ‘^][^2ar^bttt wao told by Miko Oaffron# allowod without a conditional uao po - fhotoo havo boon takon. Tho City's objoctiro j^^boahoro yard and tho dofondaot is ''o^*^^“V-«rtiflclto*^of Occupancy^for tho now ttn SJtVl “rVst^ririo'n iVU^U^Vc^rity cipLtod. 4, • %•: r* f . • .•*• ••^ • I' % • i ^ • V ^ ' t s « , • • ■ -V .»• I • TO: FROM: REQUEST FOR ARREST REPORT Orono Police Department Bryan L. Crawford Prosecuting Attorney 3300 Piper Jaffray Tower Minneapolis/ MN 55402 DATE OF REQUEST: September 20, 1990 DEFENDANT: Orville E. Fisher, Jr. NATURE OF OFFENSES: Excavation in Lakeshore w/o Council, Excavation within 75' of Lakeshore, Excavation within a Flood Plain TICKET NUMBERS: 3900467071, 3900467089, 3900467097 ORDTNANCE I STATUTE) NUMBERS: 10.03S19, 10.22S2, 10.55S8 ARRESTING OFFICER: n/a DATE OF OFFENSES: August 14, 1990 51 DCTT Orville E. Fisher , Jr . 6501 N obma .n C enter D rive Minneapolis. MN 55137 (612) 830-3241 ancfORONO September 4, 1990 SEP. 6 1990 Michael P. Gaffron Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Mil 55323 Dear Mr. Gaffron: I am receipt of your letter dated August 28, 1990 regarding the grading work done on ray property at 3300 Fox Street. This letter is to confirm my understanding that we have complied with all seven items contained in >our August 28 letter, including meeting the specific dates that were referred to in Items No. 1 and 2. I understand that you are out of the office this week and unavailable until next Monday. If there are any other issues or if for some reason the City does not fe''"! that we are in full compli­ ance with the items we discussed on uugust 15, which were subse­ quently incorporated in your August 28 letter, please let me know immediately. In addition, I believe documents and other filings have been timely filed and are in order relating to our request for a conditional use permit for purposes of grading an excavation on the site which I understand will be presented to the Planning Commissi<^ on September 17 and subsequently to the Oronc City Council on October 8. If there are any problems in this schedule or the information as provided, please contact me. Youre truly. Orville E. Fisher, Jr. OEF/jo CITY OF ORONOd CITYof ORONO Post OfTice Box 66* Crystal Bay. Minr.esota 55323 • Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka August 28, 1990 Orville Fisher 3300 Fox Street Long Lake, MN .'j5356 RE: Grading Violations Dear Mr. Fisher: This letter is to follow up ir discussions of August 15, 1990 j-ggarding illegal grading excavation and filling occurring within the 0-75* protected lakeshore zone on your property at 3300 Fox Street. The Grading work done by Bollxg and Sons under your direction is a violation of the following sections of the Orono Zoning Code: 1. Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 (copy attached) 2. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 (copy attachted) 3. Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 (copy attached). Accompanying this letter is a citation issued for violation of the above noted Zoning Code Sections. Because grading work in the extent and nature of that completed requires variance and conditional use permit approval from the City Council, and because such approval would normally require approximately 8 to 10 weeks to process, you were directed by City staff to restore the 0-75' lakeshore protected zone immediately to limit the potential for erosion and sedimentation into the lake. City staff set the following time table for the restoration work; 1. Within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone, restore the property to the original grades as established by you, your contractor, and City staff, such areas to be sodded no later than Friday, August 24, 1990. 2. Soil testing for an alternate site to replace the alternate drainfield site which was destroyed by earth moving equipment traffic, shall be completed and submitted to the City by August 31, 1990. ILltDING a ZONING - 473.T357 ASSESSING A DMINISTTUTION A nNANCI - rAX-«7S4»I0 Ptmuc WORKS - 47>735» p jDrville Fisher August 28» 1990 Page 2 3 h arading plan for areas of the property related directly'to construction of the house, pool, and driveways, to be submitted immediately. 1%° cubic reful/el^“fbe™%"nU\h%°»%‘rcratirn\n^r« in the 0-75* zone is complete, if you wish to ^ ap^ication for grade changes in that ® 7 “ tr/ited conditional use permit application would need to be file and approved before that work would be allowed. 5. immediately place fencing around the existing sewage treatment mound to protect it from all traffi . 6. Your surveyor was to verify the location of the west lot line. 7. The excavation where stumps were the southwest of the sewage treatment mound, must have stumps removed (taken off site) and grade restored. As of the date of this letter, we are the above items have been f^Yo^r^new ho^e continues. rieife'rdilsrritr»tr£f"ryour intent work on the property so that m^ner If you have any ru:sri1,nT;rel'^se"cfntact ‘mr^o^^iri^n;%^^^^^^^ -a""® Mabusth at 473-7357. Sincerely, Michael P. Gaffron Assistant Planning 6 Zoning Administrator cc:Lyle Oman, Senior Building Inspector Bruce Vang, Field Inspector *«i •♦•ratorJeanne Mabusth, Building 6 Zoning Administrator Mar)c Bernhardson, City Administrator elated .reways r till .ttal •osed ruble .d be ig in :h an * and iled sewage le west to the ve the rain of maXing tinues. grading ipplied ave any Jeanne V.' ,t:: ’ *• »• • *P »1 V.... • -...... r ■ •'^*.1: .•••■ •'" V . .. i'-- . • .-•*•. • ‘-'i-; ■. •• *.:T 3 0 'o a’r-A T I lj=i 3B1Z33 fr\\H S3 I d'tliSio MM 1 U lo'o oo>a» I I 0 a !o >n^t cr ■ai-^loio' 1^1 ni iKiMl irxljLa 1 fu 6 M Oj 1 rJlo lO ■ •• *• **•• ** **■' -O./•r^* H • X V!r a.f (r 1 *• v“ * *: r • • • • » ^ ^ ^ ^ Y‘ T- ■-'v , • • -.--on [■-v* •>'■-•;•*'■ "-; I••'..• .-r.-j;-. •; . .y'v.VvVf'' • '’'^v “■*“■•* •' * avsv^l^ □«»*«□ cSSUNSAf* • T10»«. • • • •• - ,* '1 — « . ; A. I i • i. • w a • ' . V • •andB • 0M*re«»i3o ss«Ra^> *' • *# .Mr v:-i . . - . 7' - --------■»* . ^ m »•••. -« nnfaacinaB #.e »r:: :«^-w I* ^ • ________ _ \ % ^ A V. f* .. *a t * * ilBl?P • .• 1 * -A" 1 » • •'• ^ _ V .V.-; t ^ .••' a - ^ •' -J 4*-r- •'' • •: .• •• «. > * • « - V. • * •a m ^, • • _ • * i* • ♦ « •- *• •'• • ►a'T* - • ___ » ^as e » • * V* • ,T ^nss? ■ •♦. -• •' • •♦ >• ✓f • .va-:AMj... BHBBBBBHBSnBDEnBtJCn ^iii^iiiSSHii™ii™ mBgpaggntBIPgBaBM WWHHWHMlHManBgH M hraOTWiWKwJMBM —BHHUfJWinn»i^jnnnn ■iiKrinaDHnaiiBaEBBBB iggggiiiiiiiiiiiii■BBSDBSBEESBESeBSC^! « A* •■. •] rrr T il fliK* < ! r ■ ^ I ' CITY I ' OF I I ORONO J CITY of ORONO Post Omc* Boa M • Oyvul Bar. Mia On th* North Short of Lak§ Minnttonka D®c«mb«r 7, 1989 1 Lon9 Lb)cb > * • t . ^ ® ® ^ - IT I y r* — VjJf Th. Baildln,'.^*onin9 1989*M<J*«tld n1S*%li<i followin? addition.! eoBoiantsi 1. *our intent is to lij«/» \\« "irA?.dV’«*ono on the P«P«*y Vubdiviaion r^.% aitachad) Zoning iJ’iJ'«* th® existing dwelling whileallow# continued ©^upancy o. the ^ the principal structure ^y,. building penait andsuch occupancy would be issued with yo« the 3- would *^^55 hii«*^to be^approved by the City and would :^i«";piS"irnSineS*:; $%«.?««« o^ occupancy for your new heeie. Although a decision on /^”®^^f^*?JJyan*5ra®Jf^%tiiVding r.'iiltTot T. n^-w^o-nV, ShV/d • 2. options for the old house are as follows* A) Tear it down. B) Sell the structure and_have it moved off the property. C) subdivide so that \n^the Vacre LR-IA separate parcel to accomplish a son® would appear large soeciflc lotiubdlvision, although eone variances to p standards might bo necessary). • •• tisuNMC a aMNC •AOMr«iniuna«< a rtuNa • >39 FAX-^nstlt nsucwoJ OtSSf >.r- * t Rtouc'it «pproval for a "guoit hou»«" .conditionalSi. ;ISlt7 pir VonlS, coa. Section 10.20, Subdlvl.lon 3 (G). Y«n hAva indicated that conatruetion on the new honaa t2ha wroxiiataly 5 nontha. »ha procaaaing of • aubdiviaion or a conditional oaa parait «rould **®”**^^^ 5?!!^ ABBPaxlnataly 2“3 nontha. You ahoold naka tha nacaaaary applicationa accordingly ao thatof tha axlatlng raaldanca ara raaolvad at^;tha tlaa you irian to nova into tha naw houaa. ' ^ h. ^^Conatruct'ion:Vl*n*‘^^oVl^**?‘^"**'^HV^lJ “fr^i’^^^^^^badroona. '^'Tha ‘aaptle^ayataa daaign waa^baaad on a 5 ®®J houita ‘ Your ooptic iyotto doflsr^or rauit ouboit • SSSSli .mi« dMlgn b.o.d on . 6 boO ”®- gallon ilpar'day'flov ‘rata. tAlao, tha alta ba advlaad that on both primary and drainflalda, tha adgaa of tha dlka nuat naat tha aatbacka *fron proporty linosa 4. A alta Inapaction Indlcataa’your propoaad maata tha avaraga lakashora *®tback raquiramantap vWch . alnply naana that all naw atructuraa (poola» tannia eourtSp dacka; ate.) nuat ba located no cloaar to tha laka than a lina daflnad by the Vhff i lil^n'tha \1«vay!houaaa. Your aurvayor haa ahown that lina on tha aurvay, and all currently propoaad conatruction *PP***“* aatback. Howevar» you include a pool not indicate a pool location. You ahould conaidar relocation of tha propoaad houaa aa nacaaaary to any propoaad pool behind tha avaraga lakaahora aatback Aa*wa dlacuaaadp tha City ia awara of tha *no bu^d lijj" covenant diacuaalona you are having with Mr. City haa no legal intareat in the outcome ®^ ^Jat laauep and will not delay iaauanca of a building permit aa long aa all City raquirementa ara mat. 5. Tha propoaad building plana include a refrigerator in tha baaemant. It would appear fren the row layout that thi» ia not intended to ba a kitchenette a aaparata dwelling unit within the house, hwavar, ^®^^® record, it la atandard City policy ^® ! • guaat apartment within tha axiating ? conditional uaa permit if that typo of uae waa a conaidarad. » %.‘0 % » - 1 . •# •• -a *•. •• • V*i*’ .• * • « MT ^9 • • 4 . i- •/ - ^ !*• AA^ ‘*. :V‘« •.•;>«2 ’IN *. ;*is4v/r. . A r V ; Mcmvmtlng or qrmaxn^ unm permit approv«xi warl«ac« Jo.<^)^tS^Cl^.ytof‘Orono, and 75* of Vtho ohorollBO. Rlp-rapplayMlnnohaha Cj •xeavating or it la .............«!• City •horollBO<• # * -• •• .V • yi\\ V ^.v ■ •4:.% ., . i\ r 1. ► ;:A"t i"id7nV pV^ir:;;u^tion:.t !VeVAV. “ ««-«»’ ="“‘ ___ ^ ^ M A ^ * r • V *% 'u / • -t ’* ‘ * jf^ * •'*"•irr'v quoatlons* • ■ : #* • • * • ^ * ♦ 1 •.. ^ .v*^rj .; *• ••r- » . *?W • • • ’. *. • * ' • MPC/tln I i* ' \ ^ -• •• - »• • •• -; »• * -* •w .• V# I •. • • / . - T, ..-• . V . . I • ^ * • . ■- r , . atiMr < .:rri‘'i ‘ ., ... • t ‘•t • •• *^ » * 4 • » • /• pV" *• . # * > :?r«,:. , . ' i \ ,-fc ' ,- /vp^V'iV: To:Mavor Callahan and Orono Councilinembcrs Ron Moorse, City Administrator \ From: Date: Subject: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Platining & Zoning Administrate^^ October 21, 1993 ^ c/ Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 5 - MUSA Amendment - Inclusi^of NURP Storm Water Pond Standards and Best Management Practices for Erosion Control - Resolution List of Exhibits A - Proposed Resolution B - Planning Commission Memo and E.xhibits 10/20/93 Attached is a resolution for adoption and transmittal to the Metropolitan Council. The resolution amends the Orono Community Management Plan (subject to Met Council approval) by adding the Nettles property and Sewer Plant property to the MUSA and adds language to the "General Policies for Natural Resource Management" in Pan II. Chapter 3 of the Plan, in compliance with the "Inf i-tm Strategy". Planning Commission Recommendation riie Planning Commission reviewed the policy language portion of this amendment at a public hearing on October 21. 1993 pursuant to the required ten days published notice. No public comments were forthcoming. The Planning Commission recommended on a vote of 5 - 0 that the revisions be adopted as proposed. Planning Commission recommended approval of the MUSA additions on August 16, 1993. Sltlfr Recoiniiu luliition Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution adding Parts XVII and XVIIl to the MUSA and incorporating the application of NURP standards and BMPs into the General Policies for Natural Re.source Management in Orono Community Management Plan Pan II, Chapter 3. Ihis resolution will be faxed to Met CourKil immediately Tuesday morning. Our amendment is scheduled for Met Council Committee review on Tbursday, October 28, with final .Met CouiKil action scheduled for Thursday, November 4, A RESOLUTION APPROV ING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 5 W HEREAS, in June 1980 the City Council of the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") adopted a Community Management Plan (hereinafter "CMP") to provide for the orderly development of the City. An integral part of the plan provided that sewered areas of the City be included within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (hereinafter "MUSA"); and WHEREAS, the MUSA boundary originally adopted via Resolution ^1135 on April 14. *980 was subsequently revised by Resolution ^1337 on November 23, 1981; Rest)lution #2131 on February 23. 1987; Resolution #2437 on May 23. 1988; Resolution #3153 on August 10, 1992; and Resolution #3283 on May 24. 1993; and \\ HERE/VS, the City has reviewed the formal request of Alan Nettles of 1940 Shoreline Drive for inclusion of his property within the MUSA boundary to allow connection of his existing residence to the municipal sewer system, a portion of which is located in the street adjacent to said property; and WHEREAS, the City of Orono is selling for single family development of two building sites, a ponion of the City owned property known as the former Orono Sewer Plant property. The portion subject to sale is hKated adjacent to a gravity trunk sewer line which discharges to MWCC Lift Station No. 59. It is the desire of the City to include this property within tlie MUSA boundary; and WHEREAS, on Monday, August 16, 1993 the Orono Planning Commission pursuant to published legal iu)tice held a public hearing to receive public comments regarding a proposed amendment of the MUSA btsundary to include the above referenced properties, ai wliich time all ct>mments of public were heard; and W HEREAS, the Orono Planning Commission on August 16. 1993 recommended approval of the inclusion of said properties within the MUSA boundaty based on the following findings: Page 1 of 5 1. 3. Inclusion of the property at 1940 Shoreline Drive in the MUSA boundary is necessary before said property can be allowed to connect to the municipal sewer. Said property is located on the lakcshore ot Liike Minnetonka and contains a single family residence with a failing septic system. Said property is approximately 2.2 acres in area and includes wetlands, and therefore is not further subdividable under the lot rei}uirements ot the LR-IA Zoning District. A municipal sewer laterr.l exists approximately 20* from the property, requiring no extension of the municipal sewer. The connection charge, SAC charge, and connection costs to be borne by the property owner approximate the costs of replacing the existing failing system with a fully conforming septic system. Allowing the property to connect to municipal sewer will not be in conflict with the goals and policies of the Orono Community Management Plan, in that no extension of municipal sewer is required, no new high density development will (Kcur as a result of the MUSA boundarv' expansion, and Uike Minnetonka will be further protected by the elimination of a failing septic system located on a lakcshore lot. An additional 1.5 acre area adjacent to the property at 1940 Shoreline Drive which includes railroad right-of-way, undeveloped City road right-of-way, and a portion of privately owned wetland, and which is proposed for inclusion in the MUSA, is included solely for the purpose of ease of mapping, and will not result in further development. Inclusion of the Orono Sewer Plant property within the MUSA is necessary for the development of said property into as many as two 2 acre building sites, because said property has been disturbed through its previous use as a Public Works* materials storage site and therefore cannot sustain the necessary septic systems to serve two single family residences. Further, said property is adjacent to a gravity sewer trunk which discharges to MWCC Lilt Station No. 59, and which therefore can connect to the sewer system without the need for extension of ,he municipal sewer system. Said property is kKated on the lakcshore of l-fcnch I^ke which is designated as natural environment by the Minnesota Department t)l Natural Resources, and therefore requires special protection including sewage system and construction setbacks of 150’ from the OIIW of the lake, further restricting use of the site for development with on-site sewage treatment systems Ihe propeny contains in e.xcess of 4 acres and can therefore Paae 2 of 5 be developed into two single family residential building sites per the 2 acre minimum lot size requirements of the RR IB Rural Residential Zoning District. Further, the proposed addition to the MUSA boundary of approximately 5.7 acres includes approximately 1.5 acres of wetland for ease of mapping and legal description, although said wetland area is not developable and not all within the portion of the property to be sold; and WHEREAS, on August 30. 1993 the City of Orono submitted a formal application to Metropolitan Council for approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 5 for expansion of the MUSA boundary'; and WHEREAS, on September 15, 1993 the Metropolitan Council advised the City that the proposed amendment was considered incomplete until the City adopted the Metropolitan Council ’s "Interim Strategy to Reduce Non-Point Source Pollution to all Metropolitan Water Bodies": and WHEREAS, on February 24. 1992 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 101, 2nd Series, establishing regulations for the management of shorelands in accordance with Minnesota Department of Natural Resource requirements, w hich ordinance was approved by said Department on May 25, 1993; and WHEREAS, on October 11, 1993 t’le City Council adopted Resolution No. 3335 indicating the City of Orono's intent to compb' with the Metropolitan Council ’s "Interim Strategy to Reduce Non-Point Source Pollution to all Metropolitan Water Bodies", said resolution revising the proposed amendment by eliminating a proposed MUS.A acreage trade-off that would have resulted in Nt)erenberg Park land being extracted from the MUSA, and indicated that the City will implement the use of NURP standards and Best Management Practices via Zoning Code and Subdivision Code Amendments no later than May 15, 1995; and WHERE/\S, pursuant to published legal notice the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 21, 1993 regarding the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to incorporate storm water management policies regarding application of NURP standards for storm water p<mds and Best Management Practices for protecting water quality in urban areas, at which time all comments of the public were heard; and WHEREAS, the Orono Planning Commission on October 21, 1993 recommended Page 3 of 5 approvill of the incorporation of said policies into llie Orono Community Management Plan. Minnesota: 3. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Orono, The Orono Community Management Plan is hereby amended by adding Parts XVII and XVIII to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area per the legal descriptions and maps attached hereto as Exhibit "A’. Tlie Orono Community Management Plan. Part II. Chapter 3 "General Policies for Natural Resource Management", Item 13, on Page 3-21, is hereby amended to read as follows: (Underlining indicates new language) n on -sh 'e water retention faciuties w :l be required AS PART OF ALL RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL DltVELOPMENT PROJECTS WHENEVER NECESSARY TO MAIN! AIN OR LMPROVE THE EXISTING STORM WATER RUNOFF PATfERNS. Whenever a development ’s location, size, scope or hardcover would tend to increase the quantity of runoff, increase the speed of runoff, or decrease the quality of runoff, that development will be required to provide on-site retention facilities sufficient to maintain the existing situation or to improve the resulting runoff by reducing quantity, reducing speed and or improving quality. No development will be permitted to adversely impact its neighbors, or the City, by changing drainage patterns or by otherwise adversely affecting the storm water drainage. National Urban Runoff Pioeram (NURP) standards will be ap plied to the desien of new storm water ponds . Orono Community .Management Plan Part II, Chapter 3, "General Policies for Natural Resource Management" is hereby revised by adding Policy No. 16 on Page 3-22 to read as follows: 16. Erosion control Best Manaecm ent Practices shall be applied ,—Thg MPCA’s Urban Best Manatiement Practices entitled "Wate r Quality in Urban .Areas" shall be applied to the review of proposed developtnCDt tg reduce non-point source pollutant loadings in storm water runoff.—lo Page 4 of 5 implement this policy, the Citv will incorporate these standards and requirements in its storm water management plan and land use controls. 4.The above noted amendments shall take eTect upon approval by the Metropolitan Council. FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono finds the amendments above noted meet the inte.it of the basic goals, objecli 'es and policies set forth in the 1980 Community Management Plan, and are consistent with the goals, objectives, needs and desires of Orono residents. 1993. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota this 25th day of October, ATIEST: Dorothy M. Ilallin, City Clerk Edward J. Callahan, Jr.. Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 25th day of October 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 Citv. Notary Public Page 5 of 5 To:Chairman Schroeder and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From:Michael P Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Date:October 20, 1993 Subject:Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Adoption of Policy Language Regarding Application of "NURP" Standards for Construction of Storm Water Ponds and Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Storm Water Control for Land Alteration Projects List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - G - Met Council Letter 9/20/93 Policy Language Required to be Added per Met Council Met Council "Interim Strategy" Background Staff Memo 10/4/93 Resolution of Intent to Comply No. 3335 Comprehensive Plan E.xcerpt - Part II, Chapter 3 BMP Excerpts/NURP Standards Brief Summary The proposed amendment is intended to bring the Comprehensive Plan into compliance with Metropolitan Council ’s "Interim Strategy to Reduce Non-point Source Pollution to All Metropolitan Water Bodies" by adding one sentence regarding "NURP" standards to the "General Resource Management Policies", Item 13; and add Item 16, a one-sentence statement regarding BMPs. Propo.sed Language Addition 1.The Orono Community Management Plan, Pan II, Chapter 3, "General Policies for Natural Resource Management", Item 13, on Page 3-21, is proposed to be revised by adding a sentence regarding NURP standards, to read as follows: (underlining indicates proposed new language) 13 ON-SITE WATER RETENTION FACILITIES WILL BE REQUIRED AS PART OF ALL RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WHENEVER NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN OR IMPROVE THE EXISTING STORM WATFJl RUNOFF PATTERNS. Whenever a development’s location, size, scope or hardcover would tend to increase the quantity of runoff, increase the speed of ninoff, or decrease the quality of runoff, that development will be requued to provide on-site retention facilities sufficient to maintain the existing situation or to improve the resulting runoff by reducing quantity, reducing speed and/or improving quality. No 1 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Adoption of Policy Language October 20, 1993 Page 2 development will be permitted to adversely impact its neighbors, or the City, by changing drainage patterns or by otherwise adversely affecting the storm water drainage. National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards will be applied to ^he design of new storm water ponds. Comprehensive Plan Part II, Chapter 3, "General Policies for Natural Resource Management" is proposed to be revised by adding policy number 16 on Page 3-22 to read as follows: 16.PROSION CONTROL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES SHALL BE APPLIED. The MPCA’s Urban Best Manauernent Practices entitled "Water Quality in Urban Areas" shall be applied to the review of proposed development to reduce non-point source pollutant loadings in storm water runoff. To implement this policy, the Citv will incomorate these standards and requirements in its storm water management plan and land use controls. What are the NURP standards? Storm water ponds are created for new development in order to control and treat storm water runoff before it enters our lakes and streams. Various pond design parameters have an impact on the degree of storm water treatment. The NURP standards for detention ponds are described in the attached e,xcerpt from "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas". Perhaps the single most significant difference between a NURP pond and the ponds that the City was requiring in the 1980’s, is that NURP ponds arc "w-et" detention ponds, having a permanent water surface rather than draining dry a few days after the rainfall event. This allows for settling out of sediments. This results in good pollutant removal from small storm events, which are more numerous than larger storm events. \Vhat are "Best Managenient Practices Tlie Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has prepared a 200 page document entitled "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas". This document defines the negative effects of urbanization on water quality, gives a general background on the characteristics of urban runoff, and discusses the general implementation process for identifying existing and potential storm water quality concerns and selecting correct practices to manage those concerns. The document contains specific chapters on "storm water best management practices" (which incorporates the NURP standards), "housekeeping best management practices" such as fertilizer management, litter control, street sweeping, etc., and "coastruction site erosion and sediment control practices", which includes silt fencing, temporary sediment traps, etc. The City Engi^r and staff have been incorporating many of these "Best Management Practices in review and inspection of developments in Orono for many years, but we have never had such a specific document reference that provides methods and techniques for the various practices. Staff secs Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Adoption of Policy Language October 20. 1993 Page 3 this as a very valuable document which provides good guidelines for storm water management. A few excerpts of "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas are attached as Exhibit G for your review. Staff Recommendation While this is a public hearing process to review the proposed addition of NURP standards and BMPs to our Comprehensive Plan Environmental Policy section, the City Council has already indicated their intent to adopt the language to comply with Met Council requirements. Staff would recommend approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, noting that the City Council is proposing to delay acmal Code changes for implementation until no later than May 15,1995, which date allows a more coordinated and comprehensive review leading to updating our stonu water management plan in compliance vith Minnehaha Creek Watershed District requirements. This item will be scheduled for Council review and adoption on Monday, October 25. • % ■mm ' » - “ f • . ^ * * * 4AA . A 612 291-6359 FAX 612 291-6550 TTY 612 291-090-f Scpicmbe: 15, 1993 ioi; UliLl..'I Mr. Ron Moorsc. City Admini.suaiur City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 -SE?. 2 0 1S93 RE;City of Orono Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 5 to 1980 Community Management Plan Metropolitan Council District No. 3 Metropolitan Council Referral Nc 15690-2 Dear Mr. Moorsc; The Metropolitan Coum -'^ n.- r .^s reviewed the city's plan amendment received by the Council on August 31, 1993. We hav'C determined that the proposed amendment is incomplete for Counci rcviCA^. __________ — Include information indicating that the city has adopted tnc Mciropoman v.uum.u ^ ....v ■ ■ ■ ■ ^,...>^~ ^ Nnnnnint Pollution to All .Metropolitan Water Bodie.s. The strategy requires loca ^ mprJhensive plan': land use controls and storm'w-^ plan to control the qua ity of ^ e revised statewide shoreland regulations. Adoption of these measures is required after January 1. 1993.-----CO the In order to correct the problem of completeness so that the Council can proceed with its review of the city must revise the amendment to incorporate policies that address the Interim Strategy (see attac language) and indicate its commitment to adopt revisions to its land use controls by a date ccruin. In addition, the Council cannot consider the land trade as proposed since the ^ Thc°Mctron^^^^ and docs not have urban service characteristics similar to those of the property to be Dcvolopn,cn. .nd Inv«,„,cn, Framework indicarea rha, larrd rrad- propoaais developable land with similar land use types and intensities as well as similar urban s mailer, please contact Victoria Rood, principal reviewer, at 291-6621. Sincerely,;r^, Kev^’ HoweKcv1 Vice Chair KH:vcf cc:Mary Smith, Mctropoliian Council District 3 Lynda Vogc. Mctropoliian Council Staff Victoria Rood, Meirupulitan Council Stall R#rvd»d PaOif interim strategy to reduce nonpoint source pollution TO ALL METKOPOLITAN ■WATER BODIES November 1, 1992 Frost^ SteVeir Schwanke metropolitan COUNCIL Mean p«k Ceotre, 23U East Fifth Street, St Paul, Mlateosta 5.101 PubUcation No. 640-92-03S c A' WATER QUALFTY INIPLENIENTA^ONST^TEGY cTippA^F WATER MANAGEMENT XONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION TO ALL METROPOLITAN WATERS Summar>’ of The Policy Issue^ A A § A 4 A •• • J ^ - ^ . „i T5r«f^-tirm Aeencv (EPA) and the Minnesota Pollution Control In 1990 the U.S. EnNaronmen reduce nonpoint source pollution in the Minnesota River by goal. To accomplish this 8°“l| ""I: ' water todies. While the Minnesota Riser 7^ --etraVt nnnno ot source pollutants trom emennt __________ ___ areas. • II •« th^ *tnnnc. Lake and take Pepin area, is severally impacted by The Mississippi River, ‘j’'^ t7d„al study is curtently being conducted to ideniify e.\ces5ive algal growth. A major in Howeve- it is known that nutrients, nitrogen and the causes of the excessive algal „g,l g-owth. Both the State of phosphorus, from whatever source ar p arcatt'mptine to get the MPCA to impose LcLsin and the If S aTe ‘4osed o the M-opoIhan P|^t .to co_u,^^^^^^^ fo“con.™? X°oto. source;°of °rZs ato have a more bencHcial impact on the river than by controlling point sources of phosphorus. To address Uie acute problems on the Minnesota Rwem. tLrgrnTp “cSel'’^af.Sum°pL^^^^^^^ Tern ^p"«pn^”c?o;"alt county area. A consistent and e,uiuble pcllcy is established to apply these strategies metro-wde. The Problern The Metropoliun Council has documented an ‘"ccc«= of bodies These added poUuunts reduce the recreational value and P j J;Sw..« todies. The increase of nonpoin. sour« pollu.anu or to two primary aoutces: land de-.elopment and agriculture ^ ^ oftoUutants urbanization, generafly increase bo* *e volume of dotation of in the ruoott This happens with *e conwn.on of The bat wetlands. Dcteaiion ponds or arttfictal depressions runoff following urbanization nor deigned ponds, however, wiU not reduce the increased volume of 5,cr-ase in runoff will thev totally remove the additional poUuunts following •irbamzatioa. An — ;;iu^e?.ouiThaphoru. and other polluur.u arc the raulu of urban datelopmenk « i"^U lid «li..».i=»i ddd iddbdndrr piddlitB .nd iho« dp id 1Jd« buic tonm: “ EnT^f h«/“SSrcS ffl ar« water bodies Lo.hering aquatic life, change the aquatic en^Vonment by liiidng lifht penetration of the water, and result in the transmission of totdns to area water bodies. The Twin Cities Metropolitan Area is fortunate to have an abundance of lakes and rivers. Tb«e ^ter bodies provide the area with recreational, aesthetje and educat.onal beneftts envied by other wr "of the United States. Prescrvau'on of these water bod,« and the associated wtidlife habitat n J major component of the CounciTs planning framewort Measur« to preserve and enhance he environment can be found in all of the Councils major system and policy plans. Policy 7 of the MDIF states that the Metropolitan Council; supports the maintenance of erMronmental quality throughout the region and will support programs or strategies to maintain or improve the natural environment (page 16). Reducing nonpoint source pollution to area water bodies has a number^ of positive outcom«. Lduced nonpoint source pollution has an overall positive effect on the environment, mproves the water quality in lakes, wetlands and floodplains and allows for flshable and swtmable water bodie-. Water resource management has historically focused on point sources such as wastewater treat.ment plants and industrial facilities. Efforts to reduce pollution from point sources has been Nonpoint source pollution abatement is Lhe next challenge that must be ad-ressed to ensure that water bodies in this metropolitan area arc protected. Existing Legislative and Policy Structure For Addressing the Nonpoint Source Pollution Problem The Minnesota Legislature Two pieces of legislation have been passed in the lait decade that set a framework for addressing the nonpoint source pollution issue. However, it will take several years to put this framework in place and wiU require local governments to extensively revise their surface water management plans ana • • •activmes. Watershed planning legislation In !982 legislation was passed recuiriog Watershed Management Organizations (WMO) to prepare w'atc.'shcd plans that addressed water quality issues. Under this legislation each \VMO is to prepare a pla.1 that states objectives and policies for water quality and identifies alternatives for irapro^g water quality and methods of implementation. These plans are to be reviewed by the hietropo itan Council "in the same manner and with the same authority and effect as provided review of the comprehensive plans of local government um'ts" (Minnesota Statutri, section . subd. 8 (1990)). The Council is required to determine whether the watc.'shed pian conforms witn ine management objectives and target pollution loads stated in the Council’s water roources p an prepared pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 473.157. Local gON'Crnmenl planning * ; As a part of the WMC planning process described under Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.201, each local gov-eminenl will be required .to prepare a local water management plan, capital improvement procram and official controls necessary to implement the watershed plan. As part of the local water management olan, the local government wll need to define water quantity and quality protection methods adequate to meet performance standards established in the watershed plan. Local governments will also be required to amend their local comprehensive plans to reflect the contents of the watershed plan. Local governments will have two years to amend their comprehensive plans from the time the WMO planning process is complete. Under rules currently proposed by the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR), WMOs have until 1995 to complete their plans. The earliest local governments are required to re^/ise their comprehensive plans is 1997. It could take several years bevond 1997 to implement local government plans. Tne second piece o.^ legislation is Mi.nnesota Statutes, section 473.157, that requires the Metropolitan Council to prepare a water resources plan that includes manage.mcnt objectives and target pollution loads for watersheds in the metropolitan area. From this plan WMOs will advise local governments of their target pollution loads. Local governments will revise their stormwater manage.ment plans to include implementation steps that assure the target pollution loads are meL The Metropolitan Council has set as a prioritv ’ developing the target pollution loads for watersheds tributary to the Minnesota River. Tnis is a priority because of the urgency to meet the EPA/MPCA reduction goal of 40 percent by 1996. Target poUution loads for Beve.ns, Can-er, Chaska and Sand C'eek watersheds will be developed by 1991 Pollution loads for other watersheds in the Minnesota River Basin will be developed by mid-1993. Tne Council wU also be actively pursuing the development of target pollution loads for all watersheds in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency In accordance with the Qean Water Act, Section 319, the MPCA is charged with developing a state­ wide strategy for addressing nonpoint pollution This plan is a four year plan developed in 1990 and is periodically updated as new info.'mation becomes available. This strategy both targets and prioritizes problem areas and develops a management plan for addressing these problem areas. Tne management plan looks at both a voluntary and a regulatory approach to addressing probic.ms. The Slate plan is also required to develop various approaches to fu.nding problem solutions from federal state and local sources. The Board of '^'ater and Soil Resources • mm mmmm ^ W • w ■ w aw* ____itlypassed Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, ________________—---------- act provides landowners with three options for preserving or enhancing wetlands: the wetland preservation areas option; the permanent wetland preserves option; and the wetland establishment and restoration program. If a land use practice requires the taking of a protected wetland the legislation requires a 1:1 and a 2:1 mitigation of wetlands in rural and urban areas respectively. Wetlands petfonn essential hydrologic and water quaiiry functions such as lowering of 11^ peaks. ^rnvi-Htna fntc-chanec bctwccn surface water and groundwater, and filtenng and absorb .g pollutants. Became of lh«c fuLtions. nv.-Hands are critical for reducing nonpoinl source pollution to area lakes and rivers.’ 'Die Metropolitan Council I, Seote-riber 1988 the Metropolitan Council adopted its Wster Resources Managemens Wasiewaier Treomem and Handling Policy Plan (hereafter the policy plan). Local governme.nts were not lied of the poUcy plan contents in the April. 1989 systems statement and pursuant W the Metropohtan lind P^anSng Act. had nine months to amend their comprehensive plans, -nie need to reduce wnpoint soufee pollution, to especially the Minnesota lUver Basin, through regulating land development is well documented in the Council's policy plan. Howeven because of the potential that nonpoint pollution may impact MWCC wastewater treatment plants efflueni limits m *c future tte CouL'l adopted Policy 1-1 of the Council's Wasiewaier Treaor.eni and handling Policy Plan which states: mireatmenl levels required fer wastewater treatment plants in the metropolitan sjstem she .Id dearly recognize the need to control both point and nonpoint sources of pollution from with:*.; and outside the Metropolitan Area (p. 9). Tne Council has actively pursued the imple.mentation of its policy to reduce rxnpoint source pollution to area water bodies. The Council’s policy plan outlines the rcsponsioihtics for i.T.plexenting policy 1*1. These include, but arc not limited to. 1. working with watemhed management organizations (WMOs) and the MPCA on monitoring and managing nonpoint source pollution programs; and, 2. evaluating the efforts of WMOs and local gove.'^ents to control nonpoint source pollution and their impact on river water quality and effects on treatment plant effluent limits, (p. 10) The Council has also used its authority under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act of 19/6 to tc'Acm and comment on comprehensive plan amendments and e.nv’’ronmentaI reviews to implement its policy on reducing nonpoint source pollution. These commenu have generally focused on me need to reduce nonpoint source pollution and the possible tools that m.ay be used to accomplish this tas * In addition to policy 1-1 of the Council’s Water Resources Managemeni Plan, Part 1, the Council has two other policies addressing the environmental cffeca of nonpoint source poUution and water quality. The Council’s Water Resources Managemens Plan, Part 3 states in policy 3-4 that: The Coundl. through its numerous rei.new and approval authorities, will preser.e aU protected and unprotected natural watercourses — including associated wetlands, channel, Coodp ains and shorelands - to enhance water quantity and quality and to preserve their ^logic functions (page 3-26); . \ ' 5 Poller/ 3-6 of the same policy plan states: • m ^ m • • » • .» f ! • ** * Counci in conduc.nc "t“‘‘h:rt;4"'Th\^Snrcf-He wa.. and r=la.cd rcaoarcc W„ bn nc,aUvc,, revic'A'cd (page 3-30). Proposed Intenifl Slrsxtcgy aod 3-6 of the Council's n'n/er Resources Management Plan, P „.^rkin? with WTvfOs and local governments through the planning Tne Council IS Stafutes section 103B.201. The Council also recognizes us process outlmed m i * " . watc- resources plan that includes management objectives and responsfDility to prepare adopt area pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section target pollution loa or^ Council had to prioritize its work schedule. Since the 40.157. as havi^ an acute problem with nonpoint source pollution this. ...157. In order with nonpoint source pollution this 2 sstropolit2n wide bnsis. It will tahe -«:4l yean ^^r ^tlfbe the above re.eac..c- p . .u- aHve«e imoac*.s of nonpoint source pollution on are wnter bodies. As par. of g'-cve;;me;'ts'vSt need to amend S^u«n ”ea^'i2« that implementation is an important issue for local government and for the long- term cfTectivencss of any effort to reduce nonpomt source poUuuon. Tris interim strategy is a minimum Utat the Counefl wiU accept as part of any l°«> uXSlincsota Statu.L, section 103B.201 and 473.157 in order to meet water quahty goals. 1.Local fovenunents throughout Ute metropolitan area must new stormwater ponds that wiU reduce the contaminant loadings tom runofL One set of design critena that is wde j,TJRP designed Runoff Program (NURP). Appendix A is atuched and pond performance standards. These criteria, or sum ar speci even local equally effective, should be incorporated in the P,. ^ jj^dircct govermnent in the metropoUun area. At the present time, tins policy docs nwt oir the retrofitting of existing stormwater ponds. - 2. 5. 7. S. 9. A / I-ocal governments in the mctrop^tan area mmt also include in their stormwater . • plans the MPCA’s urb^" mai(ft|><»ni<-fif-pr,Wr;< »titled Protecting fVai r Quality bi Urban Area^cTan equwJent set of_^tallda^ds^^TheJe. standards are to be uicd for all new or redcTJToped lano development These local governments must also notify their residents of ways to implement T>csl management practices* and available resources, if additional information is needed. All local governments in the metropolitan area must adopt the Department of Natural Resource shoreland regulations as found in the Statewide Standards For Management . Of Shoreland Areas as prescribed by the timeline in (Minnesota Regulations Parts 6120.2500 - 6120J900) and consistent with the DNR’s implementation strategy. Local governments should work with the DNR to determine the most effective way to imple.ment the DNR’s shoreland regulations. All local govc.mmenis :n the metropolitan area must adopt as part of their comprehensive plans and official controls the measures described in items 1 and 2 by January 1, 1993. Each local government should notify the affected Watershed Management Organisations of its intentions to comply with tte.ms 1 and 2. After January 1, 1993, the Council may require modification of plan amendments that involve land use activities that would generate surface water runoff, unless the local government has adopted the interim measures de-cribed in items 1 through 3. Tnc Council will not require a plan modification regarding nonpoint source pollution if a local government has adopted NURP standards and MPCA’s "Tjest manage.ment practices" by January 1, 1993 and is following the DNR’s shoreland regulation implementation strategy. 6. The Metropolitan Council will continue to develop target pollution loads for all . watersheds in the Twin Ciues Metropolitan Area. The Association of MetropoUtan Municipah’ties will advise its member cities of the urgent need to implement runoff and land management practices that improve the quality of direct and indirect runoff discharges to area water bodies. The Metropolitan Council and the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities will work with State of Minnesota agencies to reduce nonpoint source pollution to area water bodies in Greater Minnesota. The Metropolitan Council and the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities will monitor the effectiveness of the above-mentioned interim steps to address the nonpoint source pollution problem in the metropolitan area. . To: . From: Date: Subject: Ron Moorse. City Administrator Michael P. Gaftron. Assisunt Planning & Zoning Administrator October 4, 1993 MUSA Amendmeni/Interim Strategy r /-r^nnril ronsideration. This resolution declares to Met Attached is a Oie 'Interim Strategy to Reduce Non-point Source CouncU that Orono intends to comply wim^ Pollution to all Metropolitan Water Bodies . The resolution:______________________—--------------------- amendment. 3 Indicates the City wUl implement the necessary code changes no later than 4.ci:min.r,-s the MUSA acreage trade-off. Staff has discussed this with December 1994. the application will be »“ Llicated they would compliance with MCWD storm water plan compliance. ^cresting to note is that the MCTO has adop^ BNO>s h^ Sctr^^cy S"e standards (but indicates they "P'''“ “ g^s md that using NURP standards for been reviewing Orono projects in the context of the BMns j i„,. storm water ponds would be only a nunor change from a oesi. Our discussions with Met CouncU suff tad me “ r^*^ou!^t' oftawfy ordinance language to implement **to apply sLrm water standards, in regard to the magnitude of projects to which we want to app y If CouncU wishes to proceed wiUi this resolution, please mdicate your ^ certain for NURP/BMP implementation. Isv - mi. e \ CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OE THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3^5 /*'/<a pSmmON TO ALL METROPOLITAN WATER BODIES" \VHFREAS the City of Orono has made application to Metropoliun Council for an an-.endntentTo™Sa^; of L Metropolitan Urban Service Area; and WHEREAS. Smtegy'o iLduce'hfonp'oini Source Pollution to All Metropolitan Water Bodies"; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono intends to comply with the "Interim Strategy". Minnesota: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Orono, I. 3. apply National Urban Runoff Program (NXmP) standards ^ ^ j retention facilities required of residential development projects, and will apply Best Management Pr alteration projects. _________________________________ The City Council hereby directs City staff to make Comprehensive Plan Amendment application to ge which wUl include the above noted additions as well as the previously proposed MUSA boundary ame The City Council hereby indicates that the City will ^ NURP standards and Best Management ® subdivision code amendments no later than N ay , Page 1 of 2 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL !8 8 C 5NO. 4.The City Council hereby directs City staff to further amend the previous Comprehensive Plan Amendment request by eliminating the proposed MUSA acreage trade-off that would have resulted in Noerenberg Park land being extracted from the MUSA. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota this 11th day of October, 1993. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, Deputy City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ' ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this October. 1993, by Edward J. Callahan. Jr. & Linda S. Vee. N'.ayor & Deputy City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Miimcsota municipal corporation and said instrument was execute on c - of the City. CCMJCSCN Notary Public Page 2 of 2 ttW/=. _, . ___________________ COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT PLAN • « f • • • •C .*.• ^***»—*•—-»• • _*-•.« . J w ^-»*i.** * *‘* A ' - ^ _ * - •* L^j‘21-f;iJi’’PART II ••r-- -A, ^ • - «« V* i^iTjUiT-^------ i/‘* • ‘ * - *• • t‘- * *.: '." r . r' ‘ J . V:-- CHAPTER 3 •* ..» • •t«^.. ■ f,. 2-il ; 2-?r£: - *v : V- - > • .' •• '» - •• J"^ *v * «» -»* <• '* • • • • ••• ’. . . -^ • • V«• EN VIRONMFMTAI' P ROTFa I ON' PI AM • ' -•.* rr*^ ^ • ■ . •. • • 5 :'>:•■>:• v*-.-> •■ .■■• * • . :.4' r--‘ T.;~T THE NATURAL setting '. ‘ ^ ■** ’"* ’•'.’* ’ '■ . ■ • • ' • /* LAKE MINNETONKA OTHER LAKES IN ORONO WETLANDS AND MARSHLAND • LAND FORMS AND VEGETATION ‘ MAP 4 WETLANDS DRAINAGEWAYS AND FLOODPLAINS MAP 5 WOODLANDS shoreland floodplain and storm water considerations SHORELINE SENSITIVITY FLOOD PROTECTION STORM WATER RUNOFF POLLUTION POTENTIAL « « nt. -3-1 3-3 3-4 3-6 3-7 3-8 3-9 3-10 3-10 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMITMENT environmental PROTECTION GOALS 3-18 GENERAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT POLICIES URBAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT POLICIES RURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT POLICIES HP 3-22 3-23 • • •- 0, • • r • ^ ,w . . • •.. A* • -T ••• • A. ^ ! ;VV ,-/• ' ' ■ ' .v^ ' ,..•*. t f : ::p^lVTRQNMENt.' , r.:‘.» » •^^0* «• •• * 7*** V ’•• •• - *■•:, ■:••.. • • ••■,-. * -.; ■.• . ' • . . . . ..A. • —V***. V^ 'vT*- vr - - *• * %**JUNeT 1980 . « . “ • t; ^ •: 'V . . *. i— V« • V-»*'• ■* ^'* ' '* ’ * • ’ ••* % - .» ,»w '*J • ■ «..»•• • —,.»•• ^ k-*r ••■ • • ■. • * •* « *' • ' *j . • . -< -T -I.'.-' - ••■. • T .;. *.-A - '.v.vV-: - .T » ■• • -. . . . • ^c^coar'pnrtrTF^ FOB N^ii;AI r'eSOURCE'HANAGEMENT - . “ • k •• ••• t' * . ^ -•» M • • •- • - •• 2. 3. 4. 5. 1 nnnMn WILL PROMOTE THE FORMULATIONACTIVE USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION POLICIES BY OTHER LAKE MINNETONKA AREA MUNICIPALITIES AND RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES. Even though Orono plays a key role In the protection of Lake Minnetonka, permanent preservation of the quality of Lake Minnetonka is impossible without coordinated policies and without active implementation of proven protective • measures. Environmental enforcement may be difficult in the face of development pressures, but without commitment and sacrifice, a nibbling effect will surely place the gv.al beyond reach and beyond recovery. * I* t ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION POLICIES WILL BE UTILIZED IN THE FORMATION OF ALL OTHER GOALS AND POLICIES IN THIS CMP. Orono' s commitn^.nt to environmental quality is carried throughout each element in *^his comprehensive plan, coloring the goala, policies and implementation practices in every facet of municipal responsibility. development DENSITY WILL BE LIMITED TO A LEVEL VTHlCH WILL NOT OVERLOAD comparison between known levels of volume and pollution gener known marshland capacity for ponding and nutrient assimilation. Of pondln. In . wetland, the more nutrient, are ...inllated and the i, .ettled. The transfer of storm water runoff from <='>® to another or recycling water through the same marsh, wi and encouraged as a practical method for increasing t ® “ extended water retention before runoff enters, the Lake. The res retention will be improved lake water quality. or natural drainageways and not directly into ^ ® where satisfactory systems will not be considered for new developm natural drainage systems already exist. • • s» ( ! . . ■ -V ' - • • n A. • e. ,• CMP 3-19 -‘•Sf .r ‘.* i m •• •>* .. .' •• • ‘ '•. - • • — j^ -r * • Y- •* . •4 a/'?.--- ••m • V . • FNVTRnNMgNT • * .• •JUNE, 1980 T • -* 6. 7. 8. 3. »* . ^ ; •• » • V.- • ■ - ... : ./ *■# • .-■ • • ■ . • • .a*'. • ■ / - > THE WETLANDS AND MARSHLANDS OF THE CITY WILL BE PROTECTED AND PRESERVED AS WILDLIFE HABITATS, AS UNIOUE OPEN SPACES, AND AS THE ONLY ECONOMICALLY PRACTICAL METHOD OF FLOOD PROTECTION AND STORM WATER RUNOFF FILTRATION. The Harza Study, the 208 Water Quality Management Study, and Orono's Surface Water Management Plan all recommend this approach to permanent water quality management for Lake Minnetonka. In addition, the Orono Plan goes on to identify individual wetlands and marshlands that require protection as part of the City's storm water management program. It is the policy of this plan to effectuate the policies and recommen­ dations of the 1974 Orono Surface Water Management Plan. PROTECTION OF THE CITY'S MARSHLAND, WETLANDS AND DRAINAGii.WA/S SHALL INCLUDE PROTECTION OF ADJOINING LANDS AND PREVENTION OF DRAINAGE, FILLING, DREDGING OR WETLAND'S VEGETATION REMOVAI,. Ordinances will establish setbacks for all land alteration or construction. Wherever possible, the City will acquire open space and flowage easements for conservation of those lands. PROTECTION OF LAKl RESOURCES WILL ALLOW REASONABLE ACCESS, USE AND ENJOYMENT WHILE PREVENTING OVERCROWDING AND EXCESSIVE ENCROACHMENT. In conformance with Mn. DNR Shoreline Management regulations for recreational development lakes, the City will prohibit overly dense development within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Lake use regulations will be promoted to limit excessive boat density and overuse of sensitive bays. Land use regulations will be developed to provide reasonable control over building density, land alteration and lakeshore encroachment. LAKE SHORELINES WILL BE PROTECTED FROM ALTERATION. Natural vegetation in shoreland areas will be preserved Insofar as practical and reasonable in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clearcutting will be prohibited. In areas of soi or wave action erosion, natural atone rip rap shoreline protection w be encouraged. 10. LAKE BED ALTERATIONS WILL BE DISCOURAGED BECAUSE OF ADVERSE SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM EFFECTS ON WATER QUALITY. Dredging of lake beds releases large amounts of otherwise trapped nutrients and silt which adverse y affects water quality for long periods of time. Dredging of new channels or inlets will not be approved to provide riparian . where none existed naturally. Dredging will be permitted in lin • circumstances only where absolutely necessary to maintain exist ng » natural riparian access permanently lost by something beyond t e control of the landowner. Periodic low water conditions or the ow desire for deeper draft watercraft are not sufficient reasons disrupting sensitive lake bade.*'.' i • • •J e I t • » if t •» • •• • • r* ^ s » 4 ■'.A; V'.:,: • -,1“ . CMP ''3-20*'* % r'' 4,-I r «■ d k ■ '” r-- * / • #• ♦ * • FNVIRQNMENI JUriE, 1980 - ♦# „ nTo^poaTTON OF FLOODPLAINS WILL BE RESTRICTED. Most 11. tified floodplains are located along the shoreline of the City ® . marshlands and will be protected by other pro- or within design <-hose areas. In addition, where floodplains visions applicae buildable land, construction, filling or do exist on oth .^-ictlv controlled so as to avoid flow restrictions, t“““!d°?i:od\eeen;c«L.s on Cher propertied, end to eeoid costly flood damage or pollution dangers __ __ Txn/trcT’TrATION WILL BE REQUIRED AS PART OF ALL 12. NATURAL RESOURCE 1^ wil"' include topographical information, development proposals. = plLL erosion control soil datl related to each project, whether public The extent of each such review will be determined by in direct proportion. .. reauired to provide on-site retention facilities sufiici -educina ::r.x!.tln/situation or to improve the resulting quantity, raducing speed and/or improving quali y. ritv by ' 2^ pernic.d t , adversely impact it's "'i’hbors, or the City, by changing drain.'ge patterns or by otherwls. adversely affecting ___ water drainage. 4*^02.^^ ^land use and devi Ilopment will not be permitted at the expens ^ ENVIRONMENTAL t^ROTECTION. No land will be proposed or built upon which is held unsuitable by the City for use because of flood hazard, inadequate drainage, cotential, with severe limitations for development, severe ^ disposal unfavorable topography, inadequate water supply health, capabilities, or any other feature likely to be ha , subdivision safety, or welfare of the future residents of the p ^ affect or of the community. No land use will be allowe permitted the neighborh<“od' 8 air or water resources nor will V to emit noise, dust, electrical or radiation pollution. . . •m, • %•* t CMP 3-21 .--'1 ■ ' / • * / *• * ■ ». * k , . m. • V.•V ; .•.t . V* wJ. ♦, '.4* —• • • •.* *. . . . -V -NVT RONMENTAL V;- !JUNE, 1980 n 't*' .• •• : • # V • • ..• • . % V i-. / ‘ /. I IT EROSION CONTROL PLANS AND PROGRAMS WILL BE ^QUIRED IN ML for as short a time as possible. Temporary ground cover will bo required until permanent cover is provided. Seoiment traps will be required on slopes and between construction sites and public roadways. Fill must be compacted and stabilized for permanence. iTBr^ URBAN AREA POLI^TF!^ FOR NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT. « • • storage. RETENTION OF NATURAL VEGETATION WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBANIZATION AS VISIBLE FROM THE LAKE. Building heights will be limited to less than the typical tree height. Minimum green belts will be provided with prohibitions against clearcutting or excessive thinning of vegetation. Natural vegetation will be preserved on slopes. Retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary o erosion, in which case they will be screened with natural vegetatio . DIRECT RUNOFF INTO THE LAKE WILL BE MINIMIZED. Standards will ‘ established and maintained to limit the amount of imperv ous ar in proportion to closeness of the shoreline. Maximum hardcover w be limited to 30% of each parcel within 1,000 feet of the shore ne pursuant to Hn. DNR recommended shoreline practices. ALL EXISTING URBAN WETLANDS WILL BE MATvtaINED AND PROTECTED SURFACE WATER RETENTION AND FILTRATION. The existing urban exceeds the capacity of the urban marshes to assimilate al nu ^ therefore additional pollution hazards would be created if any would be lost. Additional steps to improve nutrient assimi a on Include on-site retention on all new developments and storm wa er recycling through the existing marshes. I I I I 1 I I 1 i m m M % CITY MAINTENANCE PRACTICES WILL BE DESIGNED TO IMPROVE ’ QUALITY. Salt use for winter street treatment will be min m _,*they • Snow removal practices will locate temporary storage sites w e • will not overload the natural drainage system or whore . -L • • especially salt , will not directly enter a marsh or * ^ n„,ntal , y. cleanup will promptly remove road sands and salts before damage occurs. —ei». . . w- - '•i. V s a* e ** • • 9 V# • * * >•» •* •J . • # • 0 • - .• vt a! A --S.v .. ^ », i- • CMP 3-22 a *• • • ■ T r* *•*' ' ,—.-rr ■ • \r'-ti't'. r.-.-: : . - -• .- ..V .r:tv.- •^-i - • • .-.;-r:^-: • . ..............-'-/ ;■ ■;•■•'■ ■*■'■ ■ v . • --f . ■' • . ' 6/ - A SIGNIFICANT .AMOUNT OF NATURAL ' WOODLANDS AND OPEN SPACE WILL '.BE ■ * * RETAINED ON EACH PROPERTY. ‘ Retention of the natural environment " requires careful siting and preservation of trees and open space on each urban property. 7.ALL DEVELOPMENTS WILL BE DESIGNED TO ASSURE PROTECTION OF LIGHT, AIR, AND SOLAR ACCESS FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. Requirements for minimum lot size, amounts of open space, minimum yard setbacks, and maximum building heights will be designed to assure protection of these values for all urban residents. RURAL ARFA POLTCIFS FOR NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 1. LAND USE STANDARDS WILL LIMIT THE POLLUTION LOADING OF RURAL MARSHES AND DRAINAGEWAYS. Rural densities will be low enough to ensure permanent reliance upon satisfactory on-site sewer and water systems and to ensure that rates of phosphorus and nitrogen generation will not adversely affect the water quality in the natural drainage system. 2. RURAL LAND USE DENSITIES WILL ALLOW MAXIMUM ^TENTION OF PRIVATE WOODS AND OPEN SPACE. Low rural densities will accommodate homesites without affecting the traditional vistas of open fields and woods. The retention of these woodlands and marshlands will then assure permanent habitat for our abundant wildlife. '3. RURAL WETLANDS AND MARSHLAND WILL BE MAINTAINED AND PROTECTED FOR _ V-* -'-'surface water RETENTION AND FILTRATION."-'As total watershed population Increases, even at our relatively low rural densities, the vo ume of runoff increases as does the nutrient input. Upland marshes and wetlands will be required for flood control water retention and for maximum nutrient assimilative capacity. ♦ 4. THE CITY WILL PROMOTE FARMING PRACTICES DESIGNED TO CONSERVE THE SOIL AND GROUND WATER. Where farming occurs in the rural areas, e use of innovative tilling methods, land banking, crop rotation ana wind breaks are encouraged to protect the native soil from eros on and deterioration. Animal sanitation methods will be en orce assure minimal pollution of drainageways or ground waters. • • • •• a . • • • # - ^ ‘ « .' ft^* ■C.• • —• #* '»• ■ e* -i»* •* ' • 4- g , ^ * •. • a • ^ C *'*.1 r: * r' • -• 4 • • I * - - •rr»- •» • % • ■! - • i - ' /r; 4 e « 9m • * h» - « ^ ^. . ••. .r ♦ . ♦ ' • i • • • • t »•. • 1 •~ 9^ • • o.* '* • . • i / V • r • «. '1^ •* . * / . .. “ *** "T- • *m 9 * .i * « .* 1 ... .*r. 7 • •.*. aa • * •' • ^4 rri.':y - r .- ■ ^ •• • - ’'-L.*.-" • • • • • ^ : • X V ■' ■ ■ 5':- Lr-f TO; FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator CZ/yX i Octobor 22, 1993 Oz:' SUBJECT: LMCD Resolution Attached is a resolution prepared by Mayor Callahan regarding the dissolution of the LMCD. Mayor Callahan will provide a letter of transmittal to be provided to the LMCD member cities along with the resolution. ^1 RESOLUTION CONCERNING LMCD BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to the authority of MSA 103.B605-Subdivision 4, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District be dissolved effective January 1, 1994, or as soon thereafter as the required number of member cities has voted for dissolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Orono join with the member cities to determine whether through a Joint Powers Agreement or other cooperative effort, a regulatory body needs to be created to perform any of the functions of the District, and if so, to join in forming such a body. This resolution was approved the 25th day of October, 1993, by a vote of _ _ in favor and _ _ opposed by the Orono City Council. Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk 9 TO; FROM: DATE: Ron Moorse, City Administrator John Gerhardson, Public Works Director October 18, 1993 % SUBJECT: Pay Request ttl Stubbs Bay Sewer Project X/* Attached for review and approval is Pay Request HI to PCI for work completed on the Stubbs Bay Sewer Project. The work has been completed and I recommend payment. Bonestroo Rosene Anderllk & Associates Engineers & Architects Cno G Bonestfoo Pf 9ooen W 9o\erte pf • C Afvj^n,k Pf L Vorvji<» PE P<rar3 f Vry*' PE P Coo« P€ TrvDmai f ^loy^t PE Pooen G jthun<^t PE Sown M EDenm C PA •Spno# Consuifjnc A S^nAxd PE A Ciofdon Pf 9cterx ft PflpPIpry Pf ‘JU Fr>sf»^ PE D^k 3 O LOUCtJ PE Poceft C Puwe« A i a Jp^ry A Boufdoo PE A Mjrion PF Vicnjr T P^.Twnn Pf Tfd K PE JhQm^\ ff Aryjenon A 1 A Don^U C Buf^dfcJl PE Thorwt E Angui PB ivn^ M^rtiOf/ PE ^^c^aA^ P Rju PE a 1 C P Phjio J Pyne PE Thomji W -fmon Pf M<n>e< C L>»xn PE jj'ne*, VjorxJ P£ O Pfrmcn PE Scc3fT J Argaopk PE P Ar»0^r%on Pf P.*4?fc R PE A S«^ PE Ga^ PE D.irvei J EJge^on PE A R<t ScnmuJi PE PnaiQ J Caiw«f PE Mark D a'ari'S PE M sei 9 PE L Ph<i<o Gravel PE Farpn L A efnpfi PE Gary D PE F Fester »>E vih R 'T.ioo PE Ooix^as J Benoa PE V%»vvn D Guya^on PE Croio O-ver PE Paw G Heue» PE Jot>n P Gortser PE Charles A E'rkson Leo M Pauvr-sky Nanan M O von Jarr^S F Er^^e^'artH October 11. 1993 City of Orono 1335 Brown Road Crystal Bay, MN 55232 Re:Stubbs Bav Sanitary Sewer Improvements File No. 13937 Attn: John Gerhardson Public Works Director Dear John: Transmitted herewith are three (3) copies of Request for Payment No. 7 for the above mentioned project. Tlie amount of work shosvn has been satisfactorily completed and we recommend partial payment in the amount of $138,006.14 at this time. Upon review and approval by the City, we suggest distribution as follows: 1 - City of Orono 1 - Progressive Contractors, Inc. with payment 1 - Bonestroo, Ann: Harlan Olson Should you have any questions regarding this project, please feel tree to call. Yours very truly. B(/NESTR00( ROSENF. ANDERI IK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Harlan M. Ol.son llMOpahienc l.t937.(X)R 233S \U9W Hiohwav 36 • St. Paul. MIM S51t3 • 612-636-4600 l/]l BontfCroo Mos«n« Anderilk 4 Assoc Utes Owner City of Orono, l.'I.V'i Hrown Road, Crystal Hay, MN 552.^2 Dale October 7, l*or Period June 14, |W3 lo October 7, 19^3 Kcquest N<i. 7 (Protractor Progre.ssive Contractors, Inc., 87.1b Zachary Lane, Osso, MN 55.W) RliOUliST I*()R PAYMliNT Stubhs Hay Sanitary Sewer linprovenienUs l-ile No. imi SUMMARY 1 Original ('ontract Amount 2 C'liangc Order • Addition ? Change Order - Deduction 4 Revised ('ontract Anmunt 5 Value ('ompleled to Dale b Material on I land 7 /\mount l-arned H Less Retainagc 5% 9 Sub-1,>tal 10 Less Amount Paid Previously 11 AMOUNT Dun nils Ri-oui:s”r ior paymln i no . $ $ 4.1.9 ‘)|.()0 Recommended lor Approval by: HONILS'ITKX), ROSIiNli, ANDLRLIK A ASSCX-'IAIliS, INC. Approved by C'ontractor: i*r (k;rp :ssivi « (X)Nriu\t:u)RS. inc . Ajipioved by Owner: ('ri'Y Ob' ORONO. MN Specified Contract I'omplelion Date: OiTom R \5, IW2; July .^I. IW3 Date: $l,480,.L1l.95 $l,524J23.55 $1,.142,007.17 s 0.00 s 1..142,007 17 $67,l.10..16 $l,27.'i ,470.81 s 1,1.17,470.07 s 1.18,001). 14 IJ917 RFF Item Unit CoaUad (>HDtjly Unit Piicc Ouaoiily To Dale Amnuol To Dale MASI' HID • Stubhs H.iv Nortliwcsl. Slul>l)s Hay Nofllic:tst. aiiiJ Ha>'sid<; Hasl 3 4 5 6 7 K 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 v> 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Pari A • Saiiilarv Sewer 8" PVC. SOU 35. 0'-8’ deep in plate 8" l'V(\ SDK 35. 8’. 10’ Jeep lu plate 8" PV(’. SDJ3 35. 10’-12’ deep in place 8" PVC. SDK 35. 12 ’-14 ’ deep in plate 8- PVr. SDK 35. 14 ’-16 ’ deep in plate 8“ PVC. SDK 26. 8’-I0’ deep in pl.ite 8" PVC. SDK 26. 10 -12’ deep in pl.ite 8" PVC. SDK 26. 12'. 14 ’ deep in pl.icc 8" PVC. SDK 26. 14 ’-16 ’ deep in place 8* PVC. SDK 26. I6 ’-I8’ deep in pl.ite 8" PVC. SDR 26. I8’-20 ’ deep in pl.ite 8" PVC. SDK 26. 20 ’-22 ’ deep in pl.ite 8" DIP. 8’-10’ deep in piricc 8" DIP. I0’-I2 ’ deep III plate 8* DIP, 12 ’-14 ’ deep in plate 10" PVC'. SDK 35. 0’-8’ deep in plate 10“ PVC'. SDK 35. 8'-1 O’ deep in place 10“ PVC'. SDK 35. 10’-12’ deep in place 10" PVC:. SDR .35. 12 ’-14 ’ deep in place 10* PVC. SDR 35. 14 ’-16 ’ deep in plate 10" PVC. SDR 26. 12 -14 ’ deep in pl.ite 10" PVC'. SDK 26. 14 ’-16 ’ deep in place 10* PVC'. SDK 26, 16 ’-18’ deep in place 10* PVC'. SDK 26. l8’-20 ’ deep in pl.ite 10" DIP. 14 ’-16 ’ deep in plate Std. Ml I 8’ dp.. 4 ’ dia,. W/RI642U cslg. Mil dcpili greater than 8* deep 8* DIP. oulsiide drop 6" PVC'. SDK 21. force maui J.'K.'k or auger 6" PVC. SDR 21 force in.iin 4" PVC'. SDR 21. forte iiiaui Au leka^c manliole Rock slalnU/ation D9J7.R1 !■ LI-615 14.00 755 10.570.00 LI-1.775 14.00 1.806 25.284.00 LI-I.I75 15.00 1.014 L5.210.00 U’225 16.00 180 2.880.00 U-230 17.50 347 6.072.50 LI-55 L5.00 1.1-IIS I6.1H)118 I.S8S.00 u-355 17.00 182 3.094.00 LI-300 I8..50 734 13.579.00 LF 310 20.00 122 2.440.00 IF 315 23.00 2.50 5.7.50.00 LI-115 27.00 U)9 4.563.00 120 22.00 1 F 30 2.UH)162 3.726.00 LI'35 24.00 20.5 492.00 LI-415 I5..50 415 6.432..50 LF 130 L5..50 25 387.50 U-105 16.50 171 2.82L50 LF 340 18.00 277 4.986.00 LF 135 19..50 49 955.50 LI’245 19.00 421 7.999.00 LI-440 20.50 453 9186..50 LI-405 23.tK)300 6.‘)O0.00 1.1'40 27.00 35 945.00 LF 30 31..50 30 945.00 lA 36 1 J50.00 36 48.600.00 LI-I4(’W.fK)152.2 13.693.00 IJ'25 250.00 19.2 4.800.00 U-900 11.00 933 10.263.00 U'60 1.30.00 105 13.650.00 IJ'2.800 10.00 2.675 26.750.00 LA 1 2.000.00 1 2.00000 ITS 500 11.10 331.12 3.675.43 RP-I A Item 34 Coiiucct 6" PV'C into existing manhole 35 8*'x4“ PVC service wvc braucli 36 4** PVC service pipe iu place 37 4** PVC service riser pipe iu place 38 Improved pipe fdn. in 6” iucrcuienl depth 39 Mechanical trench compactuui 40 Detour per detail 41 Insulation 42 Sanitary sewer television in.s|)ecliou 43 Access manhole (Addendum 2) 1 ’otal P.irt A - Sanitary Sewer Part H - Kestoratioii 44 Uiiuntinous surfacing removal 45 (\Hiimoti excavation 46 C'L 5 aggregate h.cse (100% crushed) 47 C'L 2. aggregate shouldering 48 l ypc 31 bituminous base course 49 Ty|H.‘ 41 bituminous tiinder course 50 Tv|>e 41 bituminous wearing course 51 A(%1 bituminous material for mix 52 Uitumiuous material for tack coal 53 nituminous material for seal coat 54 I*'A-3 seal a>at aggregate (C'l. A) in pi. 55 Uilumuious material for patehiiig 56 12" RCT. 3 in place 57 18" RCl\('lass 3 III place 58 24" R(T. ('lass 3 in place 59 36" RC'P, ('lass 3 in plate 60 12** RC'P flared end lu place 61 18" RCP flared end in place 62 24" RCP Hared cud w trash guard iu pL 63 36" RC'P Hared eou w/tr.ub guard in pi. 64 Mechanical trench coaipactkm 65 luipr. pi|)c fdu. IU 6" ititremenl depth 66 Remove cxistuig ('MP culvert Unit (AWUilCt Ouaatily Unit I*ncB Quantity ‘I'u Date Amounl To Dale lu\I 400.00 1 400.00 ru\85 60.00 84 5.040.00 LI-2.100 11..50 1.950 22.425.00 u-lOU II..50 78 897.00 Ll-24.000 1.40 20.115 28.161.00 u-14.875 1.00 I3..59.3.5 13..593.50 I 6.000.00 1 6.000.00 SY 500 20.00 U-8.075 0.(>0 7.985 4.791.00 1:A 1 1J> 00.00 1 ITOO.IMl . S343.450.93 SY 11.000 1.75 10.000 172500.00 CY 6.000 3.70 5.800 21.460.00 TN 7.800 8.50 6.579.92 55.'729.32 IN 400 12..50 806.11 |(_).U76.38 IN 1.400 14 .50 1.40*7.53 20.438.19 IN 450 15.00 588.25 8.811.75 TN 1.000 16.00 1J21.38 19.54108 TN 167 120.00 171.9 20.628.U0 (il.I.2UI 1.30 600 780.00 (JL 1.400 3.00 1.800 5.400.00 IN 70 .50.00 90 4.5UO.UU SY 1.000 22.00 792.44 17.433.68 U'150 17..50 518 9.065.00 LI-75 20..50 U'50 25.W I.F 40 48.45 lv\10 36.5.00 l-A 4 410.00 lv\■>«•1.005.00 n.\1.660.00 ij-315 1.00 Ll-300 2.00 LF 315 3.00 260 780.00 IJ937 RlP RP-2 Item 67 Filler blaiikcl in place 68 Kiprap, ('L III in place 69 Tree removal 70 Sod with 4" topsoil 71 Seed w/to|isoil, tnulcli <fc fertilizer 72 lErosioii control fence 73 Wood fiber blanket 74 ruriiisb and plant IZver^reen tree (ittue Spruce) 6* high 75 I'urnisb and plant shade tree (Sugar Maple) 4* diameter 76 Keniove & repl. wood or chain link fence 77 Remove &. traiispLtnt bushes 78 Remove & transplant tree - Dcsiduous 79 Remove A: transplant tree • C«uiifer(ms 80 (ieolexlile fabric (Addendum 2) Total Part H - Restoration Part » Lift Station #1 • West Lake Si. 81 I.if: Station No. I Total Part C • Uft Sta. #1 - W Lake St. ^^urt 1) • Lilt Station #2 • Tonka Avenue tr I at .Siatioii No. 2 Total Part [) - Uft Sta. # 2 - I ouka Av ‘Total Part A - Sanitary Sewer Total Part H • Restoration Total Part t' • US. #1 - West I-ake St. Total Part D • US. #2 • Touka Aveuue TOU\L WAS I* UID Ain-RNAH- NO. I • m f)l RWfXfn Fart A - Sanitary Sewv r 83 8- rVC. SDR 35. 0’ 8* deep in pbicx: 84 8* PVr. SDR .35. 8 -10* deep in place i »9l7 HI I* Uoil (^D tract Ouanlily Unit Prioc Ouanlily '1*0 Dale Amount 'lo Oaic SY 200 2.50 SY 200 45.00 UA 175 115.00 151 18.875.00 SY I4.(K)0 2.00 5.975 11.950.00 AC 4 800.00 1.5 1.200.00 LI'4.500 2.00 815 1.650.00 SY U500 1.10 1.240 U3f4.00 l-A 6 350.00 liA 6 350.00 LI'6(X)10.00 liA 12 50.00 RA 12 100.00 l-/\12 100.00 SY 15.000 I..50 15.915 ___23J$7151L_. US US LF IJ- RP-.3 625 4US 60.400.00 95% 50.350.00 95% 13.00 13.00 237 476 $271,267.89 57 tXt) tut S57J80.00 47 X37 50 $47..S32..50 343.4.50.93 27U67.89 57J80 00 „J7dL12.5Q S719.93l.32 3.081.00 6.188.00 # I (cm 85 8‘ I'VC. SDK 35. 10'-12’ deep iti pl.itc 86 8“ PVC. SDK 35. I2‘-I4* deep iu pl.ice 87 8" PVC. SDK 35. 14’-16* deep iii place 88 8" PVC. SDK 26. 0*-8’ deep in place 89 8" PVC. SDK 26. 8’-10’ deep in place 90 8" PVC. SDK 26. I O’-12’ deep lu place 91 8" PVC. SDK 26. I2’-14’ deep iu place 92 8“ PV('. SDK 26. I4’-| ’ deep in place 93 8' PVC. SDK 26. |6’-I8’ deep in place 94 8- PVC. SDK 26. l8’-20’ deep in pl.ice 95 8- PVC. SDK 26. 20’-22’ deep ii. place 96 8- DIP. 8’-10’ deep in place 97 8* DIP. I O’-12’ deep in place 98 Sid. Mil 8’ dp.. 4’ dia.. w/KI642K cslg. 99 Maukule dcjilb greater than 8’ deep 100 4- PVC. SDK 21. force uiaiu 101 8" X 4* PVC service w)e lirancli 102 4" PVC KcrMcc pi|K- in pl.ice 103 4* PVC service riser pi|>e in place 104 Mecluuical treueb compactioa 105 Improved pi|ie idii. in 6' iucrcnicnl dcplb 106 Kuck slalnli/aliou 107 Sanitary sewer tclevisiou inspection lolal Part A • Sanitary Sewer I W »7 Ki i» Uoil (amlroci Ouaalily Unit IVioc Ouaalily Tu Uale Amuuai Tu Dale I.F 170 14.00 .556 7.784.00 LI-25 15.50 51 7‘X).50 I.P 20 17.00 119 2.023.00 I.F 25 14.00 II-50 I4.IX) 1.1-30 I4.(X) u-25 15.00 I.F 165 16.50 33 544J0 I.F 215 18.0(3 180 3.240.(K) IF'30 2100 55 1.210.00 IF 50 26.00 35 910.00 1.1-20 20.00 20 400.00 LI-20 20.00 liA 10 U.50.00 12 16.200.00 I.F 28 90.00 41.5 3.735.00 LI-70 15.00 60 900.00 FA 13 60.00 9 540.00 IJ-4(<0 1.5.00 310 4.650.00 LI*40 1.5.00 20 300.00 LI-2.415 1.00 2J52 2J51CO u-4.000 1«50 I.7tXI 22?50.00 'FN 100 11.00 LF 1.888 0.65 1.742 _ - iJ3130 KP-4 S58.530JO 108 Uitumiuuus removal SY 1.100 2.00 950 12W0.UU liY* C'onimon excavation C’Y 500 5.70 400 ,1280.00 110 CTum S aggregate baM: (100'^ cruslied)TN 700 9.00 700 6.300.00 111 r>|H; 31 biluiimious base cciurvc TN 200 19.00 73.29 U915I 112 I'ypc 41 bitumuious binder course IN 10 23.00 10 230,00 113 Type 41 biiuiniiiutis weanng aiurso IN 150 20.00 150 3.000.00 114 A('«l bituiiiiiious uialcrul (or mix 179 19 120.00 1194 1.552.80 115 liitumuiuus uialcrul lur luck Cil.250 lAO lUO 150iJU llf> Tree rriticnnl liA 50 115.00 50 6150.00 117 Ililumiiitiu^ m.itertai (or patching SY SOU 2100 438.77 9.65194 No. Item Unit Cootracl Ouaolily Uni* l*n.a Ouanlily To Date Amuuni Tu Dale 118 Sod with 4" topsoil SY 3.S00 2.00 1.000 2.000.00 119 Seed w/lo[>soil. inulcli tSc fcrlili/er AC 1.0 800.00 120 (icoicxtile fabric (Addciiduiii 2)SY i.ino l„50 l.lOO .. l.650.Da_ lolal Part H > Kcstoratiou S36J58.15 Part (' - 1 lit Station #1 121 Ijfl Si iiMii No. 3 LS 1 40.450.00 95^r 38.427J50_ 1 olal P.»rl C - I ifl Sla. #3 S3.8.427.50 1 otal Part A - Sanitary Sewer 58.530.30 Total Part li • Ucstoratinii 36..358.25 Total Pari (’ - Lift Sla. 3 • Hcdeiw«>od _ 3.8.427-50 . TO l .M, ALTI-UNA l i: NO. I HHDl-RWCXJO $133.316.05 Al.n-RNATI-; NO. 2 • MAVSIDI-: NOR HI P«irt A • Saniiarv Sewer 122 8* PVC\ SDR 3.S. 0* 8’ tkcp in pl ite 1.1-140 13.(8) 123 8“ PVC. SDR is. 8’-10’ deep .u place IJ-215 1.3.00 124 8" PV('. SDR 35. 10 -12’ deep lu place IJ 85 14.00 80 1.120.00 125 8 PVC, SDR 35, 12 *14 deep in place u-215 15.50 225 3.487.50 ;26 Std. Mil 8' dp.. 4* di.i.. W/RIM2H isig.3 U50.00 0m 2.700.IK) 127 Mauliolc deplli freater tkau 8* deep IJ-6 90.00 3 270.00 128 8" DIP, outside drop u-6„5 250.00 129 8" X 4“ PVC seiMce wye branch li^\6 60.00 ->120.00 130 4" PV(' scr\icc pi|)c in place IJ-105 IS.OO 20 300.00 131 4" PV'( ‘ sc A ICC riser pijH? in place IJ-'10 15.00 132 Improved pifH- fdii. in ft" incri tiicnt depth Ll-500 2.00 133 McchaiiKal Ircncb ccMnpaitxMi 1J4 Samiary sewer iclewsuiu u-Kill 1.00 315 325.00 inspection (Addendum 2)11-*675 0.65 1 olal Part A - S;iuiiary Sewer $8J2i50 i m? KIF l<P5 Item Unit C\minict Ou.u)li(y Unit I^M3C Ouaotity In Dale Amuuiit 1*0 Date P.irl h • Reslontion 135 'I'rcc removal 136 Su<; willi 4” topsoil 137 Seed vsith topsoil, iiiulvli & ferlili/er Total Part H * Kestuiatiuu Total Part A • Sanitary Sewer Total Part H * Kcstoration r01/\L ALI LKNA l l- NO. 2 • liAYSIDI- NOR III Ain-RNAH- NO. 3 • CYONirr PI At^l Part A • Saiiilarv Sewer 138 8" PVC. SDR 35. 0‘-8* deep tit place 139 S" PVC. SDR 35. 8’.|0’ deep in place 140 8" PVC, SDR 35. lO’-ir deep in place 141 8* PVC. SDR 35. I2*-I4 ‘ deep in pl.iee 142 8- PVC. SDR 35. I4‘ I6* deep in pl.iee 143 8" PVC. SDR 26. O'-S’ deep in place 144 8* PVC. SDR 26. 8’-10' deep in place 145 8* PVC. SDR 26. I0’.|2' deep in place 146 8* PVC*. SDR 26. 12'-14* deep in place 147 8" PVC*. SDR 26. 14 -16* deep in place 148 8* PVC. SDR 26. |6*-18* deep in place 149 8* PVC. SDR 26. l8*-20* deep in pl.iee 130 8" PVC*. SDR 26. 20 -22* deep lu pl.ice 151 8” PVC. SDR 26. 22*-24* deep in place 152 8- PVC. SDR 26. 24*-26* deep in place 153 8’ PVC. SDR 26. 26 -28* deep in place 154 8“ PVC. SDR 26. 28*-30* deep in place 155 Std. Mil H* dp.. 4* dta.. w/R|(>421i cstg, 156 M intiole depth gre.iter than 8* deep 157 8* DIP. outside drop 158 8’ X 4" PV(* service wye branch 1.59 4' PVC service pipe in pl.aco 160 4" PVC sersiee iwe« pi|A in pl.icT 161 liiipiuscd pi^<e tda. 6* tiHreiiienl depth ILA 50 115.00 SY 2.0(8)2.00 AC 0.5 8()0.()0 13*37 RFP SO.OO 8J22-50 ___(LOO. S8.322.50 u*400 1100 238 2.856.00 u-215 1100 295 3_540.00 Li*33.5 13.00 116 1.508.00 LI*235 14.00 15 21 V18) LF 50 I5..50 10 '■ •/.OH LF*25 13.00 37 481.00 LF*65 1.3.00 139 IJ(07.00 LF 75 14,00 206 2.884.00 IJ^280 15.00 612 9.180.00 U*735 16.50 744 11276.00 U*885 18.00 916 16.488.00 U*440 20.00 4Ul 8.N)t).(X) IJ-120 23.00 135 3.I05.W) LF*1.35 26.00 115 3-150.00 u-145 29.00 155 4.495.U) LF 175 3100 185 5.920.00 LF l*»0 38.00 95 3.610.00 1L\18 1 J50.00 18 24JO0JJU u-1 $8 •8 ) 00 136.5 12.285.00 LF 5.2 150.00 3.6 900.00 Iv\34 60.00 34 1040.00 IJ-IJ)50 1100 I.02U 12J4OJJ0 u-laO 1100 109 1-308.00 IJ^ RP 6 7.500 1.75 6.680 ii.6«aoo “|1-----TT^' - Cuotrau Unit Quantity AmuuotNo. Ufm Unit Oiuoliiy l*noc To l)ai£To Dale 162 Mechanical trench compaction u-5^45 LOO 5.47.1 5.473.00 163 Sanitary sewer televLsion inspection LI-4.4'J5 0.65 4.4.53 2..S94.4.i Total Part A • Sanitary Sewer S 153.495.45 Part H - Kcstoralioil 164 Remove existing bituminous SY 10.800 1.80 9.780 17.(504.00 165 C'tMiiinoii excavation CY 4.,'SOO 4.40 4.300 18.920.00 166 Chiss 5 aggregate l>;ise (100^/r crushed)TN 6.000 8.50 6.000 51.000.00 167 Type 31 bilumuious base course TN IJSOO I4..50 12375.98 19.951.71 16S l ype 41 bituminous wearing course IN 1.200 I5..50 1.200 18.600.00 169 A('-l bituiiiiiious material for iiilx TN 160 120.00 1.38.4 16.608.00 170 nituuHuous matcriai for lack coal (iL 7.S0 I..50 .350 515.00 171 Rituminoui material fur patching SY 300 22.00 283.06 6.227.32 172 12"* R( 'P, Chiss 5 in place u-300 17.50 175 3.062..S0 173 15" lUT. Class 4 in place LI-30 19.00 30 570.00 174 18" RCP, Class4 in place LF 7.S 21.00 175 33" R( T.( hiss 3 in place LI-100 33.00 70 22310.00 176 48" RCl\ Class 3 in place LI-80 81.00 80 6.480.00 177 J2" R( 'P llarcd cud in place i-:a 12 365.00 178 T5" R(T flared end in place FA -> 9m 3‘8).00 179 18" RCP Hared cud in place FA 4 410.00 180 33" RCP flared end w/trash guard in pL I-j\tm 22500.00 •»A*5.000.00 |8| 48" RCP Hared end w/trash guard in pi.tlA 1 mm 2.665.00 *»52330.00 182 Mechanical trcncii compaction u-4*>5 LOO 150 150.00 183 luiipr. pi|K* fdii. in 6" increment depth LF 400 2.00 ' L50 300.00 i'H4 ^(emove cxisluig CMP culvert LF 49.S 3.IH)2.50 750.00 185 l ilier blanket lo placo SY 25 2.50 186 Riprap in place CY 50 50.00 187 1'rce removal E/\15 115.00 13 1.615.00 188 Si)d with 4" ioiisotl SY 7.500 2.00 l.8(KJ 3.600.00 189 Seed with fopsoil. mulch & fcrtilker AC 2.0 800.00 190 (fcotcxtilc fabric (Addendum 1)SY 5.500 IJO 52500 8.7511 (to Total Part U - ResUiratiou SI 86.863.53 lirajTRFP KP7 lie CD Unit HI tract Chianlily Uail !‘ricc Ouandiy Tu Dale Tolal Pari A - Sauilary Sewer I'otal Part H • Kestoratioii ro IV\L ALTUKNAI L NO. 3 - CYONl: 1 PI^\CH Al.TltRNATP: NO. 5 > OXFORD ROAD Part A • Sanitary Sewer lota! Pari H • Rc^U fatiuu Amount lb Dale I.S3.495.4.S S34U.358.98 191 8" I'VC. SDR 35. I0‘-I2’ deep i.-. plate u-675 13.00 398 .5.174.00 192 H” 1*VC. SDK 35. I2’-I4’ deep in place U'400 14.50 370 5.365.00 193 8" PVC, S('R 35. 14 ’-I6* deep iu plate IJ-150 17.00 300 5.100.00 194 8" PVC. SDR 35. I6*.18’ deep in pl.ite LI-200 20 00 50 1.000.00 195 Sid. Mil 8* dp.. 4‘ dia.. W/R1642U lv\5 1.3.50.00 5 6.750.IK) 196 Mil depth greater than 8* deep U*28 90.00 212 1.998.00 197 8”x4'* PVC service wye hraiich llA 12 60,00 13 780.00 198 4* PVC service pi|H; in place U-500 12.00 3W 4.680.00 |99 4** PVC service riser pi|K» to place 1.1-40 12.00 15 300.00 200 Improved pipe Idii. in 6” inereinenl depth U'2.000 2.00 1.118 2J36.00 201 Mechanical trench compaction IJ-1.925 1.00 U508 1.508.00 202 Sanitary sewer tclevcsiou iii.s|>eclion IJ‘1.415 0.65 I.II8 ______726.711- Tolal Pari A - Sauitar)' Sewer S.15.617.70 Part H - Restoration 203 nituminous surfacing removal SY 4.100 2.00 3.960 7.920.0U 204 Cotujiiou excavation CY I.NH)4.60 1.510 6.946.00 205 C'L 5 aggregate base (lOOri crushed)TN 2J00 8..50 2.150 1**. 125.00 206 Type 31 bitummoia base course IN 400 16.00 36111 5.793.76 207 Ty|>e 41 bituminous w-earing ct*urso IN 300 18.00 300 S.400.00 208 A('*l biluiiiiiious material for iiii.x TN 42 120.00 .35.51 4.261.20 209 Uiiunnnoui malerial fur lack coal (11.235 1.50 200 .300.00 210 Uitumiiious material for patching SY 150 2100 144.23 3.I73.W» 211 Tree reuioval LA 3 115 00 212 Sod with 4" topsoil SY 4.0<X)100 2J00 4.400.00 213 Seed w/fopsoil, mulch «& ferltli/xr AC 0.5 8UU.00 214 Hrofioii control feiiec U*200 2.00 21.5 Cieotexlde fabric (Addendum 2)SY 2.5<X)1.50 2.500 __3J5QJ1Q S61.069.02 I.HDKI r RP-a Toliil Change Order No. 2 Total Ha.se Hid I'ulal Alteraalu No. I - HederMouJ Total Alternate No. 2 - Haysidc North Total Alternate No. 3 • Cygnet Pl.ice Total Alternate No. .5 • Clxford Road Total ('h.iiige Order No. I Total Change Order No. 2 TOTAL WORK COMl'UrrUD lO DAIIZ Con tract Unit Ouaatlry AjimmioI do. Item Uoii Ouantily IVicc 4b Date To Dale Total Pari A • Sauitary Sewer 35.617.70 Total Part U • Kestoratiuu -6I.Q69.Q2_ 10 l AL ALI liRNA I li NO. 5 - OXI'(JRD ROAD S96.686.72 Change Order No. I 216 Modify I aft Station No. 3*DS 1 9.390.00 1 ______9.390.00 'Folal Oiaiu'C Order No. 1 $9,390.00 Chniu»e Order No. 2 217 Jack 4" services under CSAII #84 LF 2.S0 65.00 250 16.250.00 218 (iranular Imrrow CY 2.000 «.50 2.000 17.000.00 219 4” Slripuig* while paint u-6.7.S8 0.20 6.758 IJiLWl S34.60I.WJ 719.931.32 I.33 J 16.05 8J22.50 34UJ58.yJi 96.686.72 9J90.00 SU41607.I7 139.17 RfT RP-9 r ! • FROJix^r PAYMi-NT yi’Ams Owner Project Project No. I'Ue No. CuQtractor City of Orono Stubbs Uay Sanitary Sewer 13937 Piogressivc ('ontractors, Inc, aiANCU: ORDF.RS No. Dale I 7-8-92 Modify Lift Station #3 1 *M 114-92 Jack services, granular borrow, striping Amount $9,390.00 $34,601.60 .3 'Ibtal (^ogc Orders - Add $43,991.60 PAYMI-NI' SUMMARY No.Period Payment Relainage Completed 1 Start 8-7-92 $116,255.77 $6,118.73 $96,918.04 o 4p 8-7-92 9-8-92 305.777.08 22,212.26 444,245.11 3 9-8-92 10-13-92 272.411.08 36,549.68 730,993.61 4 10-13-92 11-18-92 275,415.46 51,045.13 1,020,904.62 5 ll-l«-‘/2 2-3-93 90,6(H). 17 55,81.3.66 1,111,627.22 6 2-3-93 6-14-93 77,011.11 59,866.88 I,I97,.3.37.55 7 6-14-93 10-7-9.3 1.38,006.14 67,130.36 1,.342,607.17 8 9 10 TtMal Pajanent to Dale Relainagc, Pavanenl No. Total Amount Lurned IJ9J7RIT 1,275,476.81 67,1.30.36 1,342,607.17 RP-IO Original ('ontract Change Orders Uevised Contract 1,480,331.9$ 43,«*9|.60 1,.^ 24323255 Mt-mOPOLITAN COUNCIL Mean Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 612 29U359 TDD 612 291-0904 DATKt TOi October ll, 1993 l.ake Area City Administrators/Managcrs FKOMt Kay Zweroik SUBJECTt Sample Resolution At the last meeting of the Steering Committee on September 23 we discussed the grant application progress to date. You thought, at that time, that it would make the most sense for the Metropolitan Council to apply for the grants on behalf of all the cities. I learned very quickly that the Metropolitan Council is not digible to apply on behalf of the dties and that the appUcationi would be much stronger if all 14 dties applied the grants. Therefore, at the Personnel Work Group I discussed with the five city administrators present the dilemma aiod how we sbould proceed. The consensus of that group was that each city could adopt a resolution avpportliig in coaetpt the submissioo of the three grants. In consultation with a man in the State Auditors ofEce and Jim Hurm, 1 am sending to you the resolution for your City Counefl to consider. The adoption of this resolution must happen during the month of October as the grants must be submitted on November S. I will need a co[^ of each city’s resolution. Hiere is nothing new in the resolution, llte three areas in which we will submit grant applications are included in the tlx service areas outline in the agreement already signed by each of the citlea. This resolution does not commit any city to mandatory participation in the planning or service sharing if one or more grants are receivi^ Flexibility wiU still be maintained, This resolutioo is only providing support to the concept of submitting grants in the areas of recreation services, public safety and personnel management services. If you have any questions, please call me. A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF GRANT APPLICATIONS TO THE STATE BOARD OF GOVERNMENT INNOVATION AND COOPERATION TO HELP FUND COOPERATIVE SERVICE STUDIES WHEREIAS# the City of Orono is a party to an agreement between the Metropolitan Council and the Cities of Chanhassen, Deeohaven, Excelsior, Minnetonka, Minnetonka Beach, Minnetrista, Mound, Shorewood, Spring Park, Tonka Bay, Victoria Wayzata and Woodland (here-in-a£ter referred to as "the cities ) to opportunities for improving cooperation between the cities relative to the provision of public services; and WHEREIAS, the cities have identified the potential for improved cooperation in a number of service delivery areas and have selected for initial concentration the areas of recreation services, public safety services and personnel management services; and WHEREAS, the cities have identified the need for additional planning activities before the potential for improved cooperation can be realized in the areas of recreation and public safety; and WHEREAS, the cities have identified start up costs that must be paid prior to the implementation of a cooperative personnel management system; and WHEREAS, the State Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation is now accepting applications for competitive grant applications for Cooperation Planning Grants and Service Sharing Grants; and WHEREAS, the aforementioned planning and implementation needs of the cities are deemed to be projects which are eligib e for funding by the State Board's grant programs; and WHEREAS, the initial application deadline for the aforementioned grant programs, combined with the ^® to finalize the cities' grant applications, preclude the ^ Council from adopting a resolution in support of the specific grant applications. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Orono City Council supports, in concept, the submission of three separate grant applications to the State Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation to help fund the aforementioned cooperation planning and service sharing projects. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, at the request of the Board of Government Innovation and Coope. ation, the Orono Cit} Council will consider adopting a subsequent resolution prior to January 7, 1994, which pledges the support of the Orono City Council to all aspects of the grant applications that are to be submitted to the State Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation. This resolution was approved the 25th day of October, 1993, by a vote of _ _ _ in favor and_ _ _opposed by the Orono City Council. Edward J. Callahan, Jr., Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator October 20, 1993 Legal Services s staff has been working with Popham Haik to address concerns regarding their proposal for legal services for 1993. Popham Haik's 1993 proposal is as follows: A. Hourly Rates Popham Haik has proposed the legal service fees for 1993 be increased from $80.00 per hour for associates and $85.00 per hour for partners to $100.00 per hour for associates and $110.00 per hour for partners. This increase comes after the rates have remained unchanged for the past three years. These rates are above the average rate charged to cities in the Metropolitan area, but are comparable to the rates charged by other large legal firms. The average 1993 legal service rate in a sample of 31 Metropolitan cities is $93.00 per hour. Of these cities, six pay over $100,00 per hour. B. Private Rate Popham Haik currently charges "private" rates, which have ranged from $115.00 per hour to $200.00 per hour; fer work for which costs are passed through to a third party payer, such as planning applicants. Popham Haik has indicated the practice of charging vhe private rates will remain as part of their billing practice in the 1993 proposal. Staff is not aware of any other legal firms that have this dual rate structure for cities. C R0t3inG3T The current monthly retainer for legal services is $1,100 per month. This includes the following: 1. ) Preparation for and attendance at Council meetings. 2. ) Providing general advice on all routine matters. Popham Haik has been billing the City at the 1992 rates for 1993 work. They have indicated they do not intend to rebill the city at a higher rate for the 1993 work. The total amounts paid to Popham Haik for civil legal services for the past three years are as follows: 1990 - $ 97,58i 1991 - $ 91,210 1992 - $ 67,733 % Legal Services October 20, 1993 page 2 These amounts vary based on whether there are special projects or major public improvement projects that require legal work. They also vary according to the amount of planning applications reviewed by the City. The $1,100 per month retainer is set at the amount which generally is expected to cover the actual costs of the services under the retainer, which include preparation for and attendance at Council meetings and providing general advice. Most other cities surveyed do not have retainers. They simply pay an hourly rate for all v/ork. The City of Crystal pays a retainer of $2,500 per month. This covers two council meetings per month and all other civil work except work related to the police contract, the HRA and litigation. The City of Eden Prairie has a $500 per month retainer. This covers two council meetings and four staff meetings. All other work is at an hourly rate. The City of Burnsville does not have a retainer but pays a flat rate of $150 per meeting for the attorney's attendance at two council meetings per month. Popham Haik has indicated that if the city wants to make significant changes to the billing rates or to the retainer, it would be best for the city to develop a Request For Proposals which defines the level and range of services required and also defines what is to be included in the retainer. Popham Haik will then respond to the Request For Proposals. to the city needs to have Level of Service The legal firm, providing service expertise in the following areas: 1. Municipal land use statutes and ordinances 2. Municipal contracts such as joint powers agreements 3. Land acquisition such as easements and right-of-way 4. Eminent domain 5. Building and zoning codes 6. Public employment statutes 7. Other areas of municipal law such as; the open meeting law, data practices act, etc. The Council has also discussed whether it is advantageous to have the resources of a large legal firm in the case of a major legal proceeding which may develop in relation to iss-.tes the city is facing that involve State agencies such as MnDOT or the DNR. There are a number of firms capable of providing this level of Legal Services October 20, 1993 page 3 j^0pQ0iQ, Xt rnsy b0 advantageous wO have a firm already on retainer and available to be brought up to speed and provide advice at the earliest stages of a potential .egal proce- n,. Staff believes Popham Haik has the capabilities reguired to provide satisfactory legal services to the city. Staff also believes there ai*e other firms who could satisfactorily provide legal services to the city at a lower cost. Alteriiatives available to the city are c.s follows: 1. Extend the current relationship with Popham Haik based on their 1993 proposal. 2. Extend the relationship with Popham Haik generally based on the 1993 proposal but with adjustments agreeable to both the city and Popham Haik. 3. Solicit proposals from legal firms tor provision of legal services. The solicitation of proposals w'uld allow the city to structure the provision of legal services to best meet its needs, then to receive competitive proposals for the provision of those services. The city would have the opportunity to retain Popham Haik if the Popham Haik propt sal was determined to be superior to the other proposals. TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council *4 Ron Moorse, City Administrator \a DATE:October 19, 19'' SUBJECT:Step Adjustment for Steve Sullivan, Police Ch^^ Steve Sullivan is due to move to Step IV of the City's Compensation Plan effective August 19, 1993. An annual performance reviev; has indicated satisfactory perf-.mance over the past year. It is recommended Steve Sullivan receive a pay increase to Step IV of the Compensation Plan effective August 19, 1993. r TO: FROM: DATF: siir.if:ct: Ron Moorse. City Administrator Jolin Gcrhardson. Public Works Director October 21. 1993 Step Adjustment - Scott Oberaigner Maintenance Worker On October 22, 1990, Scott Oberaigner began employment with the City of Orono as a thjblie Works maintenance worker. A formal, written performance review has been completed for Scott. Scott has progressed very well during his employment, has attended the necessary training and has acquired the necessary licenses to perform the duties of the position. Scott has ver>' good working habits and has an excellent altitude. I recommend tliat Scott ’s hourly rate be adjusted to Step 4. Ixvel 5 of the Compensation Plan. i TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator October 22, 1993 SUBJECT: Seeding of Un-Sodded Areas at City Facili % sodThe initial lands :ape plan for the City facilities called around the perimeter of the buildings and around the perimeter of the large open area at the entrance to the facilities. All other areas not landscaped with shrubs were to be seeded with tall grass. When the landscaping plan was developed and bid, the sod was included but the seeding was not included. In finalizing the landscape plan it was determined that the areas planned for tall grass would instead be seeded with regular lawn mix. This work is to be done by City staff. The Public Works Director has recommended the seeding be done this fall. The attached memo from the Public Works Director indicates the cost of the seed is $598.50. It is recommended the seed be purchased this fall. TO;Ron Moorse. City Administrator FROM:John Gerhardson, Public Works Director DATE:October 19, 1993 SUBJECT: Seed Costs - Landscaping City Facilities During the landscaping planning for the new facility, there were areas that were to be seeded with wildflowers or native grasses. This item was not included in the landscaping plan and it was determined to seed the areas widi a regular lawn mix such as Kentucky Blue . red fiscus and perennial rye. The amount of seed needed is 350 lbs. at $1.71 per lb. for a total of $598.50. TO; FROM: DATE; Mayor and City Council October 22, 1993 f. ; s SUBJECT: Spring Park Police Service Contract %■ ‘V ^V The City of Spring Park has approved the city's proposal for the provision of police services for 1994. Spring Park has requested that the city address several contract language issues. These include the hold harmless language and the termination language. The hold harmless language currently calls for Orono to have the primary responsibility in cases of liability claims up to the limit of Orono's insurance coverage. The City of Spring Park then covers any claim beyond the city's insurance. The Spring Park attorney has raised two concerns regarding this language. I;:st, the City of Spring Park should not have unlimited liability beyond its insurance limits. For example, if a claim is beyond the insurance coverage limits of both Orono and Spring Park (both have $2,600,000.00 of liability insurance). Spring Park should not be responsible for the amount beyond the combined coverage. It is staff's recommendation that the probability of a claim exceeding botn limits is so low that Spring Park's liability can be limited to its $2,600,000 of coverage. The second concern is fhat because the contract requires Spring Park to be liable for all claims not covered by Orono's insurance. Spring Park is liable for claims that are excluded from the City's liability coverage. Because Spring Park has the same insurance coverage as Orono, any claims excluded from Orono's coverage would also be excluded from Spring Park's coverage. The City Attorney has indicated that in reviewing the exclusions in the insurance coverage, she has not identified any gaps in coverage that relate to the provision of police services. However, she cautions that when dealing with insurance issues there is always the potential for unanticipated gaps in coverage. The issue to be addressed here is what is the most reasonable way to allocate the responsibility for these types of claims. One perspective is that Spring Park has the primary responsibility of providing police protection to its citizens. This responsibility includes a certain amount of liability risk related to the provision of the service. Spring Park should not be able to eliminate its risk by contracting with a third party to provide police protection. Another perspective is that because Orono is providing the police services and has control over the provision of the services, it is in the best position to prevent incidents or behavior which could create the liability claims. Therefore, Orono as the provider should have the responsibility. Spring Park Police Service Contract October 22, 1993 page 2 There is not a general rule about which party should assume the responsibility in these cases. The current language is favorable to Orono in that any anything excluded from coverage is the responsibility of Spring Park. Because this has been raised as an issue by Spring Park, we need to determine whether we are willing to take on additional potential liability to address the concerns raised. As the City Attorney has indicated, the probability of a gap in insurance coverage related to the provision of police services is very low. If the City accepted responsibility for all exclusions, it would increase its potential risk, bun the actual risk is low. Another alternative is for the cities to agree to pay the costs of an excluded claim or judgement in the same ratio as they share the costs of the police service. The second concern related to the contract language deals with the termination language. The current contract requires that if the contract i.s terminated with or without cause during the term of nhe agreement, by the City of Spring Park, the City of Spring Park has to pay all costs related to the termination of that contract. The fnajor cost would be unemployment compensation insurancft for any officers to be laid off. Spring Park has requested that those costs not be charged to Spring Park if the contract is terminated for cause. Orono's City Attorney has indicated this language may be acceptable if the determination of "for cause" is defined in the contract as a material breech of the contract related directly to the oerfortrance of police services and that the determination is subject to review through an arbitration process. The Spring Park City Attorney has also indicated language would be included that would provide Orono a period of time to address any material breech prior to any termination. /6 TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator Cr. *• Vi October 22, 1993 SUBJECT: Long Lake Police Contract % 9s The City of Long Lake has agreed to a three year contract for police services. The contract includes "not to exceed" budget numbers for the police department for 1995 and 1996 that would allow for a 4% increase in expenditures each of the two years. The contract also provides that if one of the other contract cities drops out of the joint agreement within the three year period, the other contract cities have the opportunity to also drop out or renegotiate the agreement. I will be discussing the contract with the Long Lake Mayor on Monday morning to ensure the language is finalized for Council's approval. n TO; FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator^^/^ October 21, 1993 SUBJECT: Scheduling of a Budget Work Session "^<0 There are number of issues related to the 1994 budget that have yet to be resolved. The major items are water and sewer fees. An additional item is the consideration of the refinancing of the 1989 sewer and water bonds. Although the Council has discussed this issue I would like to invite Carolyn Crude of Ehlers Associates to review the information related to the refinancing of the bonds. If the Council selects a work session date and one or two alternates, staff will contact Carolyn Crude to attend the meeting. n TO; FROM; Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator DATE;October 21, 1993 Ciry 5 %'Q SUBJECT; Nature Conservancy Land Acquisition % Recently the Nature Conservancy offered to transfer ownership of a 15 acre piece of property known as Lowry Woods to the City. The City accepted the offer. The Nature Conservancy has requested the City pay the costs of any environmental review of tl:e property, and that the City pay the costs of a title commitment, and the expenses of recording the deed. It is recommended that City staff conduct the equivalent of a Phase I environmental review, which involves researching information on the history of the property to determine whether there were any uses of the property that may have resulted in hazardous materials being placed on the property. This process also involves a comparison of the current topography with historical topography to determine whether any land alteration has taken place, which could also have included placement of hazardous materials on the site. The City Engineer has indicated City staff is able to conduct this review It is recommended that the city obtain a title commitment to ensure the title is free of defects, and purchase a minimum amount of title insurance. The title commitment and insurance premium will cost between $800 and $1,300. It is also recommended the City pay the deed recording costs which the City Attorney indicates will be less than one hundred dollars. TO; FROM: DATE; Mayor and City Counoil Ron Moorse, City Administrator October 22, 1993 SUBJECT: Scheduling a Budget Work Session Carolyn Drude the city's bond consultant has indicated she is available to meet with the Council to discuss bond refinancing on the following dates and times: early morning Thursday, October 28 and Friday, October 29, early morning Wednesday, November 3 and Thursday, Novemhur 4, late afternoon or evening Tuesday, November 2 and Wednesday, November 3rd. 1 /? LIST OF LICENSES FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR MEETING OF OCTOBER 25, 1993 Septic System Installer - Groth Sewer & Water 5 ,, %0p„ % I CITY of OUONO (612) 473-7357 Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 SEPTIC SYSTEM INSTALLERS LICEJISE APPLICATION All questions must be answered. License fee, bond, certificate of insurance, and evidence of MPCA Certification must be attached. All applications are subject to a ten (10) day approval period 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. a. 9. Business or trade name _ _ _(^/7ro C? Business address ^ Business phone - 6 ">1'^— Residence phone _ _ _ Name of applicant or company representative holding MPCA Type of certification held: V Installer Certificate expiration date /p - ^Ml. 01 CLi CHECX TL Have you ever held a Septic System Installer 1 Lcens^iiiSiP7~'''HAfP(''^'^'' Orono before? . /V.0 Most recent year _______ ft23i720 C(X)1 ROi TOS: tr.i AAV •cr, Vl"M/f Uw' Have you ever had a license revoked? aZ O Where? When? 10/17 %d/ Do you do Municipal Sewar hook-ups? Yes Do you pump out septic tanks? Yes _____ X_____ No No ^ SUBMITTALS REQUIRED: 2L ^550.00 License application fee. ^•*^$2000.00 license and permit bend naming City of Orono asA^ obligee. The State Plumbers Bond will not be accepted. ''r JL 3 .i^ $50-100-300,000 minimum Certificate of Insurance, 4.^opy of current MPCA Certificate, LICZNSBS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED UNTIL ALL ITEMS ARE SUBMITTED List persons other than applicant who are authorized by you to apply for permits under your license _ _ _LO /t \ jJ', K /< Q \ The undersigned hereby makes application to the City of Orono, Minnesota, for a license to install and repair septic systems, and/or pump out septic tanks, subject to the laws of the State of Minnesota and the Ordinances of the City of O^no. Applicant's Signature ^_-^y o CITY USE ONLY Stafi r«coiwu«.ndation Approval / J'aason for denial: ■' * Denial Date City Council Action Date Date license mailed Approved Denied c ■ ''A 9 ■ ^ • % . V ,V-:; f.• •. r • > I »• • A « ^ ' *» . 'V ^ ‘1 *'. w - ^ . *-■* ^ o»V.4\v • r: ■ '••' / ^ V :; n #«'9 . ■>.*^• .‘^ -■ • %• «w • ^ '.* - ' -.*. V \ - r:':. •• _>< •. ' % ' K ^ ^ T « '" V :•-■>: •* .« « V ••- v: ./-••9f.*• • 10/10/93 PR CB PRREGOR 188 EMP • NAME DPT 471688060 AfDERSON, BRUCE L 474S63339 BOBZIEN. SUE A 476921819 BORIS SCOTT W 471840871 BOSMA. JAMIE L 475443862 BRINKHAUS, JOHN T 472503991 CHESWICK. GARY 3 469526026 CORNICK, JAMES L 475989721 DEMBOUSKI, JAY C 468821018 ENGLISH III IRVING 472529007 ERICKSON. KURT R 468701868 FISCHENICH. DAN T 507585424 FRIT2LER JOHN M 469686562 GAFFRON MICHAEL P 468420832 GERHARDSON. JOHN R 469087884 GOMAN. DAVID J 474667812 GREGORY. JAMES D 475380151 HALLIN. DOROTHY M 477500666 HANSEN STEVEN C 475444249 HANSING, CAROL J 477463877 HASEMAN. CAROLE 388625358 JENSEN. ROONEY W 471569863 JOHNSON. BRADLEY P 473141624 JOSTROM, FOREST J 477647279 KARNITZ. RICKY D 475604753 KENNEN. JANICE M 504260307 KNUTSON. CHARLOTTE A 472500574 KUEHN. THOMAS M 121262417 MABUSTH. JEANNE A 469723373 MAY DAVID E 475344512 MCINTYRE WILLIAM E 48084354.'' MCNICHOLS DAVID L 47770002J MOORSE. RONALD J 334506281 *OROWC2YNSi\I. JAMES 477028779 NELSON, DAVID D 473108428 OAS DANIEL 0 468909535 OBERAIGNER SCOTT Q 476783251 OBRIEN, RANDY L 470700901 OMAN. LYLE E 469848107 PALMER. GREGORY A 475382983 OUAST. WAYNE A 473746173 RATHBUN. BARRY J 47360962C ROSS JOHN A 470566529 SCHOENHOFF, JOHN B 469629194 SKREEN DALE S 475569177 STEFFENHAGEN RONALD 267460042 SULLIVAN. STEPHEN X 472563051 THOMTON, MARK R 474663296 TOMCHECK, LAWRENCE F 470704904 TOMCZYK MARK W 475505292 VANG BRUCE L 468629488 VEE LINDA S 500403192 WALTERS LINDA G 477881539 WECKMAN. STEPHEN J 31 31 31 12 42 31 31 31 31 31 31 33 42 35 42 12 42 31 12 93 31 93 31 31 15 15 33 61 93 31 12 31 35 93 42 92 33 42 92 92 93 31 42 93 31 31 31 31 33 12 YTD GROSS 90 47 29 19 07 77 97 87 82 67 36 50 59 30 35629 73 21520 82 4134 31 13177 33806 36456 36591 31301 36160 33121 35889 35500 30906 42989 4606 27783 26624 24745 86 12332.22 19990 12 2384 49 35258 25 2615 25 2239 66 5319 79 21301 45467 38704 3403 1641 29552 50492 34662 2932 1693 24221 25694 30906 24410 30376 25016 92 2631 75 9430 71 24791 25 26624 27 43193 58 31959 13 32767 61 33332 26624 21655 19898 23449 97 44 97 50 75 92 90 74 38 30 22 93 61 24 24 CURRENT GROSS 1627 22 1033 68 233 79 646 78 1611 68 1727 20 1651 1493 1673 1568 1976 1692 1473 2172 198 1337 1269 1148 517 963 247 1627 173 244 335 1014 2167 1845 96 170 1368 2511 1568 171 61 1241 1123 1473 1083 1366 1245 228 499 1083 1269 28 2059 20 1509 77 1566 39 1568 40 1269 29 1081 23 1176 80 1117 92 30 24 71 40 85 24 44 43 39 51 28 28 49 92 20 22 25 42 12 63 60 20 00 50 67 84 40 95 95 37 90 44 28 31 78 25 47 29 > ;».*• 'S 4 J % * • » V ' • « • # V • i: •• * V. •? >5-' • J - im ' u - » ■> 0 ©©COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Thu Oct 14 1993 23:01:09 Page 1CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT 8 INVOICE PO NUM. MANUAL1993/10/1402917S 84,886.00$4,886.00*CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNI W/H & TRANSFERRED 9999-2030 000496 IP 1993/10/14 029176 $137.18 $137.18* COLONIAL LIFE INS INS W/H 9999-2030 000510 IP 1993/10/14 029177 $67.77 $67.77* COMMERCIAL LIFE INS INS W/H 9999-2030 000500 • IP 1993/10/14 029178 $9,055 63 $9,055.63* FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF WITHHELD FED TAX MED 9999-2030 000497 IP 1993/10/14 029179 $2,783 28 $2,783.28* FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CITY SHARE FICA & ME 9999-2030 000506 IP 1993/10/14 029180 $37,105.78 $37,105.78* FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF NET PAYROLL TRANSFER 9999-2030 000505 IP 1993/10/14 029191 $1,355.00 $1,355.00* GREAT WEST LIFE ASSURA DEF COMP W/H 9999-2030 000501 IP 1993/10/14 029182 $146 50 $146.50* HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPOR MARK THOMTON 8C02687 9999-2030 000504 IP 1993/10/14 029183 $164.00 S164.00* HENNEPIN COUNTY SUPPOR DALE SKREEN IC026231 9999-2030 000495 IP 1993/10/14 029184 $30.00 830.00* ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-W/H DEF COMP 9999-2030 000498 IP 1993/10/14 02918S $5.09 $5.09* MINNESOTA BENEFIT INS W/H 9999-2030 000511 IP 1993/10/14 029116 $2,734.81 $2,734.81* MINNESOTA DEPT OF REVE STATE TAX WITHHELD 9999-2030 000507 IP 1993/10/14 029187. $100.00 $100.00* MN STATE RETIREHENT-Oe W/H DEF COMP 9999-2030 000503 IP 1993/10/14 $168.09 $168.09* PEBSCO/OBRA W/H DEF COMP 9999-2030 000502 IP 1993/10/14 029189 $763 46 $763 46* PEBSCO/US CONF OF MAYO W/H DEF COMP 9999-2030 000512 IP 1993/10/14 029190 $54.00 $54.00* PERA LIFE INS INS W/M 9999-2030 000508 IP 1993/10/14 729191 $3,504.10 $3,504.10* PER A PERA W/H 9999-2030 000499 -v'f IP 1993/10/14 e29192 $21.00 $21.00* UNITED WAY CHARITY W/H 9999-2030 000509 w Wf'IP o u © &COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Wed Oct 20 1993 23:40:03 Page 1CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT 1 INVOICE PO NUM. MANUAL0291971993/10/25 $25.00$25.00*AMERICAN NATL BANK AGENT FEE 0907-4630 001088 OH0291981993/10/25 $799.50$799.50*ARNOLD & RYE PRINTING PRINT NEWSLETTERS 0299-4900 1317 OH1993/10/25 $55.26 BIFFS INC BIFF 0590-4331 001065 OH 029199 1993/10/2S $331.59 $386.82* BIFFS INC BIFFS 0290-4331 001065 OH 1993/10/25 S59.36 BLACKOWIAK & SONS TRASH HAUL 0590-4343 001066 OH1993/10/25 $151.65 BLACKOWIAK & SONS TRASH HAUL 0099-4343 001065 OH 029200 1993/10/25 $294.81 $505.82* BLACKOWIAK & SONS TRASH HAUL 0290-4343 001066 OH 1993/10/25 sai.13 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN ENG CONSULT AUG 0249-4305 026074 OH 1993/10/25 $2,850.75 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN INSP/EASEMENT AUG 0408-4305 026075 OH1993/10/25 $133.75 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN ENQ-SUBDIVISION 9115-3841 026073 OH1993/10/25 $1,922.46 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN PRELIM RPT-CULVERT R 0357-4305 026113 OH1993/10/25 $80.00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN ENQ CONSULTING AUG 0426-4305 026073 OH1993/1C/25 $399.32 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN EASEMENT OCB RD TRAI 0359-4306 026112 OH1993/10/25 $26 75 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN ENG CONSULTING AUG 0249-43P5 026073 OH1993/10/25 $453.75 BONESTRC''? ROSENE ASN ENQ CONSULTING AUG 0200-4305 026073 OH1993/10/25 $100.00 BONESTROO ROSENE ASN ENQ RETAINER AUG 0200-4304 026073 OH 029201 1993/10/25 $1,756.19 $7,784.10" BONESTROO ROSENE ASN ENQ APPLICATIONS AUG 0840-4305 026073 OH 1993/10/25 $60.00 BUDGET PRINTING PRINT FORMS 0129-4322 001087 OH Q282D2 1993/10/25 $106.50 $166.50* BUDGET PRINTING PRINTING 0129-4322 38356 OH 029203 1993/10/25 $958.25 $958 25» CARGILL SALT DIV SOFTNER SALT 0549-4234 859651 OH 1993/10/25 $18.31 CITY OF LONG LAKE FLASHERS 0249-4324 001073 OH 029204 1993/10/25 $70.88 $89.19* CITY OF LONG LAKE UTILITIES 0569-4324 001073 DM 02920S 1993/10/25 $44.75 $44.75* CLEMENTS ASSOC INC PUSH ROD 0174-4210 018391 OH 029209 1993/10/25 $6.00 $6.00* CULLIQAN WTR SOFTNER 0590-4343 001067 OH 029207 1993/10/25 $10.00 $10.00*DIXIE PETRO-CHEM DEMURRAGE 0549-4234 001002563 OH 029208 1993/10/25 $144.00 $144 00* DORADUS CORP SIREN MAINT 0175-4342 0931039-IN OH 021209 1993/10/25 • $73.80 $73.80* • EXPRESS MESSENGER POSTAGE 0174-4321 08-107876 OH •' • ->« o u KJCOUNCILCHECK REGISTER Wed Oct 20 1993 23:40:03 Pige 2CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT 9 INVOICE PO NUM. MANUAL1993/10/25 920.00 FEED RITE CONTROLS demurrage 0549-4232 OM10086020210$20.00*1993/10/25 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 $137.45$29.56 $45.14 $138.01 $271.07 $12.80 G A K SERVICES Q A K SERVICES OAK SERVICES OAK SERVICES G A K SERVICES G A K SERVICES RUGSUNIFORMS UNIFORMS RUGS UNIFORMS UNIFORMS 0129-43430549-4221 0569-4221 0099-4343 0249-4221 0590-4221 001091001091 001091 001091 001091 001091 OHOH OH OH OH OH 020211 $634.03* 1993/10/25 $145.00 GANGELHOFF. DONNA DEER REMOVAL 0185-4360 001090 OH 020212 $145.00* 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 $256.36 $2.11 $5.22 $21.62 GENUINE PARTS CO GENUINE PARTS CO GENUINE PARTS CO GENUINE PARTS CO PARTS PARTS PARTS PARTS 0249-4232 .1569-4234 C590-4232 0290-4232 001069 001069 001069 001069 OH OH OH OH 020213 $285.31* 1993/10/25 $1,000.00 GOLF CAR MIDWEST GOLF CART RENTAL 0590-4331 001070 OH Q20214 $1,000.00*• 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 $83.70 $55.80 GOPHER STATE ONECALL GOPHER STATE ONECALL SEPT FE SEPT FEE 0569-4306 0549-4306 3090519 3090519 OH OH 029215 $139.50* 1993/10/25 $200.00 GOVERNMT TRAINQ SERV CONF MCNICHOLS/TOMCH 0129-4356 001068 OH 029210 $200.00* OH OHI OH OH OH 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 $271 00 $1,375.36 $.'45.68 $271 00 GROUP HEALTH INC GROUP health INC GROUP HEALTH INC GROUP HEALTH INC NOV INS NOV INS NOV INS NOV INS 0590-4151 0129-4151 0174-4151 0115-4151 1516041 1516041 1516041 1516041 1993/10/25 $542 00 GROUP HEALTH INC NOV INS 0249-4151 1516041 020217 $2,605 04* 1993/10/25 $1,587.51 HAL HESABI PLOW BLADES 0249-4232 023691 OH 029211 $1.58 V.51* 1993/10/25 $25.79 HAMEL BUILDING CENTER HIGHWOOD REPAIR 0249-4233 82837 OH OH^ 9 9 ^ t AW/ 1993/10/25 $15.28 HAMEL BUILDING CENTER SUPPLIES 0290-4231 82679 020210 $41.07*. 1993/10/25 $2.96 HAPPYS POTATO CHIP CHIPS 0591-4802 232767 OH 9 * * 020220 $2.96* 0010711003/10/25 $76 0()HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASU LICENSE 0249-4383 020221 $76 0( * 1993/10/25 $278.1 HIGHWAY 55 RENTAL RENT TREE SPADE 059D-4331 001072 i- fttl|22 $278.Iw mms^ 9 o i •COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Wed Oct 20 CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT 1993 23:40:03VENDOR 1993/10/25 $75.04 KUEHN THOMAS 1993/10/25 $9.41 KUEHN. THOMAS 1993/10/25 $9 41 KUEHM, THOMAS 029223 1993/10/25 $26.65 $120.51* KUEHN. THOMAS 029224 1993/10/25 $213.00 $213.00*LEAGUE OF MN CITIES 029225 1993/10/25 $59.69 $59.69* MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT 1993/10/25 $713.84 MARTINS NAVARRE 66 029226 1993/10/25 $259.23 $973.07* MARTINS NAVARRE 66 02922T 1993/10/25 $60.00 $60.00* MASWCD 1903/10/25 $146.90 MED CENTER HEALTH PLAN 1993/10/25 $417.91 MED CENTER HEALTH PLAN 1093/10/25 $542.02 MED CENTER HEALTH PLAN 029229 1993/10/25 $146.90 $1,253.73*MED CENTER HEALTH PLAN 029229 1993/10/25 $2,227.50 $2,227.50* METRO WASTE CONTROL CO 029230 1993/10/25 $21,629.00 $21,629.00* METRO WASTE 029231 1993/10/25 $1,191.69 $1,191.69* MIDWEST asphalt 1993/10/25 $17.68 MIDWEST BSNS PROD 1993/10/25 $17.67 MIDWEST BSNS PROD1993/10/25 $17.87 MIDWEST BSNS PROD 1C93/10/25 $96.59 MIDWEST BSNS PROD 1993/10/25 $17 68 MIDWEST BSNS PROD 029232 1993/10/25 $17 67 $184.96* MIDWEST BSNS PROD 029233 1003/10/25 $3.99 $3.99* MN CORRECTIONAL FACILI 029234 1093/10/25 $4,509.81 $4,509.81* HN STATE TREASURER 02923S 1993/10/25 $17.16 $17.16* MOTOROLA INC 029239 • 1 1193/10/25 O $13.50 $13.50* MPLS OXYGEN CO o e IPage 3DESCRIPTIONACCOUNT •INVOICE PO NUM.MANUAL ANNUAL GFOA CONFEREN 0069-4381 001093 OHMILEAGE 10/1 TO 10/1 0174-4381 001092 OHMILEAGE lO/l TO 10/1 0569-4381 001092 OHMILEAGE 10/1 TO 10/1 0069-4381 001092 OH HANDBOOK 0039-4240 001074 OH PART 0^^9-4232 37193 OH REPAIRS 0129-4341 001094 OHSTORAGE0)29-4306 001094 OH CONF GAFFRON/MABUSTH 0174-4356 001096 XoNOV INS 0069-4151 001097 OHNOV INS 0249-4151 001097 OHNOV INS 0174-4151 001097 OHNOV INS 0129-4151 001097 OH SEPT SAC FEES 9001-2226 001075 OH NOV FEE 9673-1282 51481193 OH ASPHALT 0249-4233 001035 OH OFFICE SUPPLIES 0249-4210 627760 OHOFFICE SUPPLIES 0174-4210 627760 OHOFFICE SUPPLIES 0059-4210 627760 OHOFFICE SUPPLIES 0129-4210 627760 OHOFFICE SUPPLIES 0039-4210 627760 OHOFFICE SUPPLIES 0069-4210 827760 OH PRINTING 0039-4322 1399 OH PERMIT TAXES 9001-2222 001076 OH REPAIR 0174-4342 W2654401 OH DEMURRAQC 0129-4232 388218 OH COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Wed Oct 20 1993 23:40:03CHECK NO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR Page 4DESCRIPTIONACCOUNT •INVOICE PO NUM. MANUAL0129-4322 1400 OH 0569-4234 001077 OH 0039-4231 001077 OH 0249-4232 001077 OH 0549-4234 001077 OH 0129-4232 001077 OH 0590-4232 001077 OH 0290-4232 001077 OH 0039-4210 5960 OH 0290-4324 001078 OH 0249-4324 001078 OH 0569-4324 001078 OH 0249-4331 7253 OH 0408-4512 7253 OH 0129-4152 001079 OH 0129-4341 12049 OH 0438-4531 OOIIOO OH 0080-4301 378789 m 9115-3841 378789 OH 0080-4303 378789 OH 0080-4303 378789 OH 0840-4303 378789 OH 0408-4303 378789 OM 0408-4531 Q0I099 OH 9999-2031 OOlOf1 X > ‘ V h . 029237 029231 029239 Q29240 1993/10/25 $38.04$38.04*MR. BUD KLEIN PRINT ENVELOPES 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 $12.86 $7.28 $72.38 $2.88 $47.89 $20.51 $27,77 $191.57* NAVARRE HARDWARE NAVARRE HARDWARE NAVARRE HARDWARE NAVARRE t.APDWARE NAVARRE HARDWARE NAVARRE HARDWARE NAVARRE HARDWARE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 1993/10/25 $41.03 $41.03* NORTHLAND BUSINESS HEADSET 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 $7.40 $111.57 $108.36 $227.33* NSP NSP NSP UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 $511.02 $4,374.72 $4,885.74* OTTEN BROS OTTEN BROS HIGHWOOD REPAIR REPLACEMENT STUBBS 1993/10/25 $12.00 $12.00* PERA INS NOV INS 1993/10/25 $23.40 $23.40* PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR REPAIR 1993/10/2S 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 562,596.50 162.596.50* SI.149.72 $920.00 $444.96 S940.90 $1.445 50 $939 50 $5,740.58* $131,006 14 $138,006.14* $4,616.11 $4,616.11* $38 40 $31.40* $5.88 $42.55 PITT-DES MOINES INC WTR TWR PYMT iS/FINA POPHAM POPHAM POPHAM POPHAM POPHAM POPHAM HAIK HAIK HAIK HAIKHAIK HAIK i & & & & & ASSOC ASSOC ASSOC ASSOC ASSOC ASSOC PROGRESSIVE CONST PUBLIC EMPL RET ASSN REED VENDING RITZ CAMERA RITZ CAMERA LEGAL RETAINER AUG LEGAL-SALE FRENCH LA LEGAL HWY 12 CORRIOO LEGAL CONSULTING AUG LEGAL CONSULTING AUG LEGAL CONSULTING AUG STUBBS BAY PYMT 17 PERA 9/27-10/10 ROLLS & CANDY FILM PROC FILM 0591-4802 0129-4210 0129-4210 10354H 3761470 3761374 OH•w OH 'V f o oCOUNCILCHECK REGISTER We.'i Oct 20 1993 2340:03 Pag« 5CHECK N() CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT 1 INVOICE PO NUM.MANUALO2024BS48.43* 02B250 1993/10/251993/10/25 S70.97$6,014.00 $6,084.97* ROLF E ERICKSON RCLF E ERICKSON SUPPLIES NOV FEE 0059-42100059-4307 001089001089 OHOH 0292S1 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 $2,372.66 $159.03 $507.57 $3,039.26* ROLLINS OIL CO ROLLINS OIL CO ROLLINS OIL CO GASOLINE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 9001-1260 0249-4232 0240-4220 001101 61832 61832 OH OH OH 628252 1993/10/25 f350.00 $350.00* STATE OF MINN CPV PROG ANNUAL FEE COOP PURC 0299-4399 001098 OH 029253 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 $66.99 $133.98 $200.97* STREICHERS STREICHERS UNIFORMS UNIFORMS 0129-4221 0129-4221 73134.1 73202.1 OH OH 02B254 1993/10/25 $142.42 $142.42* STRINGER BUS SYSTM FAX PAPER 0129-4210 183805 OH 0292S5 1993/10/25 $45.00 $45.00* THE POLICE INSTITUTE CONF/MOROWCZYNSKI 0129-4356 001080 OH 029256 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 $75.02 $963 83 $1,038.85* TOWN & COUNTRY TOWN & COUNTRY TRASH BAGS OCT CLEANING 0099-4232 0099-4349 001082 001102 OH OH 029257 1993/10/25 $34.65 $34.65* TRACY OIL CO FUEL OIL 0590-4324 22130 OH 029251 1993/10/25 $80.09 $80.09* TRI STATE PUMP PART 0569-4232 9675 OH 029259 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 $108.38 $63 88 $172.24* US WEST COMMUN US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE TELEPHONE 0549-4320 0549-4320 001084 001083 OH OH 029260 1993/10/25 $273.06 $273.06* VESSCO INC REPAIR 0543-4345 00004356 OH 02B26L 1993/10/25 $651.79 $651.79* VILLAGE CHEVROLET REPATR 0249-4341 CVCS2S966 OH 029262 1993/10/25 $304.75 $304.75* WARNING LITES OF MN FLASHERS 0249-4331 C050553 OH * • 026263 1913/10/25 $57 12 $57.12* WECKMAN STEPHEN MILEAGE 0174-4381 001085 OH 029264 1993/10/25 1993/10/25 $10.00 $27.50 $37.50* WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIR WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIR TIRE REPAIR TIRE REPAIR 0249-4342 0243-4342 49662:A 49352 :A OH OH & • &COUNCIL CHECK REGISTER Wed Oct 20 1993 23:40:03CHECK HO CHECK DATE CHECK AMOUNT VENDOR DESCRIPTION A'^COUNT • 0590-4324 INVOICE001016 P«96 6PO NUM. manual 029265 1963/10/25 6314.15 YOCUM OIL CO INC 6314.85" FUEL OIL 6279.758.65 O ♦ ^ ‘ ^ r V* ' ^ * t .WV f'*• •i?'* *» * •. iX>• -t o to •! .'-■-I 'C>^ fji hJ /r^ ‘wj « : l«rf i«/ •..4 w r. -^1ii ^1 I CM a ^ p; a V- -i ^ ; ?-^in •3* -to iiir’ ;iQ COUNCIL MEETING OCT 2 5 1993 CnYOFORONO \ o PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLLECTED SEPi’LNBER 1993NBR BPRMTISS-1 DATE Of RUN 10/01/93 vjPERMIT TYPE Buildlnq SQL fAHlLY-NEW SF-ADO/REMOOEL SF-ACC STRUCTURE DEMO/PRINCIPAL COM-ADO/RCMODEL SF-LANO ALT DEMO-ACCESSORY ACC/QARAGES SMb-tetal Mtchanlc «1 HEATING SYSTEMS WOOD STOVE/FLUE FIREPLACE VENTILATION QAS LINE INSPECT DUCT WORK ONLY REMOVE OIL lANK Sub’tetal PluMbing FIXTURES WATER METER REPLACE METER Sub-total Stwor A Wat or SEWER CONNECTION WATER CONNECTION NEW SEP’IC SVSTE ORNFLO A/OR TANK SAC ONLY Sob-tetaJ FI ro LAWN SPRINKLER FIRE SPRINKLER S«b-total Utor Doflntd LAND ALTERATION! TREE REMOVAL Swb-tot ol OraaR-total QTY 7 23 2 2 1 1 2 5 43* PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO-- CURRENT RANGE - 09/01/93 - 09/30/93BASE FEE 5.919.00 6.080.00 450.00 130.00 63.00 126.00 60.00 1,091.50 13.919.50* VALUATION 1.178,500.00 829.136.00 44.000.00 0.00 3,308.00 10.245.00 0.00 154.200.00 2,219.389.00* PLAN -iEVIEW 3,/49.87 3,488.91 292.50 0.00 0.00 81.90 0.00 660.73 •.273,91* 7•618.75 47,800.00 0.00135.00 2.400.00 0 003266.25 3,775.00 0.0000.00 O.OU 0.000 A 0.00 0.00 0.001112.50 9,000.00 0.004140.00 4.429.59 0 0016 *1,172 50*87.404.59*0.00* 10 916.44 67,915.00 0.003603.00 0.00 0.0000.00 0.00 0 0013*1,519.44*67.915.00*0.00* 3 105.00 0.00 0.0000.00 0.00 0 00<2!200.00 0.00 0 005 A 250.00 0.00 0.001750.00 0.00 0 0011*1.305 00*0.00*0.00* 0 0.00 0.00 0.000 4A 0.00 0.00 0.000*0.00*0.00*0.00* 2 A 100.00 0.00 0 001 MA A 30.00 0.00 0 003*130.00*0.00*0 00* • t«*II.046.44** 2.354.708 59**8.273 91** OTY 2 22 1 1 0 0 0 4 30* 7 0 3 1 2 0 1 14* 5 3 4 12* 0 1 2 5 0 • • 6 1 7* 3 0 3* 74** PAGE;REQUESTER: LIN 1-- PREVIOUS RANGE - 09/01/92 - 09/30/92 BASE FEE 4.817.00 3,308.50 23.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 591.50 8.790.00* 450 0 105 30 60 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 30.00 675.00* 382.00 501.00 0.00 883.00* 0 30 200 250 0 00 00 00 00 00 480.00* 180.00 354.00 534 00* 175.00 0.00 17S.00* 11.S37.00* VALUATION 1,24C.000 00 421.235.00 900.00 Cl. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.700.00 1,720.835.00* 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 0.00* 0.00 48,590.00 46.590.00* 1.000.00 0.00 1.000.00* 1.768.425.00** PLAN REVIEW 3,131.06 1.731.44 14.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 384.48 5,268.93* 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 0.00* 0 00 230.10 230.10* 0.00 0.00 0 00* S.489.03** 'V PtmiTS ISSUED/FEES C0I.1ECTED SEPI’EMBER 1993 Page 2REPORT NBR BFEERPTl-1 DATE OF RUN 10/11/93 ***•* PERMIT FEE REPORT CITY OF ORONO FROM 09/01/93 TO 09/30/93 REPORT NBR. BFEERPTl-1 DATE OF RUN 10/11/93 RfPOST TOTAL •• PERMIT FEE REPORT •• CITY OF ORONO FROM 09/01/93 TO 09/30/93 PAGE: 33REQUESTER; LINBUILDINGMECHANICALPLUMBINGSEWER 4. WATER USER SIGN FIREBASE FEE 13,919.50 1.172.50 1.519 44 1,305.00 130.00 0.00 0.00PLAN REVIEW 8.273.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00SURCHARGE1.112.94 42.06 34.21 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Lie. SEARCH FEE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 0 00 0.00SAC750.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00INVESTIGATION0.00 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 INSEWER CONNECTION 225.00 10.50PERMIT TOTAL 24,281.35 1,225.06 1.553.65 1,310.00 130 00 0 00 0.00 PAGE; 34REQUESTER: LIN BASE FEE PLAN REVIEW SURCKARQE Lie SCARCH FEE SAC INVESTIGATION DEPOSIT MAIL IN SEWER CONNECTION PtRMIT TOTAL 10.50 22S 00 21,500 OB WORK ADDR NBR STREET ISSUED PERMIT NBR ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATION01350NORTH ARM LA 93/09/08 OR-005482 14432244 DAVID A WILLIAMS CONSTRUCT PENDLETON 197,600.000145 15 WOLVERTON PL 93/09/08 OR-005489 13780090 DENNIS QUPTIL CONTRACTING KIRKPATRICK 300,000.00011135HERITAGE LA 93/09/09 OR-005492 14750918 BRUCE BREN HOMES HOFFMAN 350,000.0001155WEAR LA N 93/09/17 OR-005514 00000000 VOGT 196,800.00011075MILLSTON RD 93/09/29 OR-005557 14750548 JENSEN HOMES JACOBS 100.100.00022725SHAOYWOOD RD 93/09/01 OR-005470 00000000 MEEK 40,000.00021058LOMA LINDA AVE 93/09/07 OR-005486 14727581 ROEGLIN BART OORLOG 16,900.00022040SHADYWCXX) RD 93/09/15 OR-005502 15572966 C'JLLICKSON FRITZ ZOSCHKE 67,000.00023035CASCO POINT RO 93/09/13 OR-005503 15330352 SAWHORSE BERTHIAUME 37,800.00021950FOX RIDGE RD 93/09/17 OR-005512 19381139 REIERSON CUSTOM HOMES PHELPS 40,000.00U21150HERITAGE LA 93/09/30 OR-005561 15448606 STYLE SERVICES NICKLOW 35,000.000232i5CRYSTAL BAY RD 93/09/30 OR-005583 00000000 PRUETER 60,000.00031520BOHNS PT RD 93/09/24 OR-005523 14731231 LUNDGREN BROS CONSTRUCTION KIRCHNER 128.000 0004*374 REST PT RD 93/09/16 OR-005511 00000000 BLOOM 18,600 000465SrUBBS BAY RD N 93/09/23 OR-005519 14751103 NEDDERMEYER CONST KROEGER 5,600.00062598CASCO POINT RD 93/09/10 OR-005436 00000000 JONES 2,100.00063960BAYSIDE RD 93/09/01 OR-005474 00000000 FILBRANDT 1,500.00062845WATERTOWN RD 93/09/15 OR-005505 00000000 FITZPATRICK 2,336.0009760DICKEY LAKE DR 93/09/13 OR-005501 15429000 DALPHIN POOL & SPA ABRAHAM 20,000.0009430WAKEFIELD RD 93/09/20 OR-005516 14476084 DESIGNER POOLS HENDERSON 24,000.00112640KELLY AVE 93/09/08 OR-005490 14733397 PLYMOUTH ROOFING VOLKMAR 4.300.00113721CASCO AVE 93/09/13 OR-005504 14791910 SUBURBAN EXTERIORS INC WELTY 5.900.00113412SHORELINE DR 93/09/17 OR-0055I3 19333536 COTY CONSTRUCTION MACFARLAND 3.308.00111035HERITAGE LA 93/09/20 OR-005515 14719124 NORTH SHORE ROOFING & EXCE BJERKE 3,000.00112008SHADYWOOO RD 93/09/21 OR-005525 00000000 BENNETT 2,000.00111240SPRUCE PL 93/09/22 OR-005526 00000000 WALLNER 2,100.00113670NORTHERN AVE 93/09/24 OR-005534 14734785 REPMAN INC GRIFFIN 2,000.001145MYRTLEWOOD RD 93/09/28 OR-005544 00000000 ANDERSON 2,000.0016970TONKAWA RD 93/09/09 OR-005496 00000000 LAUER .0016745ORCHARD PK RD 93/09/28 OR-005553 00000000 ANDERSON .0017211WOODHILL RD 93/09/22 OR-005527 54734300 SULLIVAN’S SERVICES INC .00173237CASCO CIR 93/09/22 OR-005528 14766567 STEVEN WIRTJES NASIDLAK .0017222BEDERWOOD DR 93/09/28 OR-005552 00000000 MUELLER .0018525TONKAWA RD 93/09/10 OR-005500 14766900 ODIN BUILDERS HOLM 34.000.0018970TONKAWA RD 93/09/14 OR-005508 14738427 STUBBS BLDG MOVER HOLM .00242490OLD BEACH RD 93/09/27 OR-005537 15468160 TWIN CITY STORM SASH CO MCCARTHY 6.200 00292485DUNWOOOY AVE 93/09/03 OR-OOS481 00000000 HICKEY 45.000.00293229BCASCO CIR 93/09/17 OR-005497 14730112 WESTWOODS CONST INC SWANSON 200,000.0029985EDGEWOOD HILLS RD 93/09/21 OR-005 ;20 19206996 REBERS CONSTRUCTION BOWEN 78.000.0029475OXFORD RD 93/09/28 OR-OC5521 14461572 REVS & BOHEMA CONSTRUCTION FISHER 150,000.00292425DUNWOOOY AVE 93/09/24 OR-00553S 00000000 OBERHAUSER 27.500.00303249CASCO CIR 93/09/23 OR-005506 00000000 LUESSE 500.0032 43C 315 TONKAWA RO 93/09/10 OR-Q05498 13683511 EDGEWORK BUILDERS INC BENNETT 10.245.00 01 2490 OLD BEACH RO 93/09/02 OR-005477 14291333 HOLM & OLSON/BEAVER BROS MCCARTHY SOO 00011820FOX ST 93/09/03 OR-005478 34820444 GRIGGS CONTRACTING MARVIN 2.000.0001110LEAF ST 93/09/22 OR-005479 34718272 B&C HEATING INC GRONBERQ 7,000.0001970TONKAWA RD 93/09/09 OR-005494 39414211 KLEVE HTQ & AC LAUER 14,000.00011290ORONO OAKS DR 93/09/21 OR-OOS517 3542116^FLARE HTG « AC 7,300.00013237CASCO CIR 93/09/22 OR-005529 1476656)STEVEN WIRTJES NASIDLAK 500.0001970TONKAWA RO B3/0S/28 OR-005545 39343086 OLSON DARREL MASONRY CONT LAUER 1 r < ^c,oo 01 120 GOLDEN VIEW DR 93/09/28 OR-005548 00000000 HALLSON 2'400.00012490OLD BEACH RD 93/09/28 OR-005549 38940005 BURNSVILLE HEATING CO MCCARTHY 5.000.00 CONSTRUCT'•tractino VALUATIONstructionit INC ® * ERCE i INC m CO » I ruction NC •«os PENDLETON HOFFMANVOOTJACOBS meek OORLOG lOSCHKEberthiaumePHELPS nicklowPRUFTER MRCHNERbloomKROEGER JONES PILBRANOT PEJfPATRiCK ABRAHAM HENDERSON ^LKMAR WELTY JWCFARLAND bjerke BENNETT WALLNER griffin ANDERSON lauer ANDERSON nasidlak HUELLER holm HOLM MCCARTHY HICKEY SWANSON BOWEN PISMER oberhauserLUESSE BENNETT CEMtr MCCARTHY marvin GRONBERO lauer NASIOIARLAi«R NALLSON MCCARTHY 197.600.00300.000. 00350.000. 00 J98.R00.00 100.ICO.00AO.000.0016.900.0087.000. 0037.800.00 AO.000.0035.000. 0080.000. 00 128.000.0018.600.005.600.002.100.001.500.00 .?36.0020.000.0024,000.004.300.005.900.003.308.00 3.000. 002.000. 00 2.100.00 2.000.00 2,000.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 38,000.00 - - 00 .8.200.00 ,85.000.00 200,000.00 ,28.000.00 150,000.00 27.500.00 500.00 10.245.00 500.00 2.000.00 ,7.000.00 18.000.00 7.300.00 500.00ir ^fc'.oo 2.800.00 5.000.00 FRI. OCT I. 1993. 3:44 PMPERMITS ISSUED FOR THE MONTH OF PERMIT WORK ADDR NBR STREET129028794251640665202560540282425052730129097076047656550734502435985 page 2.SEPTEMBER 1993ISSUED PERMIT NBR ID NUMBER COMPANY OWNER LAST NM VALUATION 2730 1540 2251 2285 3050 540 110 80 332 80 2100 24SS 985 3237 Y’ k '*#* I? ORONO OAKS OR CASCO POINT RD TURNHAM RD BOHNS PT RD r'ERNOALE RD N WEBBER HILLS RD MYRTLEWOOO RDNORTH ARM DR CASCO POINT RD OLD BEACH RD RAINEY RD ORONO OAKS DR TONKAWA RD DICKEY LAKE DR TONKAVIEW LA FERNDALE GREEN FERNDALE RD N BIRCH LA DUNWOOOY AVf EDGEWOOO HILLS RD RAINEY RD 6TH AVE N PINE RIDGE DEVIN LA 6TH AVE N NORTH ARM DR LEAF ST LEAF ST WESTLAKE ST LEAF ST 6TH AVE N J.A OLD BEACH RD EDGEWOOO HILLS RD CASCO CIR S3/09/28 OR 93/09/23 OR 93/09/30 OR 93/09/29 OR 93/09/07 OR 93/09/09 OR 93/09/01 OR93/09/02 OR 93/09/08 OR 93/09/10 OR 93/09/14 OR 93/09/16 OR 93/09/23 OR 93/09/24 OR 93/09/28 OR 93/09/28 OR 93/09/08 OR 93/09/16 OR 93/09/23 OR 93/09/28 OR 93/09/02 OR 93/09/07 OR 93/09/07 OR 93/09/07 OR 93/J9/27 OR 93/09/24 OR 93/09/27 OR 93/09/27 OR 93/09/27 OR 33/09/28 OR 91/09/30 OR 005550005551005564005558005487005493005471005476005488005499005507005509005531005533005542005547005491005510005532005541 005473 005483 005484 005485 005522 005536 005538 005539 005540 005546 005562 3633256138819911447925913533132800000000349880713941421124737651000000002784479229380137296860442938358929723308247012082533435724347055293722072472592029332521 54287393 54718151 54718151 54718151 54207468 59723521 24738793 24738793 24738793 00000000 54734300 93/09/03 OR-OOS320 14203357 93/09/28 OR-005541 14733641 93/09/22 OR-005530 14766567 MOM Ttvn COOB fi«f id«nc« AdJUlon Cara^B/DcuichBd Forch l>«ck f«nc« Catabo fool fN-roof T#nnlN Court Dock Shod Doao^frInclroi tteocturo pcMO-AccoNsory 'ueturo Ho VO Bfcial tnotI tutionol Storo Doooso Bo^alr 1>109 Cubic Tardt IQI Cubic Tarda or Hoe a Ufidof Inod JM Saplacin^ falatin^ 29 Lifting frinclpal Boaidanca 2S Wall Abandonoont 21 Foundation Only 2t Taaiporary Trallar 29 Rooovata/f aaiodai 30 Accaaaoty Structura 31 Ftalrway to Laka 32 Patainin^ Wall 33 Cntranca Mon^monta 34 Tra# Faojval FIRESIDE CORNER MASTER MECHANICAL INC STEVENS WELL DRILLING CO E E MASONRY INCWEST AIR KLEVE HTQ 4 ACMONSON RANDY LHOKANSON PLUMBING INC METRO WATER CONDITIONING FOLEY PLUMBING & HTG INC STANDARD PLBG & APPL CO DOUG LINDEN INC STEINKRAUS PLBQ INC PLYMOUTH PLUMBING MARK'S PLBQ PIPER PLBQ INC OLSON LARRY THOMPSON PLBQ PATNODE BROTHERS PETERSON ELMER J CO PETERSON ELMER J CO PETERSON ELMER J CO D S. ENTERPRISE HAYES EXCAVATING CITYVIEW PLBQ & HTQ CITYVIEW PLBG 4 HTG CITYVIEW PLBQ 4 HTG SULLIVAN’S SERVICES INC RICHWOOO R C KERBER’S GARDEN 4 NURSERY STEVEN WIRTJES PETTYELSENSTEMPELDUNLAPBASTIENSPOLOVINAPROFTHANSEN KAYLORBORDSONAFFELDTSAJJADIENLGERBIESE HOWELL OTTEN KOKAL MALLIK HANSSEN GRONBERQ HALL BICHANICH HALL BOWEN NASIDLAK 1.100.009.800.00 1.479.59 3,51(0.002/5.003.600.00 9,000.005.850.00 600.00.00900.009.000. 00 23,725.007.500.00 .00 .007.000. 004.340.001.500.007.500.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 2.354.708.59* •HraiTilililfl 1 Q « I«'O'FRI. OCT 1. 1993, 3:44 PMNUMERICAL LISTING SEPPEMBER 1993 PAGE 2PERMIT NBR ISSUED CANCEL ADOR NBR STREET WORK ID numppr roMDANvor-;5i«r-;i;i;;irN .. .. . . . . .™ ^ . . .. . . . . . . . .OR-005528OR-005529OR-005530OR-005531OR-005532OR-005533OR-OOS534OR-005535OR-OOS536OR-005537OR-005531OR-OOSS39OR-005540OR-005541OR-005542OR-005543OR-OOSS44OR-005545OR-00S549OR-005547OR-OOSS48OR-005549OR-005550OR-005551OR-005552OR-005553OR-005557OR-005558 0»:-005561 OR-005562 OR-OU5563 OR-005564 86C 93/09/22 93/09/22 93/09/22 93/09/23 93/09/23 93/09/24 93/09/24 93/09/24 93/09/24 93/09/27 93/09/27 93/09/27 93/09/27 93/09/28 93/09/28 93/09/28 93/09/2893/09/28 93/09/28 93/09/28 93/09/28 93/09/28 93/09/28 93/09/28 93/09/28 93/09/28 93/09/23 93/09/29 93/09/30 93/09/30 N 93/09/30 N 93/09/30 N 3237323732379702435760367024255402490no8033298547659854597080651202490129028792227451075 1640 1150 100 3215 425 CASCO CIR CASCO CIR CASCO CIR TONKAWA RD DUNWOOOY AVE DICKEY LAKE DR NORTHERN AVE DUNWOOOY AVE NORTH ARM DR OLD BEACH RO LEAF ST LEAF ST WESTLAKE ST EDGEWOOD HILLS TONKAVIEW LA EDGEWOOD HILLS MVRTLEWOOO RD TONKAWA RD LEAF STFERNDALE GREEN GOLDEN VIEW DR OLD BEACH RD ORONO OAKS DR CASCO POINT RD BEDERWOOD DR ORCHARD PK RO MILLSTON RD JOHNS PT RD HERITAGE LA 6TH AVE N CRYSTAL BAY RD TURNHAM RD 17 147665670114766567341476656701293835892424725920012972330811147347852900000000015972352124154681C00124738793012473879301247387932214733641012470120824293325211100000000013934308601000000000125334357010000000001389400050136332561013881991117000000001600000000011475054802353313280215448606 01 547343000200000000 01 44792591 STEVEN WIRTJES STEVEN WIRTJES STEVEN WIRTJES STANDARD PLBQ & APPL CO OLSON LARRY DOUG LINDEN INC REPMAN INCHAYES EXCAVATING TWIN CITY STORM SASH CO CITYVIEW PLBQ & HTQ CITYVIEW PLBG & HTG CITYVIEW PLBQ & HTG KERBERS GARDEN & NURSERY STEINKRAUS PLBQ INC THOMPSON PLBGOLSON DARREL MASONRY CONT PLYMOUTH PLUMBINGBURNSVILLE HEATING CO FIRESIDE CORNER MASTER MECHANICAL INCJENSEN HOMES E E MASONRY INC STYLE SERVICES SULLIVAN’S SERVICES INC STEVENS WELL DRILLING CO NASIDLAKNASIDLAKNASIDLAKBIESEGRIFFINOBERHAUSERHANSSENMCCARTHYGRONBERQHALLBICHANICHBOWENAFFELDTANDERSONLAUERHALLHALLSONMCCARTHYPETTYELSENMUELLERANDERSONJACOBS DUNLAP NICKLOW PRUETER STEMPEL 6..00500.00 .00725.00500.00 500.00 000.00500.00 .00200.00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00500.00 000.00.00.00.00400.00 000.00100.00 800.0000.00 100.00 500.00 000.00 .00 000.00 429.59 REPORT N DATE OFPERMIT 1U*er Del SUBDIVIS VARIANCE CUPSKETCH f VACATIO^ Sub-t o 11Qrand*t(REPORT N DATE OFBASE FEE PLAN REV SURCHARG Lie. SEA SAC INVESTIO. DEPOSIT PERMIT T< I 2.003.00 .001.003.00 3.00 3.00 3.00.003.00.00.00.00.00.003.003.00.00.00.003.003.003.00 3.00 00 .00 3.00 3.00 3.00 .00 3.00 I.S9 ZONING PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COIIiECTED SEPniMBER 1993REPORT NBR. BPRMTISS-1 DATE OF RUN 10/01/93 '* PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO-- CURRENT RANGE - 09/01/03 - 09/30/03 PAGE: 1REQUESTER: LINPERMIT TYPE QTY BASE FEE -- PREVTCUS RANGE - 09/01/92 - 09/30/92VALUATIONPLAN REVIEWUhtr Defined SUBDIVISION VARlANCE CUPSKETCH PLANVACATIONSub-total QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW150.00 1,150.00400.00200.00 250.002.150.00*0.000.000.000.000.000.00*0.000.000.000.000.00o.oo*Qrand-totel 300.00 1,300.00100.00 200.000.001,900.00*11»*0.000.000.000.000.000.00*2. ISO.OO**0.000.000.000.000.000.00*0.00**0.00**11**REPORT NBR. BFEERPT2-1date of run 10/01/93BASE FEE PLAN REVIEW SURCHARGE Lie. SEARCH FEE SAC INVESTIGATION DEPOSIT PERMIT TOTAL 1,900.00**0.00**0.00**PERMIT FEE REPORT •• CITY OF ORONO FROM 09/01/93 TO 09/30/93 PAGE:REQUESTER: LIN 1USERREPORT TOTAL2,150.00 2,150.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.QO 0.00 0.00 2,150.00 2,150.00 Mec HE/a AIN woe woe FIN VEN FUE GAS Due REH UNO Sub Plu FIX WAT REPum Sub « % 511 wt\pg■iTi 01/01/93 -RANGE . . . .09/30/93 01/01/92 - 09/30/92PERMIT TYPE PER /FREE STANDQ TEMPORARY Sub'iot ai QTY045.BASE FEE 0.00 125.00 160.00*VALUATION0.000.001.200.00*PLAN REVIEW 0.00 0.00 0.00*QTY139*BASE FEE30.0090.00 270.00*VALUATION1,000.002,500.007.367.00*PLAN REVIEW 0.00 0.00 0.00*Fi raLAWN SPRINKLER FIRE SPRINKLER Sub-tot al 808*280.000.00280.00*0.000.000.00*0.000.000.00*16218*480.001.029.001,509.00*0.00210,230.00210,230.00*0.00668.85668.85*Utor Doflnod LAND alteration TREE REMOVAL RETAINING WALLS 9 121 500.0060.00117.00 0.000.009,700.00 0.000.000.00 1410 730.00 30.00 0 00 203,000.00 0.00 0 00 0.00o.con nnSub-total 12*677.00*9,700.00*o.oo*15*760.00*203,000!00*u. uu0.00*Grand-total 637*«137,077.35** 17 ,357,490.74**48.074.23**533**79,953.50**11.229,272.00**35,856.47** BUILDING MECHANICAL PLUMBING SEWER & WATER USER SIGN FIREBASE FEE 81.120,00 12,910.31 11,775 54 30.154.50 677.00 160.00 * 280.00PLAN REVIEW 48,074.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OQSURCHARGE7,149.18 434.60 335.53 37.00 4.85 0.00 4.00Lie. SEARCH FEE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00SACe. 000.00 0.00 0.00 4,500.00 0 00 0.00 0.00INVESTIGATION180.00 105.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00DEPOSIT0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OPSEWER CONNECTION MAIL IN MAI INWATER CONNECTON ADDL PLAN REVIEW 8,349.573.531.1850.00 97.851.50 39.40 910.60 3.00PERMIT TOTAL 154,454.16 13.549.26 12,150.47 35,602.10 681.85 160.00 287.00 Page 2USER 77.00 0.00 4 l!lo.ro 0 00 0.00 0.00 reouester ^^un ^3.00 ZONING PERMITS ISSUED/FEES COLUiCrED C-YEAR-TO-DATEREPORT NBR. BRRMTISS-1 DATE OF RUN 10/01/93 • PERMIT ISSUED REPORT CITY OF ORONO PAGE: iREQUESTER: LINCURRENT RANGE - 01/01/93 - 09/30/93 -- PREVIOUS RANGE 01/01/92 - 09/30/92PERMIT TYPE QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEW QTY BASE FEE VALUATION PLAN REVIEWUser Defined SUBDIVISION VARIANCE CUPSKETCH PLANVARIANCE/CUPVACATION 13 5214 3 1 5 4.880.009.775.002.600.00850.00250.00975.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.000.000.000.00 0 oo 12351621n 5.235 on6.425.002.100.00 200.00 175.00 0.000.000.000.000.00 0.000.000.000.000.00COMP PLAN AMEND 1 250.00 0.00 0 00 0 0.00 n nn 0.00 0.00Sub-total 89*19,580.00*0.00*0.00*66*14,135.00*U . 00 0.00*0.000.00*Qrand-tot al 89**19,580.00**0.00**0.00^ *66*»14.135.00**0.00**0.00**^II IS 160.00 217.00REOUESTtR^°LiN ^REPORT NBR. BFEERPT2-1 DATE OF RUN 10/01/93BASE FEE USER19,580.00 REPORT TOTAL 19,580.00PLAN REVIEW 0.00 0.00 SURCHARGE 0.00 0.00 Lie. SEARCH FEE O.CO 0.00 SAC 0.00 0.00 INVESTIGATION 0.00 0.00 DEPOSIT 0.00 0.00 PERMIT TOTAL 19,580.00 19,580.00 .'y- •• PERMIT FEE REPORT ••CITY OF ORONOFROM 01/01/93 TO 09/30/93 U ■ I* PMl:REQUESTER: LINVALUATION PLAN REVIEW15 CO 0.00 n fio 0.000.00J5.0030.00 0.00 n nn 0.000.0090.0075.00 0.00 n nn 0.000.000.000.0035.00*0.000.00*0.000.00*35.00**0.00**0.00**PAGE: IREQUESTER; LiN 1993 RECAP OF CONTRACT CITIESJanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMay June July August ScptofT*>er October Novc<rtber Oeceinbcr YTDSpring ParkPlan Review 0.00 539.83 386.(3 218.73 76.05 368.23 70.20 1 J32.95 86.45 ;Inspections 60.00 105.00 135.00 90.00 150.00 150.00 165.00 120.00 75.00Retainer25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 1..00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00TOTAL85.00 669.83 5(6.A3 333.73 251.05 543.23 260.20 1,277.95 186.45 iNo. Plan Reviews 0 3 1 1 1 2 2 4 2No. Inspections 4 7 9 6 10 10 11 8 5Nlrtnetonk* BeachPlan Review 0.00 46.80 122.85 281.13 286.98 2.787.86 547.63 649.68 228.15 iInspections75.00 120.00 240.00 75.00 105.00 195.00 15.00 210.00 75.00Retainer25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00TOTAL100.00 191.80 387.85 381.13 416.98 3,007.86 587.63 884.68 328.15 (No. Plan Reviews 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2No. Inspections 5 8 16 5 7 13 1 14 5 , ____________185.00 861.63 934.28 7U.86 668.03 3,551.09~847.83 2,162.63 514.60 ""........ 1( TO;Mayor and City Council FROM: • ^ Ron Moorse, City Administrator DATE;October 19, 1993 SUBJECT: Wayzata School District Collaboration Coalition Several weeks ago a representative of the Wayzata School District presented a proposal to the City Council regarding a Wayzata School District collaboration coalition which would have representation from^the various cities in the district. The City Council did not make a commitment regarding participation in the coalition. The City has been contacted by Mandy Little, an Orono resident, who has volunteered to serve as the City's representative on the coalition. If the Council determines the City should have representation on the coalition. Council may want to schedule a time to interview Ms. Little or any other candidates the Council may be aware of. r TO: PROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator jyt October 13, 1993 SUBJECT: Lake Access Task Force Report I have attached a letter from Gene Strommen indicating the Lake Access Task Force is preparing its final report and inviting the Orono City Council to submit a minority report, if it so desires. An outline of the proceedings of the Lake Access Task Force is attached for Council review. A' W W I LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT LAKE ACCESS COMMITTEE OCT 7 1993 AGENDA C ‘ 5 Cv ‘ 1 J Monday, October 18,1993, 6:30 PM LMCD 0 If ice. Nor west Bank Building, 900 E. Wayzata Blvd., Wayzata 1 Lake Access Task Force Report A. Summary Outline of the Lake Access Task Force B DNR Access Perspective - Gordon Kimball Martha Reger Larry Kidien C. Appendix 1. M ember ship R oster 2. E xisting Public Access I nventory Licensed Marinas 2. Additional Business LAKE MTNNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT LMCD Lake Access Committee 10/1/93 TO: INFO TO: SUBJECT: Jim Grathwol LATE and LMCD Lake Access Committee Chair Gordon Kimball, MN DNR Summary Outline of the Lake Access Task Force and LMCD Lake Access Committee Proceedings The enclosed outline represents a complete set of the material, some of which you received in earlier editions. You may keep this as one intact set and discard the earlier portions, although they are basically the same except for a new item 2 added to item ’*I”, dealing with the LMLOA challenge to the 700 car/trailer parking goal. The LMCD Lake Access Committee is n^ ^heduIM revieji tne proceedings as. summeriz.ed hj_ L^^ thAS outline. Since this meeting, is. sch_j^i|| iOZil^ ^ ^ TxTc^e director ujA\. he out, of the ofji^e uj^ “ will be necessary for the summary t.o be done after 10/i_>-_i. likely will require a hand-out at^ Uie 1Q/JJ. Tpeeting... It is possible the full draft outline can be provided to each board member in advance of the 10/18 meeting so they have the Lnefit of the over-all LATF proceedings. The edii|4 summao^ would then serve as the condensed out line for: con>mi t.t_^- review ajt 10/18 meet Gordon Kimball and Martha Reger, will provide a separate background paper of the issues from the DNR J Kimball/Reger will provide m?D -uLarywhich may be aside from that presented in the LMCD ..ummary. the LMCD executive director presently sees it: Executive Summary Introduction and background Context of the lake access needs on Lake Minnetonka related to car/trailer parking for public access. * goal of 700 c/t spaces * equitable distribution * standards for c/t parking * the parking inventory * public access agreements for cities/agencies * potential access sites * marina potential to i/^'aoaf'itrateqy for reaching the 700 c/t goal LMCD role in maintaining future publi The summary as I. 11 . Ill IV V. access REPORT OF THE1992 LAKE ACCESS TASK FORCE STUDY FOR LAKE MINNETONKA July, 1993 Preliminary Draft Outline Basis for Initiating the 1992 Lake Access Task Force Study: A.The Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka, adopted by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) in October, 1991, confirms the following Lake Access Objectives: 1.Establish by 1993 criteria for acceptable access including ramps, reliable lakeside and remote parking for car/trailers, handicapped access, appropriately signed. Criteria should provide for: a. Minimizing use of on-street parking Minimizing amount of lake frontage required Control environmental, aesthetic impacts on lake and adjacent properties Minimizing effects on local and neighborhood traffic patterns b. c. d. 2. Complete by 1993 a joint study of all access ramps and associated car/trailer parking 3.Develop a plan by 1994 for providing LMCD-approved boat access ramps with 700 reliable car/trailer (c/t) parking spaces 4.Provide by 1995 a total of 700 reliable boat access c/t parking spaces 5.Widen or otherwise improve by 1996 the efficiency of existing ramps for use by more than one car/trailer at a time. B.The Management Plan similarly confirms LAKE ACCESS POLICIES which include: 1.The LMCD will cooperate with DNR to establish a plan to ensure the availability of 700 reliable c/t parking spaces and public and private launch tamps. 2.Future public access points will utilize remote parking and shuttles as appropriate. 3.The LMCD will work to optimize the use of public lands for winter access for all user groups. 4.The goal for patking at public ramps will be to provide sufficienc off-street parking in the vicinity that utilizes remote parking facilities, facilitates handicapped access, minimizes on-street parking, lake frontage, water quality effects, aesthetic intrusions and minimizes effects on local and neighborhood traffic flow. C.DNR introduces an Offer of Option to Purchase Land on Maxwell Bay for a Public Access, November, 1991. 1 Orono City Council learns November 9, 1991 of DNR access option on Maxwell Bay, raises many questions. 2.LMCD Water Structures Committee learns from LMCD staff November 14, 1991 of DNR access option. Committee gives support to the possible acquisition, recommends a subcommittee of residents and city officials to work with DNR. 3.LMCD Board reviews Water Structures Committee recommendation December 4, 1991. Board hears testimony from Orono official and lakeshore residents contesting the committee support of an access acquisition without first receiving response of Orono city/residents. LMCD Board agrees, appointing a study committee to include affected parties and public agencies. 4.The MN DNR, in response to communications from Orono and LMCD officials and interested persons, offers proposals January 9 and 16, 1992, outlining how DNR would handle its option to purchase an access site on Maxwell Bay, City of Orono. DNP supports the LMCD being the lead agency, providing the framework for completing the proposal. DNR finds this consistent with LMCD’s role as coordinator of public access issues as described in the LMCD Management Plan. This proposal is to begin the process or cooperative efforts to reach goals for providing reliable public access to Lake Minnetonka while meeting the needs and concerns of the communities and citizens of the Lake Minnetonka area. 5. a. b. LMCD Board approves the DNR January 16 proposal #2 at its January 22 board meeting. Proposal actions inc1udei ^DNR to exercise its option to purchase property on Maxwell Bay as identified November, 1992. A cooperative effort will be undertaken between the City of Orono and the LMCD with the DNR to study the purchase and development feasibility of sites from Gayle s Marina to the DNR’s Maxwell Bay site. * Examine a combination of uses ® ^ site to include shore fishing, fishing pier, open space and other appropriate uses. c. * Cooperators jointly support and obtain funding from Legislative Commission on MN Resources (LCMR), Metropolitan Council, MCWD, and other appropriate sources. * DNR agrees to postpone access site development until the cooperative effort is completed or _ _ _ is determined infeasible. (What is "infeasible"? -- the study or the site?) A task force is established consisting of all affected interests to implement the public access siting process called for in the LHCD Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka. The task force will proceed immediately to meet the Management Plan's objectives. Lake Access Task Force Meetings: A. The first Lake Access Task Force meeting on 3/11/92 introduced its purpose, goal and objectives: PURPOSE -- to establish a plan to meet the Management Plan lake access policies developed in the 1983 and 1986 Lake Minnetonka Task Force studies. GOAL involves coordination of an immediate inter­ agency inventory, study and assessment of the car/trailer parking spaces at public launch ramps to meet the 700 reliable c/t objective. LAKE ACCESS OBJECTIVES: a. Establish criteria in LMCD Code for acceptable year-round lake access, including launch ramps, lakeside and remote c/t parking, handicapped access and signage. b. Conduct joint study of all access ramps and associated c/t parking, identifying all existing ramps and associated lake parking. c. Develop a plan for and provide LMCD-approved boat access ramps with 7C0 reliable c/t parking spaces d. Widen or otherwise improve efficiency of existing ramps for use by more than one c/t at a time. , e. Resolve MN DNR Maxwell Bay access proposal in accord with Management Plan policies and objectives and the 1983 and 1986 Task Force Study recommendations by: 1) Activating the Lake Access Task Force, appointing representatives of affected communities, DNR, LMLOA and cititens to implement the public access siting process. 2) Facilitate a cooperative effort to address land use issues that are the basis for objections raised by the City of Orono. 3) Conduct a feasibility study of land purchase between Gayle's Marina and DNR-optioned property. 4) City of Orono and LMCD coperate in securing funding support for the access properties. THREE SUBCOMMITTEES FORMED: a. Standards b. Data Gathering c. Steering B. Car/Trailer Parking Inventory conducted by DNR and LMCD staff April 13-14. Narrative of 4/15 and "Update of Public Access Parking on Lake Minnetonka," of 4/30 developed for Data Gathering Subcommittee, Attachment 1_^ C. Data Gathering Subcommittee reviews 4/30 Inventory Update at meeting of 6/10. Criteria to identify reliable car/trailer parking is identified as an immediate need. D. Standards Subcommittee met 6/18. Facilitator Don Buckhout is introduced. Groundrules (concensus decision­ making, designated membe 3 and good faith negotiation) to guide subcommittee process is presented. Parking Standards for Public Accesses developed 6/85 are reviewed. DNR presents a standard public access design plan. Model Agreement for Lake Access Parking developed 12/85 is reviewed. Three tasks assigned by subcommittee: 1. Evaluate number of c/t parking spaces in access lots using 1985 LMCD criteria (DNR. Kimball) 2. Evaluate number of on-street c/t parking spaces using 1985 LMCD criteria, looking for spaces out to 2,000. (LMCD, Strommen, Grathwol) 3. Conduct aerial photography of access locations during heavy use period (Orono, Jabbour) E. Data Gathering/Standards Subcommittees meet jointly 7/15. Tasks identified above presented to subcommittees. 1. C/t oarking spaces at lots differ modestly from counts of prior years per DNR analysis. . . accesses contain no designated off-street c/t parking space, namely Carsons Bay, Deephaven; Williams St./Halsted Dr. Halsted Bay, Minnetrista; Cooks 2. C/^parking spaces on streets were inventoried in detail by LMCD intern Jon Linne. 2.000' from access, 500' farther than the 1^83 c/t parking criteria. A preliminary count of 845 spaces were identified. 3. Public access site aerial photographs recording c/t parking patterns were presented by Gabriel Jabbour. Site limitations and potential remote parking areas were noted. 4. Reliable Parking Space standards were reviewed. This resulted in a subcommittee recommendation for seven criteria and three supplemental recommendations. 5. The LCMR grant outcome for funding additional land acquisition for Maxwell Bay access options was announced at $944,000, subject to 1993 Legislative approval. F. Data Gathering Subcommittee met August 12. C/t parking inventory reviewed, amending report to decrease existing and potential c/t parking spaces from 845 to 755. The 755 c/t parking space count has not yet been measured against the parking standards. The standards of 7/15 have yet to be adopted by the Lake Access Task Force. G Standards and Data Gathering Subcommittees met September 9. Modifications to the 8/26/92 draft Current and Potential Car/Trailer Parking Inventory were adopted. Modifications to the Parking Standards were also adopted Both the Inventory and Standards as modified are ready for presentation to the Task Force. Action j i. j recommendations and additional issues were also adopted. H. Steering Committee met September 18. the committee confirmed the work of the Data Gathering and Standards subcommittees, and identified two additional issues or the Task Force, namely: 1. Coordinate site acquisition for Maxwell Bay and closing of the Gray’s Bay Dam access site (upon completion of the new Grays Bay Hwy. 101 Causeway access site.) 2. Coordinate development planned for c/t parking a Gray’s Bay Causeway and Hennepin County Regional Park. I. Lake Access Task Force met October 21. • I. The Lake Access Task Force met October 21. Action taken: 1 3. b. Concensus reached on Parking Standards for Lake Minnetonka Public Accesses. These standards contain differences from those developed in 1986, namely: a. Distance for c/t parking spaces extended from 1,500' to 2,000' from access point, with requirement that a temporary boat mooring facility (make-ready dock) be provided for a number of boats equal to 10% of the parking spaces beyond 1,500'. Providing 700 c/t parking spaces on weekends and holidays from Memorial Day to Laborday with at least 50% of c/t parking spaces available weekdays. Hours for parking determined by LMCD, in cooperation with DNR. Count 75% of on-street parking spaces not signed, 100% if signed "Car/Trailer Parking Only". Count car-only spaces (no trailer) in access lots up to 10% of total c/t parking spaces per lot. d. Lake Minnetonka Lakeshore Owners Assn. (LMLOA) representative Don Germanson presented an LMLOA position calling for a reduction of the 700 count for c/t parking spaces established as the Lake Minnetonka goal. LMLOA members present in the audience, including the LMLOA legal counsel, questioned the count. DNR and LMCD representatives supported the 700 count agreed upon in the 1983 Task Force Study as a valid and reasonable number. The count is based upon Lake Minnetonka's 14,000 acre capacity to accommodate one boat through a public access 20 acres of water surface. LMLOA held to its position opposing the count. The Task Force w.as unwilling to take action to lower the count. Concensus v:as not reached on this business item. for each LATF Chair Jim Grathwol advised tl.e Task Force that he will reactivate the LMCD Lake Access Committee of LMCD board members. The committee will coordinate related lake access objectives and policies with the LATF as appropriate. J.The LMCD Lake Access Committee recommended at its 11/23 meeting the following LATF studies for LMCD Board approva1: , t s •1. Parking Standards for Lake Minnetonxa public access 2. LATF Subcommittee c/t parking inventory, urging the LATF to move forward to make as many reliable c/t parking spaces as possible to meet 700 c/t objective 3. Cities and agencies with existing public accesses ^ be approached to ^:..4ct agreements for securing their c/t poking spaces, with a goal of four city/agency 4 . agreements by 4/15/93. LMCD Lake Access subcommittee draft a concept model c/t parking agreement to present to LATF 12/9/92. K. LMCD Board on 12/2/92 approved action taken by the LATF 10/21/92, and LMCD Lake Access Committee of 11/23/93 on: 1. Parking Standards for Lake Minnetonka Public Accesses 2. LATF Subcommittee inventory of 755 potential c/t parking spaces, subject to LATF approval. 3. LATF to seek agreements with all cities and agencies to secure public access c/t parking spaces with a goal of securing four agreements by 4/15/93. 4 Appointed an LMCD subcommittee to draft a model agreement by 12/9/92 for cities/agencies identifying c/t parking spaces which meet the Parking Standards. 5. Reaffirmed Jim Grathwol to continue his service as LATF chair in response to the City of Orono mayor's letter of 12/2/92 questioning Grathwol s intentions, asking that he be removed or ashed to resign. L. The LATF Steering Committee on 12/8/92 adopted for Task Force consideration: • i ..u 1. An eight point resolutions outline to guide the Task Force and leadership in its operation. 2. Subcommittees to deal with: * Agreements on Car/Trailer Parkina Spaces * Access Siting and Equitable Distribution * Access Funding (for access purposes) 3 Disband Data Gathering and Standards Committees 4 Acknowledaed an LMLOA outline questioning continuing the goal of 700 c/t parking spaces and allocation of those spaces by zone for presentation to the 12/9/92 LATF meeting. M. The LATF approved the following actions 12/J/93 upon Steering Committee and Subcommi Itee reco™,- dations. 1 Operating resolutions outline approved st’tmg. a That all actions of the Lake Will be generated and coordinated tnrough its subcommittees for proper participation. Each subcommittee will set a more aggressive meet ing schedule so that t.he LATF can m»»e goals. c. All meetings, subcommittee or LATF, considered public meeting.s, and all parties wiy b^given at least seven (7) drays advance notice. d That the chairperson shall remove from his chair position if he cannot go along with the LATF goals or affects the credibilx y the LATF e The primary function of the b. 2. g- h. N . The chair or any member shall not involve him/herselE in stating a policy making position on behalf of the LATF. f Major issues and goals shall be conducted under a "best efforts" or concensus process. Procedural or business issues may be conducted by Roberts Rules of Order. A facilitator will serve at all LATF meetings and any subcommittees as reguested. The current chairperson will continue. current and Potential C-ai/Trailer Parking Inventory dated 12/10/92 totaling 735 c/t parking spaces, subject to meeting adopted Parking Standards. subject to agreements with the which the existing public accesses are located, wa^ accepted. 3. Action taken on Data Gathering/Standcyds Subcommittee supplemental recommendations, namely: a Concensus NOT reached on adopting the recommendation for "continuin? the 9 ”^' ^ 5 car/traller narking spaces and those spaces by zone, referred to the LMCD Board for a final decision. b Amended to read "The current allocation ana “■ distribution of car/trailer parking spaces for the lake does not correspond to allocation goals and n^^ds to be addressed. 4. ^ j 0. All cities are urged to make a '“"i*5 accesseffort to provide their shares of lake acce.^^^ car/trailer parking spaces. Citie-, encouraged to coordinate and cooperate to meet 2one goals. 4. Adopted Steering Comnmittee r e.-n^endat i ons to establish the following ®“tcommlt ees. Arress Siting and Equitable Di» f ribut ion t: llTelLlls o’n Car/Xrailer parking Spaces c Access Funding (Working with DNR) d'. Continue th- Steering Committee 5. sample guidelines P-^°«^“[nta?or'di^erttS ’to dnn''^pe:r£lc^g:n:Unes/procedures for the LATP. 6. Model Parking ^tee priorTo'^'^LATrthe Agreements Subcommittee prior consideration in January. The Steering Committee recommended at its 12/29/92 meeting: nn^ritina Guidelines a.s developed 1. A draft Task . ^facilitator Don Buckhout. by LATF Chair Jini Grathwol , t 0. p. Q. 2. Objectives for three new subcommittees and Steering C ornrn ittee* ^ -.i.*3 Steerina Committee accepted invitation of LMLOA to meet'with their board to discuss issues r-^'^ted to the 700 c/t parking spaces goal not resolved y LATF 12/9. The LATF approved the following actions at iuS 1/13/93 K^'^Operating guidelines accepted with amendments to Items 3b and 4h(iii)- - Objectives for Steering Committee and subcommittees with Lendments and additions, leaving „ opei. for future modi f ications nr. the committee • y recommend. rhairuerson appointments to Steering Comn\ittee, Bert F^rteH Lm2d Lephaven; Parking/Agreements, Mike Bloom, LMCD, Minnetonka subcommittees, Co-chairs Don Oermanson, LMLOA and John Schneider, MSC. Steerina Committee reviews, actions of 7/2/3Z-. nreess Siting Subcommittee: (2/2/93 meeting) t ProcedirL for handling public access site enquiries reviewed including MN statute and ‘•Owners Bill of Rights", subject to further evaluation. 2 .Potential access sites from previous years lists given preliminary larger ^rTanrsl??:i%iter ‘Tro5:^;itrir^a,oc coads. lurking °c? by staH specifications were recommended for inclusion agreement. ,, . r^i-iiiafiror aoteemf^nt to be subject to ^^?o®Adminiafr:riie^Commit?ee'and Board approval. Steering Committee Access C/T Parking 1. Received staff report ° council for to^n"’of4*"cA parking spaces'at two city acces.as. 2. Access Siting Subcommittee recommended a t«-point Access Site Evaluation Criteria witn R. S . T . ihfb«t^In?e?est"or?hrn.o=t public u=e of the lake. 2. R®sP°"=®^"°^3'^Jy®Beephav^n!‘*Mound and^WayLta was ^!rer"sprirP-k wauts clarification of inventory. • e. mt-nrirc^ad fot evaluation against chair Grathwol. Lake Access Task Force adopted or reviewed the following items at its 3/18/93 iig^. parkino Agreement December. 2. Access Site Evaluation Criteria of 3/9/93: 'ilrest'Lrbee “cLmm!cated ‘L°^ ^vaUaMe f” public access on Lake Minnetonka. 4. Aerial slide ‘^°P“""^"^j*^‘°si°e,^si,yglsted''to''serve as r?u?urrguidrforacces= site inguiries/proposals. Steering Committee meeting of 4/6/93 acwiouo Access Siting S_ub^pjDmAt.LpI piahts, state and Lake .;:"re?o:;ka^rcc:s%^pripoLn’^^:coa.ended to LATE. Potential access site su...,ary reviewed, requiring further evaluation. U. ml ranseway Access needs update. '^'ocrae^derMroO? i^fi^^ Access Siting Subcommittee J',tsr\en^pomt 1. Potential access sites aLpted 3/18/93 plus ?^:re%^d‘:i^:a ;s . i * "I “‘''Lration ln advancing the access must be* City cooperation lu secured. »...«♦ -,i«o be se<"ired in. agen.y cooperation must ilso n. • • • advance of a site being selected. 2 . identified result ofThe following potential access sites were to remain on the potential site list a the access site criteria being applied to each site. Tonka Bay City Dock, channel to Gideons Bay Timber Lane, Gideons Bay, Shorewood Mai Tai , E.xcelsior Bay ___ 456 Arlington Av ., Waysata Bay (private residenc ) Pelican Point, Spring Park Bay, Mound Lost Lake, Cooks Bay, Mound Advance Machine, West Arm, Spring Par » i V.LMCD Lake Access Committee meeting of 5/7/93 actions: 1 City of Minnetrista Lake Access Parking Agreement accepted and recommended to the board for accep ance 2.Reoorts made on progress of car/traj.lei parking agreements with Deephaven, Mound ^aff"^ Park and Hennepin County provided by LMCD statt. W.Lake Access Task Force meeting of 5/12/93 actions. %ot»nUal access sites totaling seven adopted as identified by the Access Siting Subcommittee 5/ /* • 2.Potential merina sites for public access ^^reed be considered separately from the P®*"-^ arouping identified on 5/4/93. Six conditions stated which are to be applied to considering * ■ Potential use of extending existing Extent to which marina already serves public for fee paid access. ^ Attitude of nearby homeowners i-or public a- * use.Considering such public accer-s use as a temporary trial. Management issues, such as how publicparkin,/launch apace wou d bc_r«erve^^ S^mlR^bud,:? c"ou:t»in?s in'annual funding leased space. 3.“fi^:nnani?n ”tii;: Lgotiations between the City of Otono and MH DNR. X.IMCD Labe Access Jon.mittee m*'-ting of 6/15/03 identified thf fotlowinrtaaks which it intends to continue r°“e?irmine the equitable distribution among existing and Dot*»ntial new access sites. 2. Evaluate and negotiate ” for their potential in providing fiee public cai/trailer parking acr^ssk. Apply equitable distribution needs where possible. DNR to be involved in compensation to marina for space/service provided. , 3. Assess means by which existing accesses may be upgraded for safety and greater user satisfaction. 4. Board members work with LMCD and DNR staff in finalising car/trailer parking agreements with cities and agencies having existing public accesses. 5. Access signage needs to be developed incorporating agreement provisions, LMCD and cities/agencies to cooperate on construction/installation. OH The above summary concludes the meeting review process, recommendations and actions of the Lake Access = . its subcommittees and the LMCD Lake Access Committee through 6/93. BOARD MEMBERS David H Cochran. Chair Greenwood Tom Penn. Vice Chair TonKa Bay Douglas E Babcock. Secretary Spring Park Scott Carlson. Treasurer Minnetnsta Mike Bloom Minnetonka Beach Albert (Bern Foster Deephaven James N Grathwol Excelsior JoEllen L Hurr Orono William A Johnstone Minnetonka Duane Markus Wayzata George C Owen Victoria Robert Rascop Shorewood Tom Reese Mound Robert E Slocum Woodland LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 900 EAST WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE 160 • WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391 • TELEPHONE 612 473 7033 October 13, 1993 EUGENE R. STROMMEN executive DIRECTOR Mr. Ron Moorse City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MM 55323 Dear Ron: The proceedings of the Lalce Access Task Force have been drafted for a preliminary review by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Lake Access Convnittee. That review will take place at 6:30 pm, Monday, October 18, as noted in the LMCD meeting schedule. This review will be followed by a draft incorporating any committee recommendations resulting from the committee’s review. The full Lake Access Task Force will then be provided the draft report for its comments and final report for adopt ion. The City of Orono City Council expressed certain reservations about the Task Force proceedings. Because of these reservations, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District invites the Orono City Council to submit a minority report to accompany the Lake Access Task Force Report if it su prefers. As to the timing of such a report being received for presentation to the Lake Access Task Force, it would appear at this ti-me that the LMCD Lake Access Committee will submit the draft report to the Lake Access Task Force some time in early to mid- November . The report would be most timely if ir could be incorporated into the mailing to the Lake Access Task Force at the time the November meeting If called. That date will likely be set at the October 18 committee meeting. We will keep you promptly informed of that date. Thank you for your support on this significant study involving public access for Lake Minnetonka. V \ lAv Eugene R. Strommen cc: Mr. Gabriel Jabbour. Orono Citv Council rj s » ij TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator October 21, 1993 SUBJECT: City Recorder Resignation I have attached a copy a letter of resignation from Marva Hurst, the City Recorder. She has found that the process of composing and typing the minutes takes significantly longer than she had planned. We are in the process of reviewing other candidates for the recorder position. Marva J. Hurst 303 Walker Avenue North Wayzata, MN 55391 (612) 476-2722 W w I ^ * 'OCr 1 '8 '1993 October 17, 1993 Hon. Mayor Callahan, City of Orono Members of the Orono City Council Members of the Orono Planning Commission Members of the Park Commission frD I cs l L- re: Resignation Ladies and Gentlemen: I regret that I must resign from the post of Recorder for the City of Orono, effective immediately. Unfortunately, the proper fulfillment of my duties here is interfering with those of my full-time job. and 1 cannot allow that to continue to happen. I am grateful for the opportunity you provided to me. and hope that I was an asset during my short tenure as Recorder. I will be out of town on business from October 18 until October 26, and on my return, will a.s.sist in whatever way I can until you have found a replacement. Thank you again for your understanding and consideration. Respectfully, Marva J. Hurst 4 1 J TO: PROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator October 19, 1993 SUBJECT: Legal Costs Related to the Public Works Staff Disciplinary Hearing The City has been billed for 41 hours of legal services related to the Public Works staff disciplinary hearing. The hours can be divided into three categories: 1.) Advice to city staff in following through on the disciplinary action. 2.)Research and advice to the City regarding the Open Meeting Law and Government Data Practices Act as they related to the hearing. 3.) Conducting the disciplinary hearing. Of the legal service time spent related to the disciplinary action, 17 hours were related directly to the hearing, 10 hours were related to research and providing advice related to the Open Meeting Law and other related issues, and 5 1/2 hours were related to providing advice to staff and preparing for the hearing. I have attached a letter from Popham Haik responding to concerns expressed by the City regarding the amount cf time spent on each phase of the disciplinary process. Although the City did require advice regarding the data practices act and open meeting law the interpretation of the requirements of these laws in relation to the City's disciplinary process should not require a significant amount of research. It was my expectation that the attorney representing the City Council would provide a significant amount of guidance to the Council in ensuring the hearing was held both fairly and expeditiously. The attorney did not play an active role during the hearing to provide the type of guidance that could have expedited the hearing process. ..mC. .a.-It.n-JL? a* P O I' H A M H A 1 K d KAu'MAf^. ltd U 1 nvr.rrt t«v »09 9»i IIOQ MiAMt OA Tac 109 tjo-ogto O r m •?oo S u I T t 3 3 0 0 222 0Outm N n ’-h M M(tjC4oniic. Mii^NircnrA 93402 tel 6l233J4iOO f AK Ol2 SJ4g00a KCVIM P. PTAUNTO^J. CtQ. BiNier D ial («19i ssA BtlO TffL Ot«43 94* 40*8439 OflAMA**T TIl 01 »4» 711 298S0J October 21, 1993 VU FACSIMILE Ronald J. Moorse Pot Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323*0066 Re; Billing for O’Brien Disciplinary Matter Dear Ron: I am writing at Tom Barren’s request to respond to the portion of your letter c. October 19, 1993 to him that dealt wiUi tlic above-rcfercnccd matter. In your letter, you noted that approximately 18 hours of Urac was spent on research and advice regarding the Open Meeting Law and the Data Practices Act and ask that we provide you with information about who the advice was provided to and why it took so much lime to complete. You also noted that approximately 17 hours was devoted to the hearing in tills matter and asked that we review why the hearing was allowed to go on for so long . I have reviewed the bill and have the following responses to your inquiries: • Open Meeting Law/Data Practices Advice. As you may recall, the City’s Persomiel Policies required the Council to consider this matter on two different occasions. The first of those two occasions was the Council’s approval of your decision to impose discipline on Mr. O’Brien. In connection with that meeilng, we analyzed the Open Meeting Law and Data Practices Act. We sub.scquenily advised both you and the Council of the legal requirements of the those two laws. I have aiiaclicd copies of the letters sent to you on this subject Because of the tension between the employee’s right to privacy and the public’s right to access to the political proces.s. government employee disciplinary matters raise many of the tia/22025S&l KV2I/91 Ronald J. Moorsc October 21, 1993 Page 2 most difficult Open Meeting Law and Data Pracdccs Act issues. It took us some ume to son through those issues and be sure that we were providing the City with the proper advice. • The Disciplinary Hearin g, Once Mr. O’Brien appealed Uic discipline imposed upon him, the City’s Personnel Policies required a hearing before Uie City Council. The Personnel Policies do not outline the type of hearing required in such a situation. In an effort to create a sufficient record to avoid a finding in llic event of an appeal that the City ^ted in an arbitrary or capricious manner, I outlined a process that called fur Uie Council (as ilic decision maker) to have separate representation from you (as the person advocating the discipline). As you may recall, 1 advised you to consult with Andrew Parker of our firm but also told you (as Andy did) that it was not required that he be present at tltc hearing. I also oudined a process to be used at the hearing that allowed each side full opportunity to present their stories, again in an effort to Insulate the City from potential Ofi review. I have attached, for your information, a copy of the letter I sent to both you and Mr, O’Brien outlining that process. The process I outlined did not envision a hearing of over five hours; I was as surprised as anyone to hear about the lime involved. Since I was not ther^, I cannot explain why the hearing took as long as it did. Obviously, the entire process associated with lids maitci turned out unsaiislaciorily for both you and the Council. I am also disappointed witli the way things turned out. With respect to the bill, wc do not a.«k any client to pay bills it does not Uiink arc justified. We only ask that you evaluate the value of Uic services you received and make whatever payment, if any, you feel is warranted. I hope diis answers youi questions. Please give me a call when you have had a chance to consider this matter so that we can bring this matter to a conclusion. Sincerely, Kevin P. Staunton cc; TlBarrcit r TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Ron Moorse, City Administrator jy/^ DATE:October 21, 1993 SUBJECT:Request for Public Hearing Concerning the Development of Ball Fields at Old Crystal Bay Road and County Road 6 A resident near the property proposed for the two Little League Ball Fields has requested an opportunity to comment regarding the use of the property for ball fields. He believes the City should hold a public hearing to obtain input from the residents who may be affected by the ball field use. Because the ball fields are a park use, which is a permitted use in the residential zone, a formal public hearing is not required. The Council or the Park Commission may want to hold a public information meeting to review the proposal and receive comments from the public. m Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division Waters Edge Building 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Reply to Telephone No. Oakdale Office 77Q-S10S October 15, 1993 Mr. Ronald J. Moorse City Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Oct i953 Subject:Control Section 2713 Trunk Highway (T.H.) 12 at Willow Drive Traffic Control Review Request ilf " 0 *4/^ Dear Mr. Moorse, of T.H. 12 during the AM and PM peaks at Willow Drive. We have completed our review of the suggestions. The inplace signing and overhead flasher design were reviewed to determine if placing addiuonal messaecs flagging or flashers would impreve driver attentiveness. The mpla^ signmg and flasher design are sufficient for the speed and geometries of the roadway. The high volume of traffic, insufficient channelization and the large number of local accesses divert away from the inplace signing. Adding more messages for drivers in an area that has those conditions is not likely to have a significant impact on traffic operations. TTic possibility of changing the lane configuraUon by restriping was mvestigated. fhe mpl^e pave^nt on T.H. 12 consists of two 12 foot through lanes, a 12 foot nght turn lane a^ a 10 fwt shoulder. The preferred option would be to create a center left turn law ^^r l»th T.H. approaches by eliminating the west bound or east bound right turn lane. One ^ lanes would become a combination through/right turn lane. Another option would to a bypass/right turn lane. Neither the north or south shoulder is thick enough or wi^ enough to safely carry the T.H. 12 traffic. Replacement of the pavement would not be possible this Fan. We are also ir/the process of obtaining peak period turning movement counts to ^aluate which lanes are essential. The creation of a center left turn lane may result in unacceptable conflicts m the through/right turn lane. Any option selected should improve the overall intersection or the inplace geometries should remain. We will continue to examine the restnping issue this Winter. An Equal Opportunity Employer Page 2 T.H. 12 at Willow Drive Long Lake/Orono The speed loning on T.H. 12 through long Lake and Orono was reviewed and revised last year. The 40 MPH zone through the Willow Drive intersection was extended further west at that time. The investigation results and proposed speed zoning were discussed with Steve Sullivan, Orono Police Chief. According to our records Mr. Sullivan had no objection to the proposed speed limits, but did express concern rega'’ding the Willow Drive intersection. A speed study was done on October 13, 1993 to reevaluate the speed zoning. The results support the 1992 study and recommendations. There is very little precedent for banning left turns on the trunk highway system during peak periods. They are more appropriate in downtown areas where there are other nearby streets at which to make the maneuver and those locations have protected left turn bays and/or left turn signal phasing. Directing left turning movements to intersections that can accommodate them should provide for more efficient traffic flow. If left turning moves are diverted to another location that does not have left turn bays the safety and efficiency of a roadway may not improve. Time of day restrictions are invitatio'.is to violation. Infrequent users may unintentionally violate the restriction if they normally drive through when the restriction is not in force. As the top classified road at most locations, the trunk highway must be expected to provide full access at the locations where full intersections arc provided. To not do so violates driver expectation as well as limits the intended proper functioning of the trunk highway system. Any violation that occurs hac a greater potential to create a traffic "incident" and they tend to imtate drivers who comply with the restrictions or are delayed by those who don't. The only thing that potenri^ly reduces violation is dedicated enforcement. Mn/DOT has reservations about the cflcttivcncss of banning left turns for the above reasons. However, we are willing to install the signs banning the left turns from T.H. 12, during the AM and PM peak periods, if *Jic Cities of Long Lake and Orono will provide approximately six months of Jedicated enforcement followed by periodic enforcement. Compliance and redirection of the left turners to protected left turn bays are the key to the success of this proposal. The tuitiing movement study and current volume data would be used to determine the hours the ban would be in effect. Typically^ Lhey are in effect for two hours in the AM and PM peak periods. Page 3 T.H. 12 at Willow Drive Long Lake/Orono If Orono and Long Lake agree to do the enforcement the signing should be requested by letter to Joel Katz, Division Traffic E-gineer - Traf^ Sc* rices, 5801 Duluth Sowt Golden ValK y, Minnesota 53422. The letter should include resolution(s) from the cities indicating your willingness to provide the enforcement. Once the letter is received a signing work order will be processed. It usually t2tkes six weeks for the installation to occur from that time due to the workload of the signing crews. Your concern for the safety of tl'.e area is commendable and I encourage you to call me if you have any additional questions or concerns. Robert J.^asek, P.E. Division Tnrffic Studies Engineer cc: Edward J. Callahan, Jr. - Mayor of Orono Tod Olson - Mayor of Long Lake Steve Sullivan - Orono Police Chief Dave Peterson - Wayzata Mike Hilbelink and John Vogt - Snack Time Expresso . • • •• •• Uii • ¥ TO; FROM ; DATE: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, lity Administrator October 19, 1993 SUBJECT; Council/Staff Team Building Severa' .#eeka ago the concept of a Council/Staff Team Building process was discussed. The attached information outlines a team building process and estimated costs. The objectives of the team building session are to build a productive working relationship between the Council and staff by identifying the City's goals, clarifying the roles and expectations of the Cou’ncil and staff, and identifying ai.d resolving concerns of both staff and Council that inhibit productivity and a productive work relationship. * . I Government TVaining Service Suite 401 480 Cede' Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-2240 I 612/222 74C9 (Phone Of TAX) Septenber 15, 1993 TO! ntoMt Ron HooreCf City of Orono Mary Sabatka, Progran Planner SUBJECT: infomatlon Regarding Goal Setting Seseion Hopefully this information will give you a framework for a eeasion as well aa provide a **ball park” coat analysis. The long-term goal of a one and a half day session would be to help the council and department heads develop a common vision for the city. The strategies used during the session would be to prioritize goals, examine roles, responsibilities and decision making skills and discuss topical community concerns. The facilitator for the session could be one of the consultants listed on the attached page. The fee for this session would be approximately $2400 plus mileage at $.275/mile (costs for carl Meu would be higher, probably about $2900 plus travel expenses). The cost for a one-day only session would be approximately $1800. The city would be responsible for the facility, meal and audio vieual costs. The consultant's fee would cover all time associated with: o A phone or in-person meeting with you to discuss goals and objectives o rhone Interviews to gather critical information from representatives of the group o Data collection and session design and preparation o Facilitation of the session o A written summary report After you have had an opportunity to review this please ..*11 me wi h questions or comments. I look forward to hearing from you soon. MS/at enclosure Pro:11 on <y M t$ L«agiw€ ol CAiCi O <w» WecKtes V rrcSiTta Co*'#^S itfiK y Ur eC'My Ol K OOVERMNENT TRAZNZMO SBRYZCB (9T8) COMeULTAMTB Barbara Brnay la a consultant, trainer and facilitator who coB^lnaa a graduate degree in Applied Behavioral Science with extensive local government experience. For several ye<.\rs she held the position of Dliector, OrganiJsational Services at GTS. Areas of Specialization! Communication skills, enhancing work team relationships, goal setting and customer service training. Average daily rate is $800/day. Carl Meu is Fxeeutive vice President and General Manager, Neu and Company, Lakewood, Colorado. Carl has been a consultant to governmental, health-care and commercial organizations throughout the country. His Minnesota clients have included the cities of Brooklyn Park, New Brighton, Minnetonka and Roseville. Areas of Specializationt Enhancing management work team relationships, identifying strategic goals and creating fiscal entrepreneurship. Average daily rate is $1150/day. Xarea Bay is President of Karen Ray Associates, a consulting firm which specializes in training and organization development. She has consulted with a wide variety of cities, counties and etate departments. Are^ns of Specialization; Col laborer, ion, teambuilding and leadership training. Average daily rate is $975/day. John Vinton, Ph.D. is Acting Dean of the Graduate Public Administration Program, Hamllne University as well as an independent consultant and trainer. He has over 20 years of experience in consulting with local government and law enforcement agencies. Arfegs of Specialization; Collaboration studies, teambuilding and goal setting for councils and staff. Average dally rate is $800/day. 09:C TO; FROM: DATE; Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator October 21, 1993 SUBJECT; Under-Age Liquor Sales Violations I have attached a memo from Steve Sullivan providing updated information on the three complaints related to under-age liquor sales. The Council may want to conduct an administrative review of the license holders in addition to any penalties resulting from the prosecution action. The City Attorney has suggested that unless the prosecution process takes an inordinate amount of time, it would be best to conduct the review after the prosecution process is complete so that the facts of each case have been made as clear as Dossible. DATE:10-15-93 TO;Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM;Steve Sullivan, Chief of Police SUBJECT:Licjuor Law Violations The Orono Police checked liquor and beer licensed businesses on July 30, 1993. We observed three separate violations and referred those reports to the Minnetonka Prosecutinq Attorney. The attorney drafted complaints and they were signed on October 12, 1993. Copies of those complaints are attached for your information. When the cases have been decided I will notify you of the court disposition against the individual employees The City Council may decide to conduct an administrative hearing against the license holders either before or after the disposition of the criminal cases against the individuals. I suggest that you consult with the City Attorney Popham Haik and forward this information to our City Council. i ^ota County of HENNEPIN District Court SECTION/Subdivisinn 34CA. (2)1 & 24QA.702(8) M.O.C.C.OC \yy\ ULt NO COMKOU.1NO AGI NC 'I rONTKOL SO M-4106 N COL RT C.XSE NO ^LN0 271500 01^^3-393 0 / if more (ban A counti (ice eiuched)P.-nS ‘‘TTY PH ; o I 2-939-8265 State of Minnesota SUMMONS WAR R,ANT ORDER OF DETENTION VS. PLAINTIFF. NAME: first, middle, l.ist MARK JOHN PEUTIER 6 9 Kelley Road Oiaska , MN 55318 DL#: n/a DEFENDANT. Complaint SERIOUS FELONY FELONY GROSS MISDEME.ANOR DWl ✓^ROSS MISDEMEANOR Date of Birth SJIS COMPLAINT NUMBER 27-1 l-o-ibj902 0 3-15-5 2 HEN-.EPI) CTY COMPLAINT The Complainant, being duly sxvom. makes complaint to the above-named Court am. states that therr is probable t ■ cause to believe that the Defendant committed the following offense is). The complainant states that the following facts establish PROBABLE CAUSE: Your complainant is an investigator with the Orono Police Department. Based on information he has received from Officer Irving English, he believes the following to be true and correct: Officer Irving English met with Reserve Officer Chris Fisher and 19 year old j-aie mas, DOB 05-11-69, as a part of a plan to check liquor law compliance in the City of Orono. On July 3 0, 1993 at approximately 8:09 p.m. , Maas entered the O'Sullivan's Texaco station located at 2420 Shaefywood Road in the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and purchased six cans of Killer Draft Beer from the clerk at O'Sullivan's. Maas then went back into the store with officer English and identified the clerk, English identified the clerk as MARK JOHN PELTIER, the defendant herein, DOB 03-15-52. After initially denying that he had sold any beer in the last 15 minutes, he then adnitted selling mas the beer and acknowledged that he had not checked any identification to determine whether she was of legal age to purchase the bee r. THEREFORE, Complainant requests that said Defendant, subject to bail or conditions of release be: (If arrested or that other lawful steps be taken to obtain defendant's appearance in court, or (2) detained, if alreatty in custody , pending further proceedings: and that said Defendant otherwise be dealt with according to law. COMPLAINANT'S N.AMI COMPLAINANTS SIGNATURE JAMES MOROWeZYNSKI /s.f j duty authorutd to prvi^ ute thr offrnuni / herrhy appnnr this Comfjjinl DATE. . / r ^name V itu ^ ^^If^A. Sponheim ADDH^ssu/EPHuNt '^4600 Mtka. Blvd. Assistant City Attorney Mirti&t(onlca , MN 55345 939-8266 FORM B.I innesota County of HENNEPIN M.O.C. (ioc t Arrv HLE NO District Court SECnON Suhdi\ision CONTKOl I ING AGENCY ( ONTROL NO 340^.5 03 (2)1 & 34(^.7 02 (8)M-4106 N COURT CASE NO ^7ISOQjQ;^^-^^ 52 ^ if mure thjn 6 couim (ice jitichrd)P'<0S «rrY “H:61?-PJ9-8a6i State of Minnesota Complaint ,/^LMMOSS WARRANT ORDER OF DETEV. ION VS.PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT. SERIOUS FELONY FELONY GROSS MISDEMEANOR DWI ✓^ROSS MISDEMEANOR SJIS COMPLAINT NUMBER 27-1i-x-155903 0 5-0 9-4 9 -lE^'iEPI'i CTY D.itc of BirthNAME: first, middle, last JOSEPH MARSHALL WEINBERG 6471 Hummingbird Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55346 DL # • n/aThe Xlompiainant, being duly swoni, makes complaint to the above-named Court and. stales that there is probable cause to believe that the Defendant committed the following offense ft/. The complainant states that the following fact, establnh PROBABLE CAUSE: COMPLAINT Your complainant is an investigator with the Orono Police Department. Based on information he has received from Officer Irving English, he believes the following to be true and correct: As a part of a program to check compliance with liquor laws. Officer English met with 19 year old Julie mas, DOB 05-11-69, and Reserve Officer Chris Fisher. On July 3 0, 1993 at approximately 8:31 p.m. , Maas and Fisher went into Jimmie's Bar located at 3 38 0 Shoreline Drive in the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Maas oruered a bottle of beer from the bartender, which he provided along with a glass rrug. Fisher then bcou^t Officer English into the establishment and pointed out the bartender who had served the beer. Officer English identified the bartender as JOSEPH MARSHALL WEINBERG, the defendant herein, DOB 0 5-09-49. WEINBERG acknowledged serving the liqjor to mas without checking any identification to determine her age. THEREFORE. Complainant requests that said Defendant, subject to bail or conditions of release be: (1) arrested or that other lav%ful steps be taken to obtain defendant's appearance in court; or (2) detained, if already in cu^uxiy, pending further proceedings; and (hat said Defendant otherwise be dealt with according to law, COMPLAINANT S SAMI COMPLAINANTS SIGNATLRE JAMES MOROWeZYNSKI /s/ Betfii duly auth&istd to pn:neaue the offtnsetst chargetL ! (o /{/«/'' FROSECLTtSC, A TTORSf Y SA.MF,TirLf Rolf A. Sponheim ai^r^^iiipno^t 'T46C0 Mtka. Blvd. Assistant City Attorney Wlnnetonka, MN 55345 939-8266 FOR.M B 1 INPORMATION SYSTEMS OFFICE (612) 297-7650 (000) 657-3976 Toll Free ate of Minnesota County of District Court CCT SLCTION/Subd;vision HENNEPIN GOC 1 • \ ‘ 34(A/503(2)1 &*34(A-702(8) ........................- ^^ 1 ill) .•-Tii;’.- M.O.C. M-4106 N (IN Arn I ILl NO CONTROLLING 'A(;iNcv CONTROL NO .,_MN0 271500 OR93-3961 COtRTCASI NO 1>ATL I ILL!) ^ I* Complaint ✓ if more ihan 6 counu |j«-? .nuchrJ) PRJS ATTY Pm 10 1 5 s(;rioi. S FELONY State of Minnesota I’LAiNTirr. SIMMONS WARRANT ORDER OF DETENTION VS GROSS MISDEMEANOR DWl k/GROSS MISDEMEANOR i)i;r;ndant. COMPLAINT D-ic ot Birth 0 6-27-5 4 SJIS COMPLAINT M MBER 27-li-9-itil3d3 d £ N >• c P i s cry NAME: rit-it. inidJlc. Ij^i DEBRA LEE KOSCIOL-EK 1900 Lakeview Terrace Ipng Lake, MN 55356 O^tnplainant, being clulv sworn, makes complaint to the above-named Court and states that there is probable cause to believe that the Defendant committed the following offense (s) The complainant states that the following facts establish PROBABLE CAUSE: Your complainant is an investigator with theOrono Police Department, Based on information he has received from Officer Irving English, he believes the f ol lov • ng to be true and correct: As part of a plan to check the compliance of liquor licensees not serving liqior to underage customers. Officer Irving English met with 19 year old Julie Maas, DOB 0 5-1 1-69, and Reserve Officer Cnris Fisher. On 7uly 30, 1993, Fbas went into the Orono Shopping Center convenience store locaced at 2160 Wayzata Boulevard in the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and asked to purchase a bottle of Bud Lite beer. The clerk placed the bottle in a brown paper bag and did sell Maas the beer. The transaction was also observed by Reserve Officer Fisher. After the transaction was completed. Officer English entered the convenience store and spoke with the clerk who was identified as DEBR^ LEE FOSCIOLEK, DOB 0 6-27-5 4, the defendant herein. The defendant admitted selling a bottle to Maas, but stated she did not realize the bottle was a beer bottle. THEREFORE. Complainant requests that said Defendant, subject to bail or conditions of release be: (1) arrested or that other lasvfut steps be taken to obtain defendant 's appearance In court, or (21 detained, if already in custody, pending further proceedings, and that said Defendant otherwise be dealt with according to law _ , COMPLAIN \ NT S N ANU COMPLAINANTS SICNATLRE JAMES MOROWCZYNSKI /s/ DATE(e. Bern duly autiH'rneJ to prosecute the ojjcHielsi charged, thereby appmvejiits Comfdau r TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Ron Moorse, City Administrator October 21, 1993 SUBJECT: Police Chief Off Duty Employment The attached information is in response to an anonymous letter to the Council expressing concern about part-time jobs taking the Police Chief away from his police chief position. Date: To: From: Subject: October 15, 1993 Ron Moorse, City Administrator Steve Sullivan, Chief of Police Off Duty Employment Several weeks ago, the City Council received an anonymous letter that expressed the opinion that I was leaving Orono during my normal work hours to work at part-time job«. I asked you to poll the Council to see what response if any they expected from me on this issue. I have decided to provide you with this attached information just in case any Council member may ask you. First, during the time that I worked at the State Fair, I used a total of 21 hours of vacation time. Some days I left a couple hours early; some days I may have come in late and left early. However, any hours that I was absent during normal work hours, I used vacation time I had earned to be absent. (See attached time sheets.) The other part-time job I work is for the MTC police. I have attached a computer print out that shows I only work for them on a Frid«/ night or a Saturday. And, I don't work there very often. I hope this information will bo useful and may answer any questions that are raised about my part-time employment. r • • ♦If• » «EMPLOYEE SIGNATURE* ' * I * • EMPLOYEE SOC. SEC. W Q OROjNO POLICE DEPARTMENT PAY SHEETy,. ___Mu - OOM>- ________PERIOD END V • t . r . *V ••• APPROVED ‘ ifr . <V- . • < SEQ • PIUK'.RAM NO. DKPr DAY M TU \v Til r s su M 'lU w th:‘’xS-fHi fp’ . Mf O > ^«?Slf|| DAii: TOTAL Sr-n &\k ^'Lu &-2-V &0>sot.S*7 safe • n • * s • 987 .11 V •• .'1 SIC 989 .11 'V't^l , IIOL - 988 31 # 1 * ‘l \• ?!? ORUNO ^ in 31 y'■■'-y<i LONG LK 121 31 y' 1 SPPK 126 31 y ^ yy\ 1 ADMIN 1 no 31 8^\y^\ SPECSRV ' 119 31 y' CLERICAL • 115 31 y' IIOL SPEC ■ 988 31 :y^ ^''y^m * * • •y ^•w. ^y. 1 ' *'t y “ , !<•• • • 1 y 'yf.^ 1 • *u • .# • ENTER HOURS IN 1/lOTirS ONLY lOIALS %/ ff , %/ /M 1 ■1 : ' **;» i PROGRAM NO. • 110 , Admlnistmtlon 116 in ; ‘ Orono Operations 117 112 , Orono Court Appcarnnccs 118 114 Severance Pay 119 tiS Ckrkal « 121 rOl.K K DKrARIMI NT • DKPAIMMKNT #31 i.iquor IJcciisc Kc^it-'v Aid I'roiii Oroiiti Cily l)(|ijii Orono Compensatory Tay Uuiuii l*iT$uiiiiel S|H'<itil Services • Hillulde I tjikr Opetnlions 122 124 125 126 127 Jour! Apfieitranccs "1Look laike Court Apfieitranccs lv()ii|> Lake Compensatory Pay Union Ptrsonoel Spring Park Compensatory l^y Union Persora Spring Park Operations t Spring Park Court AppeanuKCS Js . T‘ • • • < %T. OnONO POLICE DEPARTMENT PAY SHEETEMPLOYEE SIGNATURE EMPLOYEE SOC. SEC. #DL /- ''\iy cx)^i ';i.PERIOD END APPROVED ' *■ » ' • *#•ip •'! ■ *M :jv-I •- • t ^ ♦11 ' *1 SICQ '■.’! 'PROGRAMNO.DAY M TU w TTI F •?su-’^'M 1 T’U w in F S suHiDEPTDATETOTALo ^ -L------------H-i H- ^i-:6 q S'^7*';M'-S ^-/O ^H(¥*J »** - ip *‘7-/2-1 • *^^ivAC'»^• 987 31 '1 -I a X •V. 'rl1 SIC :■ 989 31 t • V .• rT w'tHOL '988 31 Sr :8-p *■-• r •l ‘•!f -«•'>ORONO ’ * 111 31 -LONG LK V 121 31 * 4 ^k__!_SPPK ' 126 31 ADMIN ' 110 31 y'. SPEC SRV'. 119 31 ' ly^\ *» CLERICAL 115 31 « f 1 nOL SPEC • 988 31 j *.V ,• • •: • |. : ' a • 'f * - *' i . ) *♦ '• k entp :r hours in I l/IOTII*S ONLY TOTALS c>X / / ■ i''.— ‘ ^ ^vp/cx y o/'i/ t < f-.''I FOL.ICr. l)K>»AKTNn:N r > l)EPARTT^!r.NT #3I PROGRAM NO.. . 110 t\dmlatsu*atlon 1J6 I JfjUnr Liernsr kcvirav 122 III Orono Oprintion.v 117 Aid rnmi Ortkiui City lh*|uiitimTits 124 412 Orono Cotirt Appraruners 118 Orono C'omjwn\;i!ory P«y linion rt'i’^oimrl 125 114 Severance Pay 119 Special Sen lees - Uillable 126 115 Oerkil 121 l.ofi^ ljuke OiieritlioitH 127 I •« ■ t ' ■*! « f * *• • *' *% ' tiP ■ ’j’ 9??I.ong Ijikr Court AppraroiMm Loag Lake CoiopeBsatery Pajr lioliA Pu^onatl Spring Park CompniMtory Pay Uoioa F»n—inl Spring Park Oprmtions ‘ • Spring Park Ctnirt Appcaraaccs ;; ^ • .<* *1** • a* ZC,r •“ A »*.». r w4- • *.;i w ..«»-/ OFFICER NAME: STEPHEN SULLIVAl'I EMF3: 4576 HOUR WORK SUMMARY YEAR-TO-DATE IN 199S Date worked Begin Hrs End Hrs Hours worked 01/02/93 01/09/93 02/06/93 02/12/93 02/27/93 03/06/93 03/13/93 03/19/93 03/26/93 03/27/93 04/02/93 04/03/93 04/09/93 04/16/93 04/17/93 05/01/93 05/29/93 06/11/93 06/10/93 06/25/93 07/02/93 07/10/93 00/20/93 11 11 11 17 9 8 11 IB 18 10 17 11 18 13 18 11 11 18 18 17 18 11 10 0 00:00 00:00 00:00 00 : 00 00:00 00:00 00:00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00 Ou : 00 30:00 00:00 00:00 18 18 18 23 11 16 10 2 2 2 23 16 2 1 2 18 18 2 2 1 2: 18 23 0 30 30 30 59 00 00 3C 30 30 30 59 30 00 00 30 30 30 30 30 00 30 30 59 00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 :00 ; 00 : 00 :00 :00 :00 :00 : 00 :00 :00 :00 :00 : 00 :00 :00 :00 7 7 7 7 2 0 7 8 8 8 7 5 0 7 8 7 7 8 8 8 8 7 6 0 50 50 50 00 00 00 50 50 50 50 00 ^0 00 00 50 50 50 50 50 00 50 CO 00 00 6f^T. 5 P^T. SAT. <3 AmCtc (5 AT.) CI-AS5 *T !? Aim I kjG-(3 AT.) 5 FRr. f=-RX» S lAT. F r. FAT • FRX. SAT. .s at. sat. FA.X. PA.r. Ff? 1. . sat. F R. X. » Total Hours 170.00 ~TVn5> 'b r (2. Cor A X Vsix,ufL CoeTV-c>(S 'H'TC Po\\Cc cV^ A.-V Orcv^o // % ’'i'. V •CITY of ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address; 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. WN 55356 Mailing Address: P 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 October 21, 1993 55384 Mayor Jerome Rockvam City of Spring Park P.O. Box 335 Spring Park, Minnesota Dear Mayor Rockvam, Thank you for your support of Orono's proposal for the provision of police services to Spring Park for 1994. You have my assurance that we will meet the expectations you have set in your approval of our proposal. I would like to meet with you, at your earliest convenience, to confirm our mutual understanding of these expectations; and to discuss any other areas of concern you have regarding our provision of police services. As we proceed ahead for the remainder of 1993 and through 1994, I am available to meet with you at any time to review our compliance with your expectations or to discuss any other concerns you may have. The Police Chief, the entire police department and I appreciate your willingness to provide us with an opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to providing top quality police service that responds specifically to Spring Park's needs and concerns. Sincerely, Ronald J. Moorse City Administrator Trlx-phxmr (612) 473*7357 • f .\X 473-0510 L. STATE OF MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY Ocr ^SS3 Proposed Permanent Amendments to Rules Governing Air Quality Permits and Standards of Performance for Waste Combustors. DUAL NOTICF: Notice of Intent to Adopt Rule Amendments Without a Public Hearing Unless 25 or More Persons Request a Hearing, and Notice of Hearing if 25 or More Requests for Hearing are Received Iptroduction; The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) intends to adopt a permanent rule without a public hearing following the procedures set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 14.22 to 14.28. If however, 25 or more persons submit a written request for a hearing on the proposed rule by November 17, !993, public hearings will be held at the dates and places as follows: DAI£PLACE TIME December 6. 1993 Commissioner's Boardroom St. Louis County Courthouse Duluth, Minnesota 2:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. December 7, 1993 Commissioner's Boardroom Becker Countv Courthouse Detroit Lakes. Minnesota 2:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. December 8,1993 Minnesota Valley Regional Library’ 2:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. and Library Auditorium 6.00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m, 110 East Main MarJeato, Minnesota December 13, 1993 MPCA Boardroom 520 Lafayette R jad North St. Paul, Minnesota 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. To find out whether the rule will be adopted without a hearing or if hearings will be held, you *h«u ld contact Norma Florell at the address be) aw after November 17,1993, and before December 6,1993. rnntact Person; Comments or questions on the proposed rules and uTitien requests for a public hearing on the rules must be submitted to; Norma Florell Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Air Quality Division 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul. Minnesota 55155-4194 Telephone. (612)296-7712 Fax; (612)297-7709 Subject The MPCA’s proposing to adopt new rules and amendments to rules governing waste combustors in order to reduce emissions from waste combustors, and in response to state legislation enacted in 1988, 1989, and 1990 and federal standards adopted in 1991, which place new requirements on owners and operators of certain waste combustors. The proposed rule changes apply to all waste combustors except hazardous waste incinerators, sewage sludge incinerators and boilers that co-fire industrial waste with fossil fuels. Thus, municip.ii waste combustors, medical waste combustors, commercial, industrial, and salvage operation incin.'trators will need to comply wdth the proposed rules. The MPCA is proposing to amend ponions of the Air Emissions Permits Rule, Minn. Rules pts. 7007.0200, 7007.0250, 7007.0501, 7007.0801; Standards of Performance for Indirect Heating Fossil Fuel-Burning Equipment. Minn. Rule pt. 7011.0551; Standards of Perfonnance for Direct Heating Fossil-Fuel Burning Equipment, Mirui. Rule pt. 7011.0625; Standards of Performance for Waste Combustors, Minn. Rule pts. 7011.1201 to 7011.1285; and Monitoring. Testing and Reporting Requirements, Minn. Rule pt. 7017.1000. Amendments to the permitting rules are proposed to clearly specify what types of air emission permits waste combustors require, and to incorporate additional permit application requirements specific to waste combustors. The proposed rules place waste combustors into classes based on their size and date of construction All waste combustors will need :o obtain an air emissions permit under the proposed rule, except for Class IV (very small) waste combustors located at hospitals and forensic science laboratories, crematories, pathological waste combustors and animal carcass incinerators. Class I\' waste combustors will be requested to notify the MPCA and meet standards of performance for these waste combustors. Additionally, the rule proposes to ban the use of most small on-site incinerators, with several exceptions Amendments to the standards of performance for indirect and direct heating, fossil fuel- burning equipment are proposed to incorporate reporting requirements mandated by state law and federal regulations when these uiuts co-fire mumcipal solid waste. 3 Amendments to the standards of performance for waste combustors are proposed to incorporate new emission standards, new prohibitions on the use of w aste combustors, and new' emission testing, record keeping and operator cenification requirements. These requirements incorporate federal regulations for municipal waste combustors, and also apply to onsite commercial, industrial and medical waste combustors. Emission limits are proposed for particulate matter, dioxins, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen cl loride, carbon monoxide, opacity, nitrogen oxides, and mercury'. The applicability of the limits \ar>' according to facility size and combustor technology. Some air pollution control systems are n ore efficient at removing pollutants than other types. The numerical value of the emission limits w as established considering the ability of available air pollution control equipment to control emissions, and the economic impacts of the use of various air pollution control equipment. In developing this rule, a number of issues required the MPCA to choose between reasonable methods of regulating these sources. Two of these issues are outlined below. Comment is specifically encouraged regarding these issues. Although the MPCA can modify the proposed rule as a result of the comment process, modifications cannot result in a substantial change from the rule as proposed in the Stare Register. The first issue involves emission limits for small municipal waste combustors. The MPCA is proposing standards that would require small municipal waste combustors (proposed in this rulemaking to be called Class C) to install air pollution control technology that is not as efficient as that required at the larger Class A and B facilities. The MPCA chose to not require this equipment, which means not imposing more restrictive mercury emission limits, because the cost of the equipment for small facilities is very high. A number of Minnesota counties either own the Class C waste combustors, or are under contract to the owners of the facilities to deliver waste to these facilities. The costs to upgrade these facilities is expected to be passed directly to county residents. After e.xamining the cost to upgrade the facilities, the MPCA has concluded that imposing more restrictive mercury emission limits than those proposed in the rule would have a detrimental economic impact on residents in the counties using the facilities, in place of additional air pollution control equipment. Class C waste combustors are required to develop plans for separating mercury- bearing wastes from the waste streams prior to combusting the w aste. A second issue relates to mercury' removal efficiencies. Mercury emissions can vary according to whether mercury -bearing products are in the waste stream, and the test methods used to measure mercury' emissions from waste combustors. The MPCA is proposing numerical values on the concentration of mercury that can be emitted from large, well-operated waste combustors. However, because of the variability in mercury emission concentrations in different waste materials, a waste combustor may occasionally exceed an emission limit t. m when the control system operate:, very efficiently, llierefore. the MPCA has proposed that if a concentration emission limit has been exceeded, the w aste combustors shall demonstrate that at least 85 percent of the mercury in the untreated flue gas was removed 1 his removal ctficiency was selected by the MPCA after reviewing the efficiency of activated carK>n injection at a mass bum municipal waste combustor with spray dry ing and fabric filters. In proposing ihis rule, the MPCA considered bui decided not to incorporate environmental monitoring requirements for bioaccumulative pollutants; recycling requirements for waste combustors; and permitting requirements for hospitals that operate Class IV waste combustors. The MPCA decided not to include these provisions in the proposed incinerator rule for the following reasons. First, the MPCA is drafting air toxics rules that are intended to incorporate environmental monitoring requirements for sources of air pollution. The anticipated air toxics rulemaking is the more appropriate forum within which to address environmental monitoring requirements for bioaccumulative pollutants emitted by incinerators. Similarly, the MPCA believes that recycling requirements for incinerators should be made part of a broader recycling requirement to be applied to all types of waste disposal facilities, and not to incinerators alone. Finally, the MPCA has concluded that, given agency resources and relative environmental concerns, the requirement to notify the MPCA of the inst.allation of a Class IV waste combustor at a hospital is a reasonable alternative to permitting. The MPCA would welcome comments on its decision to exclude these requirements from the proposed rule, in addition to comme.its on what is included in the proposed rule. The statutory authority to adopt the rule and issue permits is found in Minn. Stat. § 11 6.07, subd. 4. One free copy of the proposed new and amended rules is available upon request from Nonna Florell at the address and telephone number stated above. Comments: You have until 4:30 p m. on November 17. 1993. to submit written comments in support of or in opposition to the proposed new or amended rules or any pan or subpart of the rules. Your comments must be in vsriting and received by Norma Florell by the due date. Comment is encouraged. Your comments should identify- the portion of the proposed rule addressed, the reason for the comment, and any proposed change. Request for a Hearing: In addition to submitting comments, you may also request that a hearing be held on the aile. Your request for a public hearing must be in writing and must be received by Norma Florell by 4:30 p.m. on November 17. 1993. Your written request for a public hearing must include your name, address and telephone number. You are encouraged to identify- the portion of the proposed rule which caused your request, the reason for the request and any changes you want made to the proposed rule. If 25 or more persons submit a written request for a hearing, a public hearing will be held unless a sufficient number w-ithdraw- their requests in writing. Modificatioin! The proposed rule may be modified, either as a result of public comment or as a result of the rule hearing process. Modifications must not result in a substantial clu'Jige in the proposed rule as printed in the State Register and must be supported by data and view» submitted to the MPCA or presented at the hearing. If the proposed rule affects you in any way. you are encouraged to participate in the rulemaking process. Cjiii££j latiQll of Htaring; The hearings scheduled for Duluth on December 6. 1993. Detroit Lakes on December 7, 1993. Mankato on December 8, 1993. and St. Paul on December 13, 1993, will be canceled if the MPCA does not receive requests from 25 or more persons that a hearing be held on the rule. To fmd out \Nhether the hearings will be held, you should contact Norma blorell after No\ember 17. 1993. and before December 6. 1993. Nwikt Cf Hcaripg; If 25 or more persons submit wrinen requests for a public hearing on the rule, hearings will be held following the procedures in Minn. Stat. §§ 14.14 to 14.20. The hearings will be held on the following dates in the following locations. DATE December 6. 1993 PLACF Commissioner's Boardroom St. Louis County Courthouse Duluth. .Minnesota TIMF 2:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. December 7, 1993 Commissioner’s Boardroom Becker County Courthouse Detroit Lakes. Minnesota 2:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. December 8,1993 Minnesota Valley Regional Library 2:00 p.m. Librar) Auditorium 6:00 n.m. 110 East Main Mankato. Minnesota 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. December 13. 1993 MPCA Boardroom 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul. Minnesota 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m The hearings will continue at the designated locations until all interested persons have been heard. The hearings will continue, if necessan-’, at additional times and places as determined during the hearing by the administrative law judge. The MPCA mercury emissions expert. David White, will testify’ at the December 13 hearing in St. Paul only. The administrative law judge assigned to conduct the hearings is Judge Steve M. Mihalchick. Judge Mihalchick can be reached at: Mirmesota Office of Administrative Hearings Suite 1700 100 Washington Square Building Minneapolis. Minnesota 55401-2138 Phone: (612)349-2544 Hearing Procedure: If a hearing is held, you and all interested or affected persons including representatives of associations or other interested groups will have an opportunity to panicipate. You may present your views either orally at the hearing or in writing at any time prior to the close of the hearing record. All evidence presented should relate to the proposed rule. You may also mail written material to the administrative law judge to be recorded in the hearing record for five working days after the public hearing ends. The five-day comment period may be extended for a longer period not to exceed 20 calendar days if ordered by the administrative law judge at the hearing. Comments received dunng this period will be available for review at the Ofilce of Administrative Hearings. You and the MPCA may respond in writing within five working days after the submission period ends to any new information submitted. No additional evidence may be submitted during the five-day period. All written materials and responses submitted to the administrative law judge must be received at the Office of Administrative Hearings no later than 4:30 p.m. on the due date. This rule hearing procedure is governed by Minn. Stat. §§ 14.14 to 14.20 and Mirm. Rules pts. 1400.0200 to 1400.1200. Questions about procedure may be directed to the administrative law judge. Statement of Need and Reasonableness: Notice is hereby given that a statement of need and reasonableness is now available for review at the MPCA and at the Office of Administrative Hearings. This statement of need and reasonableness includes a summary of all evidence and arguments which the MPCA anticipates presenting at the hearing justifying both the need for and reasonableness of the proposed rules. Copies of the statement of need and reasonableness may be reviewed at the MPCA or at the Office of Administrative Hearings and copies may be obtained from the Office of Administrative Hearings at the cost of reproduction. The statement of need and reasonableness is supplemented w ith 6 exhibits, as follows: Exhibit 1 :Technical Work Paper on Mercury Emissions from Waste Combustors. prepared by David M. \^'hite. Radian Corporation and Anne M. Jackson, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (December, 1992). E.xhibit 2:American Society of Mechaiucal Engineers QRO-1-1989, Standards for the Qualification and Certification of Resource Recoverv Facility Operators. March 31, 1990. American Society of Mechanical Engineers QMO-1-1993, Standards for the Qualification and Certification of Medical Waste Incinerator Operators, July 30. 1993. American Society of Mechanical Engineers PTC 4.1-1964, Reaffirmed 1973, 1979, 1985, 1991 . Steam Generating Units Power Test Code. Exhibit 3:Estimated Costs of \^'astc Disposal/Incineration and Alternatives. Prepared by Michael M Mondloch. Anne M. Jackson, Marion J. Kloster. Air Quality Division. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (July, 199.'). 1 he MF’CA proposes several exemptions to this ban. On*site waste combustors at hospitals, forensic science laboratories, crematoria, pathological waste combustors or a waste combustor used solely for the disposal of animal carcasses and metal recovery incinerators are not banned. The remaining very small waste combustors are classified as Class IV waste combustors under the proposed rules. Hospitals, both publicly-owned and private, have used on-site waste combustors to dispose of infectious and pathological wastes. Since there are few- providers of commercial medical waste disposal in Minnesota, banning hospital waste combustors could place hospitals in a position of extreme dependence on those few infectious waste disposal providers. This rould result in uncontrolled disposal costs for hospitals, a group of waste generators that currently is economically distressed. Forensic science laboratories combust medical waste and evidence. Because of privacy interests surrounding evidence analyzed by forensic science labou’nries, it is necessary to allow these laboratories to dispose of evidence on-site. There are no feasible alternatives to the use of crematoria, pathological and animal carcass waste combustors and metal recovery incinerators. These uses of on-site waste combustors are also exempt from the proposed ban. In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 14.1 15, subd. 2. the MPCA has considered methods of reducing the impacts of the proposed rules for those small businesses that w ill continue to operate on-site waste combustors if the proposed rule is adopted. The MPCA has lessened the burden of complying with the proposed rules by establishing emission limits, reporting, record keeping and operator training and certification requirements for Class IV waste combustors that are less restrictive than larger waste combustois. requiring notification to the MPCA of the installation and/or operation of a hospital or forensic science laboratory Class IV waste combustor rather than permitting the waste combustor, and exempting crematoria, pathological waste and animal carcass incinerators from all reporting and notification requirements. Expenditure of Public Money bv Local Bodies : The MPCA has determined that the proposed rules will result in the expenditure of public money. These impacts are discussed in the Statement of Need and Reasonableness. A fiscal note is attached to this notice w hich contains the MPCA's estimate of the total cost to all local public bodies in the slat‘d to implement the rule for the two years immediately lollowing adoption of uie rule. Impact on Agricultural Land: The MPCA is required by Minn, Stat. § 14.11, subd. 2, (1992) to consider the impacts of the proposed rules on agricultural lands. The proposed rules will not negatively impact agricultural lands. On the contrary, the proposed rules will lessen the impacts to agricultural lands from the deposition of air pollutants by lessening the amount of air pollutants emined. Exliibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Technical Work Paper: Performance of APCD at Municipal Waste Combustors prepared by Anne M. Jackson. PE.. Air Quality Division. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (August, 19931. Technical Work Paper: Control of Emissions from On-Site Waste Combustors, prepared by Anne M. Jackson, PE., Air Quality Division. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (August 1993). Excerpts from: Model Documentation from the REMI EDFS-53 Forecasting and Simulation Model. March 1992, Volume 1. Copies of all the exhibits may be reviewed at the MPCA or the Office of Administrative Hearings. Copies of Exhibits 1. 3. 4. 5 and 6 are available from the Office of Administrative Hearings or the MPC.A at the cost of reproduction. Exhibit 2 is copyrighted material, and so may not be duplicated by the MPCA or the Office of Administrative Hearings. Copies of the documents may be purchased from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. 345 East 47th Street. New York, NY 10017. Small Business Considerations; The proposed rule will affect small business as defined in •Minn. Stat. § 14.115 (1992). The MPC.A is proposing that the operation of small on-site waste combustors be banned, with several exceptions. The small on-site incinerators are located almost exclusivelv at small businesses and homes. The MPCA estimated that currently there are 1.300 small on-site waste combustors used by commercial, industrial, and institutional businesses and facilities. Most of these waste combustors are expected to be found at grocery stores throughout Minnesota. The small on-site incinerators as a group probably emit most of the toxic emissions from waste combustors in Minnesota. The MPCA has reason to believe that most of the existing on-site w aste combustors do not meet existing standards of performance, and would require significant upgrading in order to meet new’, more protective standards. The MPCA estimated the costs to small bu*^- lesses to operate the existing on-site waste combustor, the cost to upgrade or install a waste combustor capable of meeting proposed emission limits, and the cost of alternatives to waste combustion. The MPCA had determined that in the case of a grocery sto»c or other retail or commercial'industrial facility, it is always less expensive to use commercial solid waste disposal, with or without rccyclmg, than to incinerate the same quantity of waste in either an existing or new waste combustor. because these small waste combustors as a group emit large quantities of toxic air pollutants, and the use of other waste disposal methods is less than the cost of incinerating wastes on-site, the MPCA is proposing to ban the use of small on-site incinerators in Minnesota. This ban is expected to result in a net cost savings at small businesses in Minnesota that cunently u?e on-sitc incinerators for waste disposal. Lobby ist Rfautration; Minn. Stat. ch. lOA (1992) requires each lobbyist to register with the Ethical Practices Board. Questions regarding this requirement may be directed to the Ethical Practices Board at the following address: Ethical Practices Board First Floor South Centennial Office Building 648 Cedar Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Phone: (612)296-5148 Ad flfltifllLProtcdurc if iVo Htaring; Ifno hearing is required after the end of the comment period, the .VIPCA may adopt the rule. The rule and supporting documents will then be submitted to the Attorney General for review as to legality and form to the extent form relates to legality . You may request to be notified of the date the rule is submitted to the Attorney General or be notified of the Attorney General s decision on the rule. If you want to be so notified, or want to receive a copy of the adopted rule, submit your request to Norma Florell at the address listed in this notice. Adoption Procedure Afttr the Hearing: if a hearing is held, the administrative law judge will issue a report on the proposed rule after the closing of the hearing record. ^'fltitc; Any person may request notification of the date on which the administrative law judge's report will be available, after which date the MPCA may not take any fiial action on the rule for a period of five working days. If you desire to be so notified, you may so indicate at the hearing. After the hearing, you may request notification by sending a written request to the administrative law judge. You may request notification of the date on w'hich the rules were adopted and filed with the Secretary of State. The notice must be mailed on the same day that the rules are filed. If you want to be so netified you may so indicate at the hearing or send a request in writing to Norma Florell at the address listed in this notice any time prior to the filing of the mle with the Secretary of State. Dated: !0^ 1 / Charles W^^ illiams Commissioner STATE OF MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY Pollijfion Contf«! Age? cy's Estiniate of Cost to Local Bodies to Implement Proposed Rules I. Background: Tlie proposed rules will impact public bodies. There are currently 5 municipal waste combustors in Minnesota owned and operated by local public bodies that must invest in additional air pollution control equipment for their facilities. Ol'lhe other 6 municipal waste combustors, most are privately-owned facilities that contract (directly or indirectly) to give exclusive .service to count}' govcmiricnts. The terms of the contracts vary widely. County governments may, in some cases, have to pay directly for the costs to upgrade the municipal waste combustors to comply wih the proposed standards. It is impractical to tr>' estimatmg the distribution of costs for this group of incinerators because the extent of financial impacts depends on the details of their public/private contracts. Tnere tire 16 publicaily-owned hospitals that w.ll be affected by the proposed rules. The costs to comply with the proposed rule vary for this group due to the wide range in the hospitals' size. School districts and other governmental agencies currently using waste combustors for disposal of wastes on-sitr will experience a cost savings if the proposed rules banning the use of on-sne waste co.Tib'>st..r.«! is adopted, since ail other methods of waste disposal arc less expensive than operating a waste combustor. II. Summar)' of Costs Municipal Waste Combustors The costs described represen: increased costs in operating municipal waste combustors. ____ r ■L Estimated Aiinual Costs to Govemmetii-Ov^ned Municipal Waste Combustors Equipment $471,000 Engineering $55,000 Construction $448,000 O&M $554,000 TOTAL $528,000 These costs will be incurred at the facilities when they comply wndi the proposed rules. The capital costs (equipment, engineering, and construction) are first costs, and have been amortized at a ten percent rate for 15 years. The O&M costs svill continue after the capital equipment debt is paid. The total costs are expected to be incurred within the first year after the rule is adopted. Hospital W.aste Combustors There are 10 publically-owr.ed hospitals in Miiuiesota that will be affected by the proposed rules. Based on the expectation that the 6 very small hospitals will cease operation of their waste combustor and use commercial disposal and the 4 small to medium-sized hospitals will replace an existing waste combustor with one that complies with the proposed rule, the total cost to all the public bodies to comply with rules is as follows: Estimate Current Waste Disposal Costs Estimated Costs after Rule Adoption 6 Hospitals with less th.’n 100 beds $165,000 $152,000 4 Hospitals with 100 beds or more S2 13.000 $420,000 ••• Very small hospitals will cxi.*hcncc a decrease in the cost of waste disposal. Small to medium-sized hospitals will experience an increase m the cost of waste disposal. Charles W. Williams Commissioner 001 • OBNERAL FUND 11 CITY COUNCIL 411 SUPPLIES 421 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4*** <x ;munications 423 PRIirr/PU» %424 CONTRACT MAIirr/REPAIR 424 OTHER CONTRACT SBRIVICB 430 OTKBR CHARGES CITY OF ORONC City Counci1 Report Expenditures by Division within Fund As Of 09/JO/93 Page 1 Objsct Code k Deeription Division Code h Description Annual Budget Budget Year to Dat e Actual Year to Date Actual Over/(Under' Budget Exp % 401 PERSONAL SERVICES PERSONAL SERVICES TOTAL $16,720 S12.S41 $12,369 $(1721 94 4 SUPPLIES TOTAL $500 $375 $345 $130)92 0 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TOTAL $10,365 $7,774 $10.365 $2,591 133 3 COMMUNICATIONS TOTAL $100 $(S0)33.3 pRSNT/PUN/ADVBr 701AL $600 $450 $1399)11 3 OONTtACr NAXHT/RBPAIR TOTAL $103 $ (S3)31 2 OTMBI CONTRACT 8BRIVICE TOTAL $1,200 $900 $405 $ (4951 46 0 emOR CHARGES TOTAL $29,030 $21,773 $13,046 $(9,647)€0.1 TOTAL CITY COUNCIL $58,618 $43.965 $36,670 $(7,295)43.4 001 • QOIERAL FUND 12 ADMINSTRATION Object Code k Deeription Divleion Code 4 Deecription CITY OF ORONO City Council Report Expenditures by Divieion within Fund Ae Of 09/30/93 Annuel Budget Budget Year to Date Actual Year to Date Actual Over/(Under) Budget Page 2 Bxp % y a* 5. 10^ r>>> I % P u i 401 PERSONAL SERVICES P0I0OHAL SERVICES TOTAL 411 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES TOTAL 421 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TOTAL 422 COmUHICATIOIIS COMDHICATIOH8 TOTAL 423 PRIirr/PUR/ADVSR Pturr/PUR/ADVER TOTAL 42S RENTALS RMTALS TOTAL 424 CONTRACT NAIirr/RBPAlR CONTRACT NAIirr/RSPAlR TOTAL 427 DATA PROCESSING DATA PROCUSINO TOTAL 424 OTHER COrTRACT SERIVICB OTNER CONTRACT SERIVICS TOTAL 429 INSURANCE TOTAL 430 OTHER CHARGES OnOR CNAROSS TOTAL TOTAL ADNII^TRATION $154,724 $4.050 $3,965 $3,520 $3.744 $3,090 $1,630 $2,400 $3.366 $7,240 $144,217 $116,047 $3.036 $2,974 $2,640 $2,441 $2,314 $1,223 $2.100 .525 $5,461 $141.167 $116,510 $2,539 $2,030 $1,741 $414 $790 $1,170 $2,192 $3,490 $4,496 $135,403 $463 $(499) $(944) $(499) $(2,423) $(l,52t) S(S3) $965 $(965) $(5,744) 100.4 13.4 4S.3 45.9 14.7 0.0 34.1 95.7 104.4 134.2 •2 3 95 9 001 - QBNFiUlL FUND 13 ELBCTIONS Object Code 4 DeerIption Di^ieion Code 4 Deecriptlon CITY OF ORONO City Council Report. Expenditures by Division eithin Fund M Of 09/30/93 Annuel Budget Budget Year to Date Actual Year to Date Actual Over/(Under) Budget Page 3 Exp % ■t r.' / i . 401 PBABOIIAL SERVICES PBESOMAL SERVICES TOTAL 411 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES TOTAL 422 COmUEI CATIONS cammtchTUMs total 424 COMTIIACT MAUrt/REPAIR CONTEACT NAIET/REPAIR TOTAL 42t OTHER CONTRACT SERIVICB OTHER CQNHIACT SERIVICE TOTAL 430 OTHER CHAROSS OTHER CNARQES TOTAL TOTAL ELBCTIONS $1,860 $1,396 $481 $(91S) SlOO $(75) $220 $165 $206 $1,360 $1,020 $950 $(70) $Ot) $(47) $3,660 $2,747 $1,643 $ (1.104) 34.5 0.0 124. S 93.1 0.0 11.3 59.0 * -A] 4 i 1 .1 1 1 001 > GENKRAL FUND 14 ASSESSING Object code ft DeerIption Division Code ft Description CITY OF ORONO City Council Report Expenditures by Division vithin Fund As Of 09/30/93 Annual Budget Budget Year to Date Actual Year to Date Actual Over/(Under) Budget Page 4 Exp I i ; > V V* ? % fh r I I 401 mSONAL SERVICES miSOIIAL SERVICES TOTAL 411 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES TOTAL 421 PROPBS810IIAL SmVICES PtOPESSlOMiL 8SR 'ICES TOTAL 422 C09SMIICAT1 DNS COINMIICATIONS TOTAL 423 PRINT/put/ADVER PRlNT/PUR/ADVn TOTAL 425 RENTALS RENTALS TOTAL 42ft CONTRACT MAINT/REPAIR CONTRACT NAXNT/REPAIR TOTAL 430 OTHER CNAROBS OTHER CHARGES TOTAL 431 OTHER DISTRIBUTIONS OTHER DISTPIBUTIOIIS TOTAL TOTAL ASSESSING $1,290 $1,515 $70,735 $2,369 $773 $361 $103 $77,198 $96B $1,136 $53,051 $1,777 $580 $271 $57,199 $880 $1,543 $58,748 $1,631 $354 $63,291 ${88) $407 $5,697 $(146) 1(535) $(3f) S(ft7) $5.392 90.9 135.• 110.7 91.• 7.S 0.0 130.4 13.0 0.0 109.1 4 001 ‘ OBNBRAL FUND IS FINANCE Object Code 4 Decription Divielon Code 4 Description CITY OF ORONO City Council Report Expenditures by Division within Fund As Of 09/30/93 Annual Budget Budget Year to Date Actual Year to Date Actual Over/(Under) Budget Page S Exp % 401 PBRSONAL SERVICES PnSOIIAL SERVICES TOTAL 411 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES TOTAL 421 PROPE88IMAL SERVICES PtOPtSiXOHAL SERVICES TOTAL 422 COMSJNICATIONS CCSSMIICATlOtlS TOTAL 423 PRlirr/PUS/ADVER PRIirr/PUi/ADVBR TOTAL 424 COirXMCr MAUrr/REPAIR COniACT NAWT/RIPAIR TOTAL 427 DATA PROCESniHQ DATA PtOCESSim TOTAL 421 Omn CONTRACT SERIVICE Otioni CONTRACT SERIVICE TOTAL 429 iwurain :b INSURANCE TOTAL 430 OTHER CMAROBS OTHER CNAROE8 TOTAL TOTAL FINANCE -a- - I... $123,199 $1,3S0 $3,914 S1.S90 $600 $1,030 $22,210 $920 $4,430 $1,450 $160,692 $92,399 $1,013 $2,936 $1,196 $4S0 $773 $16.6S9 $690 $3.324 $1.099 $120,519 $99,071 $1,299 $2,697 $1,347 $474 $979 $17,674 $252 $4,421 $949 $119,041 $(3.329) $276 $ (249) $161 $205 $1,015 $(439) $1.09- $ (240) $(1,477) 96.4 127.2 91.f 113.6 126.B 36.f 131.9 105.3 \ 106.3 -I 77.9 99.9 CITY OF ORONO City Council Report Expenditures by Division within Fund As Of 09/30/93 Page ( 001 > QOnttAL FUND t IQkL Object Code 4 Decription Annuel Budget Year to Actual Year to Actual Over/(Under)Exp 001 • OBlfBRAL FUND 17 OOVERNHElfT BUILDINGS S ObjBCt Code k Decriptlon Diviilon Code k Description V' h 401 PBRSONAL SBXVICES PIR80IIAL SBliVICES TOTAL 411 SUPPLIBS SUPPLIB8 TOTAL 421 PROPB88IOIIAL 8BPV1CBS PftOPBBSIOHAL SERVICES TOTAL 424 UTILITIES UriLXTIBS TOTAL 425 narrALS BBfTALB TOTAL 424 CarTtACT MAINT/RBPAIR CQVmACT NAXVT/BBPAIR TOTAL 42f XH81BIAIICB TOTAL 410 Onn CHAROBS OTHBB CHAROBS TOTAL 441 CAPITAL OUTLAY CAPITAL OUTLAY TOTAL TOTAL OOVERIMHT BUILDINOS CITY OF ORONO City Council Report Expenditures by Division within Fund As Of 09/30/93 Annual Budget $12,013 $1,700 $26,500 $13,390 $7,737 $2,270 S3.080 $66,690 Budget Year to Date Actual Year to Date $9,010 $1,275 $19,875 $10.043 $5,803 $1,703 $2.3’0 $50 019 Actua1 Over/IUn6«rl Budget $30,716 $2,574 $248 $28,327 $22,555 $8,473 $92,931 $21,706 $1,299 $248 $8,452 $12,512 $2,670 $(1,703) $(2.310) $42,912 Page 7 Exp % 340.9 201.9 0.0 142.5 0.0 224.4 144.0 0.0 0.0 185.0 ..i1 i I ^4 ■4. i CITY OF ORONO City Council Report Expenditures by Division within Fund As Of 09/30/93 Page 0 001 > OBCERAL FUND 21 HUMAN SERVICES 0b)#ct Cod# k Decriptlon Division Code k Description Annual Budget Budget Year to Date Actual Year to Date Actual Over/(Undert Budget Exp % OOX • QEUBRAL FUND n POLICE PROTECTION Object Code k DeeriptIon Division Code S Description CITY OF ORONO City Cornell Report Expenditures by Division within Fund Of 09/30/93 Annual Budget Budget Year to Date Act ua1 Year to Date Actual Over/,Under) Budget Page 9 Exp % 401 PERSONAL SERVICES PERSONAL SERVICES TOTAL 411 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES TOTAL 4S1 PROPBSSlOiiAL SERVICES PR0PB8S10HAL SERVICES TOTAL 42a COmONICATIONS COMUNICATIONS TOTAL 423 PRINT/PUB/ADVBR PtlNT/PUB/ADVlR TOTAL 424 UTILITIES UTILITIES TOTAL 425 RENTALS TOTAL 424 CONTRACT MAINT/REPAIR CONTRACT HAINT/REPAIR TOTAL 427 DATA PROCBSSIH3 DATA PROCESSINO TOTAL 42« OTNER CONTRACT SERIVICB OTNER CONTRACT SERIVICB TOTAL 429 INSURANCE INSURANCE rmKL $902,B2S $55,300 $0,000 $9,000 $4,600 $5,500 $17,500 $29,600 $:.^’o $11,000 $26,000 $677,121 $41,475 4^ / $6,000 $7,350 $3,450 $4,125 $13,125 $22,200 $16,950 $0,250 $20.162 $658,593 $36,732 $5,600 $5,135 $601 $663 $1,941 :21.339 $17,033 $7,466 $27,092 $(10,520) $(4,743) $(400) $(2,215) $(2,769) $(3,462) $(11,104) $(061) $(704) $6,930 97.3 00 6 93.3 69.9 19.7 16.1 14.9 M.l 100.4 90.5 II4.4 4 CITY OF ORONO City Council Report Expenditures ty Division within Fund As Of 09/30/93 Paqe 10 001 - OniBRAL FUND 31 POLICE PROTECTION 001 • OBlfBRAL FUND 32 FIRE PROTECTION Object Code k Deeription Division Code k Description CITY OF ORONO City C'ouncil Report Expenditures by Piviaion within Fund As Of 09/lO/9< Paqe 11 Annual Budget Budget Year to Dale Art ua1 Year to Dat e ual Over/»Under' Bijdget Exp % i 421 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PtOFBSSIONAL SERVICES TOTAL 42t OTHER CONTRACT SERIVICE OTHER CONTRACT SERIVICE TOTAL TOTAL FIRE PROTECTION $192,420 $144,321 $14 9 (,70 $S. J49 103 7 $2b0 $108 $1108:0 0 $192,670 $M4,S09 $149,670 $:>. 161 103 6 !• 001 • aSNBIIAL FUND 33 PLAMUNG li ZONING Object Cod« i Decription Division Cods k Description CITY OF ORONO City Council Report Expenditures by Divisi'>n vithin Fund As Of 09/30/93 Annual Budget Budget Year to Date Actual Year to Date Actual Over/(Under) Budget Page 12 Exp % ' r' K s:. s yT ^ 1 P'i rv u p 401 PBB80NAL SERVICES 9I80IIAL SERVICES TOTAL 411 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES TOTAL 421 PROFBSSTCmL SERVICES PtOPISSIOMAL SERVICES TOTAL 422 COIMUNICATIONS ICATIOn TOTAL 423 PRIirr/PUB/ADVER fllirr/PUE/ADVER TOTAL 42S REirrALS ROrrALS TOTAL 424 CONTRACT NAIMT/REPAIR CONTEACT MAINT/REPAIR TOTAL 427 DATA PROCESSING DATA PROCESSING TOTAL 429 OTHER CONTRACT SERIVICE OTHER CONTRACT 8ERIVICE TOTAL 429 INSURANCE INSURANCE TOTAL 430 OTHER CHARGES OTHER CHARGES TOTAL TOTAL PLANNING k 1^'fetiifa. $266,995 $5,820 $4,940 $3,900 $2,150 $500 $4,660 $11,237 $2,200 $3.945 $4,670 ino. 917 $200,247 $4,366 $3,705 $2,850 $1,613 $375 $3,496 $8,428 $1,650 $2.960 $3,503 $233,193 $192,426 $3,729 $910 $2,539 $1,408 $3,195 $8,525 $944 $3.833 $2,794 $220.303 $(7,821) $(637) $ (2.795) $(311) $(205) $(375) $(301) $(704) $473 $(709) $(12,890) 94.1 85.4 24.4 •9.1 87.1 7.0 91.4 101.2 57.2 129.5 79 8 94 5 1 001 • OniBlIAL FUND 34 MNQSNCY FREPAREDNESS Object Code k Deeription Divielon Code 4 Description CITY OF ORONO City Council Report Expenditures by Division within F'und As Of 09/30/93 Annuai Budget Budget Year to Date Actua1 Year to Date Actual Over/<Under) Budget Page 13 Exp % 411 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES TOTAL 422 CdMINICATIONS COmUNlCATIONS TOTAL 423 PmifT/PUB/ADVBR PBIHT/PUB/ADVER TOTAL 424 UTILITIES UTILITIES TOTAL 42S RUrrALS EBUTALS TOTAL 424 COMTEACT MAIMT/REPAIR COMPACT MAINT/EtPAIR TOTAL 420 OTHER COmUhCT SERIVICE COIITRACr SERIVICE TOTAL 430 OTHER CHAROE8 OtNn CHAROSS TOTAL TOTAL :nr preparedness $B00 $600 $1,1SD $863 $796 $200 $1S0 $100 $800 $600 $968 $600 $600 $381 $100 $3,950 $2,963 $2,268 $ (600) $(67) $(150) $(52) $368 $(219) $(695) 0 0 92.2 0.0 30.7 0.0 161.3 63.§ 129.1 76.5 V. 001 - QBNBIIAL FUND 35 MUMM. CONTROL H Object Code 4 Deeription Divieion Code 4 Deecription CITY OF ORONO City Council Report Expenditures by Division within Fund Afl Of 09/30/93 Page 14 Annual Budget Budget Year to Date Actual Year to Date Actual Over/(Under) Budget Exp % : i * \. 401 PHISOIIAL SERVICES PERSONAL SERVICES TOTAL 411 SUPPLIES gOPPLIBS TOTAL 423 COmmiCATlOHS cammicKncms total 423- PRINT/PIS/ADVER PNINT/PUB/ADVER TOTAL 424 CONTRACT MAINT/REPAIR OOmilACT tiAlNT/REPAIR TOTAL 43B arm CONTRACT SERIVICE armR contract serivicb total 42f INSURANCt iwmmmcM total TOTAL animal CONTROL $10,240 97.681 $5,478 $(2,203) $650 $488 $1113) $50 $ (38) $130 $98 $(98) $1,100 $825 $214 $(411) $1,700 $1,275 $635 $(640) $375 $281 $412 8131 $14,245 $10,686 $6,814 $(3,872) 71.3 IS. 4 0.0 0.0 25.9 49.8 144.4 43.8 1 I "1 4 CITY OF ORONO City Council Report Expenditure* by Division within Fund As Of 09/30/93 Page IB 001 - OIHBRAL FUND 41 BNOmEBRINO Object Code t DeerIption Division Code k Description Annual Budget Budget Year to Date Actual Year to Date Actual Over/(Under) Budget Exp % 421 PROPBSSlOHAL SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TOTAL $4,130 $3,098 $6,499 $3,401 TOTAL ENQINEBRING $4,130 $3,098 $6,499 $3,401 209.8 209.8 1 001 - aamiAL njND 42 STRirr I4RINT Objoct Codt k DeerIption Division Code k Description CITY OF ORONO City Council Report Expenditures by Division vithin Fund As Of 0<i/30/93 Annual Budget Budget Year to Date Actual Year to Date Actual Over/(Under) Budget Page 16 Bxp % ¥r- I ’V' hr iX 4 t’ («■' u I:- ? r' 401 PBRSONAL SBRVICBS mSOHAL 8B1IVICBS TOTAL 411 8UPPLIBS BUPPLIB8 TOTAL 421 PROPBBBXCWiL SERVICES PROPUBXGIIAL SBRVICBS TOTAL 422 COMiUNX CATIONS COMUMXCATIONS TOTAL 423 PRINT/PUN/ADVER ptnrr/PUi/ADVBR total 424 UTXLXTIBB OriLITlBS TOTAL 425 RBITALS RSrr ALf TOTAL 424 CONTRACT NAINT/REPAIR COmACT MAXNT/RBPAXR TOTAL 424 OTHER CONTRACT SBRIVICB OTNBR CONTRACT SBRXVXCB TOTAL 429 IimiRANCB TOTAL 4 30 other CHARGBS onam cnarobs total $214.94S $196,800 $9,500 $1,400 S30n $16,500 $15,000 $12,750 $500 $25,540 $6,900 $161,209 $140,100 $6,375 $1,050 $225 $12,375 $11,250 $9,563 $375 $19.186 $5,176 $144,730 $151,644 $3,077 $1,443 $316 $11,663 $15,147 $14,424 $130 $25.310 $2,279 $(16,475) $11,544 $(3,294) $393 1(712) $3,937 $4,441 $(245) $6,124 $(2,497) 49.4 104.2 44.3 137.4 140.4 94.2 135.0 150.4 34.7 131 9 44.0 4 CITY OF ORONOCr.y Council Report Expenditures by Division within Fund ha Of 09/30/93 Page 17 001 • OniBRAL FUND 43 STREET mUTT Object Code A Deeription Division Code A Description Annual Budget Budget Year to Date Actual Year to Date Actual Over/<Under I Budget Exp % ^ ^ . r< if,; 441 CAPITAL OUTLAY CAPITAL OUTLAY TOTAL $480 $480 0.0 TOTAL STREET MAINT $489,179 $366,884 $370,683 $3,799 101.0 1 ■ 001 - aSMtRAL FUND 45 PARKS k RECREATION Object Code k Deeription Divieion Code 4 Deacription CITY OF ORONO City Council Report Expenditure® by Division within Fund As Of 09/30/93 Annual Budget Budget Year to Date Actual Year to Date Actual Over/(UnderI Budget Page 1 % Exp t V t.<- i I fe I si 1 401 PERSONAL SERVICES mSONAL SERVICES TOTAL 411 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES TOTAL 421 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PROrtSStOIIAL SERVICES TOTAL 422 (xmmickTKms CXMNUHICATXQilS TOTAL 423 PRINT/PUB/ADVER PRIirr/PUE/ADVBR TOTAL 424 trriLITIBS UriUTXBS TOTAL 425 RENTALS RWTALS TOTAL 424 COWtRACT MAINT/REPAIR CONmACT NAINT/RBPAIR TOTAL 424 OTHER CONTRACT SBRIVICE OTHER CONTRACT SERIVZCE TOTAL 429 INSURANCE INSURANCE TOTAL 410 OTHER CHAROES OTHER CHARGES TOTAL TOTAL PARKS 4 RECREATION $35,965 $2,630 $500 $60 $250 $2,500 $3,000 $2,500 $5.781 $150 $53,396 $26,976 $1,973 $375 $30 $188 $1,875 $2,250 $1,875 $4,337 $113 $40,053 $29,133 $4,737 $700 $106 $227 $294 $2,008 $4,933 $5,816 $47,985 $2,157 $2,764 $325 $166 $106 $133 $2,683 $U,875) $1,479 $ (82) $7,932 108.0 240.1 184.7 353.3 372.1 154.4 107.1 219.2 0.8 134.1 27.4 119.8 001 - OBlfBlIAL FUND 46 RBCYCLINQ PICKUP PROGRAM Object Code 6 Deeription Dlviaion Code e Description CITY OF ORONO City Council Report Expenditures by Division within Fund As Of 09,30/93 Anrual Budget Budget Year to Date Actual Year to Date Actual Over/(Under) Budget Page 19 Exp % \ ; 401 PBRSONAL SERVICES PBRSONAL SERVICES TOTAL 411 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES TOTAL 421 PtOFESSXQlUL SERVICES PtOrtSSlOHAL SERVICES TOTAL 422 CQNNUmCATlOIIS oaMuncATiom total 423 PRIMT/PUE/ADVER PEXirr/PUB/ADVER TOTAL 426 COmiACT HAUrr/REPAIR OOVnUCT MAIMT/RSPAIR TOTAL 427 DATA PtOCtSSIllQ DATA PEOCBSSIM TOTAL 430 OTHER CHAROES OTHER (XMmS TOTAL TOTAL RSCYCLin PICKUP PROGRAM $2,105 $550 $2,500 $ioo $200 $21,000 $140 $64,165 $91,460 $1,579 $413 $1,475 $600 $150 $15,750 $105 $46,124 $66,596 $4,441 $620 $9,361 $42,120 $56,562 $2,662 $207 $(1,675) $(600) $US0) 6(6.369) $(105) $(6,004) $(12,034) 261.3 150.1 0.0 0.0 i 0.0 59.0 6' 0.0 OT.S 02.0 4 CITY uF ORONO City Council Report Expenditures by Division within Fund Ka Of 09/30/93 Page 20 001 - ODIBRAL FUND SX SPEC SBRV* CONSULT/POL ICE Objsct Code k Deeription Division Code li Description Annual Bs. iget Budget Year to Date Actual Year to Date Actual Over/(Under) Budget Exp % li: 401 PERSONAL SERVICES PBMONAL SERVICES TOTAL $8,409 $6,367 $•190 $(6,557) 421 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PEOPESSIONAL SERVICES TOTAL $12,000 $9,000 $14,059 $5.05$ TOTAL SPEC SERV-CONSULT/POLICE $20,469 $15,367 $13,869 $(1,498) -3.0 156.2 90.3 m CITY OF ORONO 001 • QKNBRAL FUND S3 SPECIAL PROJECTS CONTING Object code k Deeription Division Code k Description City Council Report Expenditures by Division vithin Fund As Of 09/30/93 Page 21 Annual Budget Budget Year to Date Actual Year to Date Actual Over/(Under) Budget Exp I 401 PBR80NAL SERVICES PnSQMM. SraVICBS TOTAL SS.150 $3,963 $0 $(3,«63>0.0 >4 431 MOrUSIOMAL SERVICBS KOFirSIOMAL SERVICES TOTAL $17,500 $13.125 $3,841 $(9,344)29 3 A' h 430 OTHER CHAROBS OrtOR CHARCttS TOTAL $0 $0 $350 $390 0.0 431 OTHER DISTRIRUTIONS ¥'KeA';. : M ' OnOR DISTRIB^/TIOIIS TOTAL $128,904 $96,681 $3,756 $(93.93S)3.9 441 CAPITAL Ot/TLAY m CAPITAL CXm>Y TOTAL $1,734 $1,301 $0 id.301)0.0 TOTAL fPECIAL PROJECTS'COMTIHO $153,292 $114,970 $7.94-'$U07.033)6.9 ¥■ *m. Wnr r If. E: If, >3 ii ir i liiHii CITY OF ORONO City Council Report Expenditures by Division within Fund ha Of 09/30/9^ Page 22 001 • OBfBRAL FUND 52 SPECIAL PROJECTS-CuNTIMO Object code k Decrl|)tlon Division Code k Description Annuel Budget Budget Year to Date Actual Year to Date Actual Over/(Under) Budget Kxp % PfH) 001 Total $3,132,572 $2,349,473 $2,214,046 $(134,627)94.3 TO: FROM: DATE: Ron Moorse. City Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director October 22, 1993 SUBJECT: City Auction Results On Tuesday. October 19, 1993 the City disposed of surplus and confiscated items by way of public auction. The proceeds of the auction are as follows; Gross proceeds Auctioneer fee 20% Advertising $5,346.00 1,069.20 300J3Q Net proceeds $3,946.80 Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Olvitlon Waien Edge Building ISOO West County Rond B2 Roseville. Minnesota S3113 Reply to Telephone No. Oakdale Office T7Q-S1 October 15, 1993 Mr. Ronald J. Moorse City Administrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 OCT 2 1 - V. Subject:Control Section 2713 Trunk Highway (T.H.) 12 at Willow Drive Traffic Control Review Request Dear Mr. Moorse, At a meeting with Orono and Long Lake representatives on September !7.» ^^^, ** ^*""**^ Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) was asked to explore the possibility of n^ifymg the sianint restriping the lane configuration, changing the speed loning and/or banning left turns off of T.H.* 12 during the AM and PM peaks at Willow Drive. We have completed our review of the suggestions. The inplace signing and overhead flasher de . gn were reviewed to determine if placing addition^ messages, flagging or flashen would improve driver attentiveness. The «gning and n!uh? design are sufficient for the speed and geometries of the roadway. The high wlum^ traffic, insufficient channeliiation and the large number of local accesses divert away from the inplace signing. Adding more messages for drivers in an area that has those conditions is not likely to have a significant impact on traffic operations. shoulder. The pref rred option would be to create a center left mm ia» for b^ t.m. u approaches by eliminating the urost bound or east bound right turn lane. One o lanes would become a combirution through/right turn lane. An#^her option would ^ bypass/right turn lane. Neither the north or south shoulder is thick enough or wi^ safely carry the T.H. 12 traffic. Replacement of the pavement would not be possible Ais F^l. We are also in the process of obtaining peak period turning movement countt to ^ itftft are essential. The of a center left turn lane may result in unacceptable confUcls m the through/right turn lane. Any option selected should improve the overall uper^ or tne intc'iurtian or the inplace geometries should remain. We will continue to examine the restnping issue this Winter. An Eqitai Opportunity Employer Page 2 T.H. 12 at Willow Drive Lx>ng Lake/Orono The speed zoning on T.H. 12 through Long Lake and Orono was reviewed and revised last year. The 40 MPH zone through the Willow Drive intersection was extended further west at that time. The investigation results and proposed qwed zoning were discussed with Steve Sullivan, Orono Police Chief. According to our records Mr. Sullivan had no objection to the proposed speed limits, but did express concern regarding the Willow Drive intersection. A speed study was done on October 13, 1993 to reevaluate the speed zoning. The results support the 1992 study and recommendations. There is very little precedent for banning left turns on the trunk highway system during peak periods. They are more appropriate in downtown areas where there are other nearby streets at which to make the maneuver and those locations have protected left turn bays and/or left turn signal phasing. Directing left turning movemenu to intersections that can accommodate them should provide for more efficient traffic flow. If left turning moves are divert^ to another location that does not have left turn bays the safety and efficiency of a roadway may not improve. Time of day restrictions are invitations to violation. Infrequent users may unintentionally violate the restriction if they normally drive through when the restriction is not in force. As the top classified road at most locations, the trunk highway must be expected to provide full access at the locations wheoe full intersections are provided. To not do so vkriates driver expec'4atian as well as limits the intended proper functioning of the trunk highway system. Any violation that occurs has a greater potenttial to create a traffic "incident” and they tend to irritate drivers who comfriy with the restrictions or are delayed by those who don’t. The only thing that potentially reduces violation is dedicated enforcement. Mn/DOT has reservations about the effectiveness of banning left turns for the above reasons. However, we are willing to install the signs banning the left turns from T.H. 12, during the AM and PM peak periods, if the Cities of Long Lake and Orono will provide approximately six months of dedicated enforcement followed by periodic enforcement. Compliance and redirection of the left turners to protected left turn bays are the key to the success of this proposal. The turning movement study and current volume data would be used to determine the hours the ban would be in effect. Typically they are in effect for two hours in the AM and PM peak periods. Pigc 3 T.H. 12 at Willow Drive Long Lake/Orooo If Orono and Long Lake agree to do the enforcement the signing should be requested by letter to Joel Katz, Division Traffic Engineer - Traffic Services, 5801 Duluth Street Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422. The letter should include resolution(s) from tlw cities indicating your willingness to provide the enforcement. Once the letter is received a signing work order will be processed. It usually six weeks for the installation to occur from that time due to the workload of the signing crews. Your concern for the safety of the area is commendable and I encourage you to call me if you have any additiona] questions or concerns. Sincerely, Robert l.^aiek, P.E. Division Traffic Studies Engiiieer cc: Edward J. Callahan, Jr. • Mayor of Orono Tod Olson • Mayor of Long Lake Steve Sullivan - Orono Police Chief Dave Peterson - Wayzata Mike Hilbelink and John Vogt - Snack Time Exprcsso