Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02-25-1991 Council Packet
A62S1DA FOR COUNCIL NESTING SET FOR MONDAY,FSBRUAilY li,r: J J J St ''i m-&riJ-Kf^'- ft::lt fp1?- rfe' ■i" (*)Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon Consent Itemrequest. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet wh.ch may be ..'btained upon request from the Recorder.p If I ^ Of 4^ W m m M <4» W « W ^ ^ v ^ ^1 by one motion by the City Council under the * on the agenda. "Discussion will be held uponROLL CALL1.CONSENT AGENDA* APPROVAL OP niNOTSS * 2. Regular Meeting of February 11, 1991 MEERM6OF ORONO PUBLIC O HTS - (Liait 5 Minutes Per Person) tOnSG ADMIBISTRATOR'S REPORT **APPLZCAI1TS**Imediately after the Council has reviewed your application please sign the three (3) original resolutions at the Recorder's desk. Applicants need not execute resolutions for subdivisions, vacations and denials. 3.#1605 Dr. Richard Lindstrom, 1065 West Ferndale Road - Variance - Resolution 4.Hardcover Policy - Pools/Plastics .1 ^.4 •S RBPOBT 5.Lift Station 10 and 43 - Final Payment HAZOB/OOOBCIL REPORT 6.Park Coaaission Appointment eXTT ADMIVISTRATOR'S REPORT 7.LMCD Comprehensive Management Plan 8.Lake Use and Management - Draft Shoreland Regulations 9.Facilities Review 10.Highway 12 Corridor • Planning Commission Review 11.Police Chief Selection Process 12.1991 Legislative Policy 13.1991 Strategic Plan 14.Municipal Board Process 15.Aaendaant to LOGIS Joint Cooperative Agreement 18.Request for Funding - West Hennepin Humeui Services Planning Board 17.Policy Body Material Preparation 18.West Hennepin Recycling Commission Joint Powers Agreement 19.Set Public Rearing Date CDBG Year XVli Funds 20.1991 Wayzata Fire Contract Addendum 20A. Canine Program 21.Administrator's Information Public/Private Roads Community Development Block Grant Program Prosecutlon/Court Fines Lake Minnetonka Levels/Minnehaha Creek watershed District Business Cards Itentifieation Cards December Receipts and Disbursements wire Transfers t: iNDA'i# ?23RnAA ’-i *.3»itstns to b0 d to =«,-=’--'ncil under the '/ '.^Vn^jill he held upon;isous=-“ j,genda Items acetrwhUh ma- b\ Obtained uponCOUNCftMEEnilGfeb 2CnY OF ORONO^ i. f 1991tr Person) - the council hms •ple.se siqn ‘desk. iSr.*.‘ec«t: isolations for ktions and denials. 1065 west Ferndale Road istics A6SNDA FOR COOHCIL MEBTIHG SET FOR MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1991, 7:00 P.M.CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTLICENSES (22«)»ioinn»a»tOPCOHIIIG ISSUES AND EVENTS02/20 - Planning Commission Hwy 12 Public Info Meeting 7:00 p.m. 02/22 - "Group of 8/LMCD" Way2ata City Hall 8:00 a.:n.02/25 • Council Meeting 02/27 - Planning Commission Hwy 12 Workshop 5:30 p.m. 02/27 - LMCD Board Meeting (4th Wednesday) 04/17 - Policy Committee Highway 12 Corridor (3rd Wednesday) 04/23 - Technical Committee Highway 12 Corridor (4th Tuesday) 04/23 - Citizens Committee Highway 12 Corridor (4th Tuesday) nal Pai-ment ;?^Shoceland Regulations 3 Commission Review °S5:«‘pirB!)2«%”rv^=•s PlanninB Silicon Joint powers Agreement )BG Tear XVII Funds ► Xdd€ndUI3 w;*.. jrmnt Program laha Creek Watershed District MU# t S PUBLIC ATTENDANCZ CITY OF ORONO L Cu/v'” iL A <>-I-IEETING DATE ''' //•'i*. pc / / A( PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. HAMB (pUase print) 1. lU > 2. M ' ^ \ j 3. ~T 'wr* ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER PRESENT FOR (from agenda) MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETfifi^^ClL MEETIN& HELD FEBRUARY 11, 1991 FEB 2 fTSSl The Council met on the above date with the folloCJiy Qffi|)J|0|\|Q present: Mayor Barbara Peterson, CounciImembers J. Diann Goetten, Edward Callahan, and Gabriel Jabbour. The following represented the City Staff: City Administrator Mark Bernhardson, Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, Public Works Director John Gerhardson, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, City Attorney Thomas Barrett, City Engineer Glenn Cook, and City Recorder Laurie Scheffler. Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at ~;00 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA* Goetten requested that items #27 and #29 be removed from the Consent Agenda. Jabbour indicated that he also wished to discuss item #27. Mayor Peterson requested the removal of item #13A, in addition to items #27 and #29. It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Peterson, to approve the Consent Agenda, with the exception of items #13A, 27 and 29, which were removed and discussed in the order appearing on the Agenda. Motion, Ayes-4 Nays-0. Motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES* It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Peterson, to approve the minutes of the Special Meeting held January 7, 1991. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Peterson, to approve the minutes of the Regular Council Meeting held January 28, 1991. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. SENIOR CITIZEN'S PRESENTATION Ms. JoAnn Kvern, a representative of Senior Community Services, presented Council with information about the Agency and the programs its provides. She said, "The City of Orono has supported a series of Senior programs since 1982. I have outlined those programs in this report. In 1982, the City gave its support to a program called 'Westonka Counseling for Older Adults'. That program is now called 'Senior Outreach'. In 1984 Orono gave its support to the Westonka Senior Center, and now, in 1991, the City has offered its support to the Long Lake, Orono, Medina Senior Center. We thank you for your support." Ms. Kvern introduced Ms. Cathy Bailey. Ms. Bailey introduced Jim and Verna Mulvaney, Audrey Overby, from the Long Lake, Orono, Medina Center, and Dottie O'Prien, Board President for the Westonka Center. J._ - 1 - >-r-'I. [L ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 11, 1991 SENXOli CITIZEN PRESENTATION CONTINUED Mrs. O'Brien thanked the Council for their ('ontinued support of the Westonka Senior Center and explained how beneficial the programs are for Senior Citizens. Mrs. Overby stated that she has been using the Center regularly and that she appreciates the various programs offered. She thanked the Council for supporting the Center. Mayor Peterson stated that she has been asked be the guest of honor at an upcoming luncheon, and that she is looking forward to meeting with the Senior Citizens. PLAMMIMG COMMISSION COMMENTS: Planning Commissioner Cohen was present in lieu of Planning Commissioner Moos. Cohen referred Council to the upcoming events listed on the agenda. He stated that, in his opinion, the City is spending an inordinate amount of time on th3 Highway 12 Corridor issue. Cohen said, "I know this is an important issue, however, the plans call for this project to begin ten years from now. I do not want to see the City spending a lot of time, spinning its wheels on something that the City will have little or no say about. Even though I am not in favo. of the method in which this process is occurring, I agree that something is going to be done. It is incumbent on the City and resiients to draft a plan." Mayor Peterson stated that three of the six meetings scheduled involved the Highway 12 Committees, and that Councilmembers serve on two of the three Committees. Goetten added, "The City and neighboring municipalities are involved in this process. Council felt that the Planning Conunission should be involved in this process, which accounts for the other three meetings scheduled." Mayor Peterson asked if any new information was presented at the meeting recently held in the City of Medina. Cohen stated that he had directly asked the MNDOT representative present to indicate which of the routes MNDOT preferred. He said, "Though the representative would not answer my question, it was obvious from his conversation that the two northerly routes are really not being considered." Goetten stated that she too had attended the Medina meeting and thought it had been well run. She said, "Everyone had an opportunity to apeak to this issue. I thought that Steve Hay was forthright in his opinion, that this was his project, and the decisions would come from him and the communities, not from a higher authority. The Mayor of Medina invited the residents to form a committee, similar to those we have in Orono. From the - 2 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 11, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS CONTINUED meetings I have attended it is apparent that everyone is trying to work together. Ed Cohen, Jin Hanson and myself attended this meeting, as well as some other Orono residents." Mayor Peterson asKed Cohen if it is his opinion that the Planning Commission will be spending too much time on this issue. Cohen replied, ”I think it is important to have the two upcoming meetings After that, we should step back and take a good look at where we are going and what we want to accomplish." Jabbour said, "It is my opinion that Orono is slightly behind in forming a decision of where the line is. The Council really values the involvement of the Planning Commission in this process, because it is an intricate part of our City. It is very important that the Planning Commission is up to speed on all of the information on Highway 12. However, at the last meeting, only four of the seven members were present. I find it frustrating that we may have to designate additional meeting time so we can update those that missed other meetings. I believe that Council really needs the help of the Planning Commission on this issue. I am hopeful that those that missed the meeting will take it upon themselves to learn what they missed, rather than expecting to receive that information at anc .er meeting, Mabusth stated that Staff would prepare a memo to provide pertinent information to those that could not attend the meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Ms. Sherokee Use questioned the magnitude of the upcoming Public Meeting scheduled for February 20 1991. Sh? said, "People are asking whether this will be the. main opportunity to hear information and make comments, or if ' w b* another meeting following." Mayor Peterson said, "It is my understanding that the Chairman of the Planning Commission has asked that each of the citizen groups send only one or two representatives. There will be another Public Meeting involving the City Council. It will probably be held in a larger facility than the Council Chambers." Ms. Use stated that there are not defined citizen groups, even though there is a distinct difference in opinion between residents living north and south o: Highway 12. She said, "It may not be realistic to have representatives appearing on behalf of a certain group. I have a feeling that there will be quite a few people at this meeting." Goetten clarified that the February 20, 1991 meeting will provide the residents with an opportunity to express their opinions before the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to - 3 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 11, 1991 t PUBLIC COMMENTS CONTINUEDCouncil.Cohen stated that he would encourace everyone interested in this issue to attend the meeting.ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT:»1600 SUPER VALU, 3333 SHORELINE DRIVE VARIAHCE/COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW RESOLUTION #2923 Mr. Rick Bloomquist, Lyle Fuller, Libson were present. who Bruce Kelley and Neil Bernhardson gave Council a brief review of the issues involved with Mr. Bloomquist's request to expand Rick’s Super Valu. He noted that the applicants were revising their access plans for County Road 15. Bernhardson stated that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this application with a four to two vote. Mabusth added that the minority votes were due to an opinion that the applicants had not respond ad to the Planning Commission's concerns. She asked Bruce Kelley, the applicant’s engineer, to address the issue of access. Mr. Kelley stated that it is their opinion that an access off of Kelly Avenue would not be appropriate. He said, "I attended a meeting on the site with City Staff, Rick Bloomquist, Lyle Fuller, two members from the Hennepin County Highway Department. we discussed various options and tried to find the best alternative. There are several problems with having an access from Kelly Avenue, rather than County Road 15. The grade on Kelly Avenue drops down quits a bit. Cars entering the p2i7](ing lot would drop down and then turn uphill into the ^j^xveway. That might not pose any probl«?m for automobiles, unless the road was icy. It would probably be necessary to move the hydrant, manhole and telephone. The major disadvantage is that it brings traffic right in front of the store where the pedestrian area is located as well as the parcel pickup. The situation would also pose a problem for the semi-trailer trucks. It would be very difficult for them to maneuver cut of the parking lot." Kelley used an example of a semi-trailer truck to show the difficulty involved with using the access from Kelly Avenue. He stated that the County Road 15 access provided the best sight distance for trucks pulling out. Kelley added that there have been no accidents with the existing access onto County Road 15. Mabusth asked Kelley to show how trucks would access County Road 15 from the parking lot. - 4 - •= 'fj ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 11, 1991 ZONING FILE fl600-RICK’S SUPER VALU CONTINUED Kelley showed that the trucks would swing out into the second lane. He said, “These are long trucks. It doesn't matter from where the trucks pull out, it will be necessary to take two lanes of traffic.” Kelley stated that they have addressed all of the concerns raised by Staff and the Watershed District. He added that they will provide any additional landscaping that the City may require. Kelley asked Council to approve the application with no change in access location from what now exists. Mabusth clarified, "The applicant is confirming that they will replace any plantings along the south property line that may be removed during construction." Callahan recalled that the Planning Commission had not recommended any revisions to either access, but rather that the driveways are left as is. Mabusth said, "The Planning Commission approved the plan presented by the applicants. That plan showed the County Road 15 access relocated approximately 20' closer to Kelly Avenue. Staff does not believe that is a safe situation. If Council is going to approve access from County Road 15, we would recommend that the access remain as is. I believe that is what the applicant is now proposing." Cohen stated that if the applicants are revising the plan at this point, it should go back to the Planning Commission for review. Mayor Peterson asked the City Engineer for his input into the access issue. Cook stated that, in his opinion, the two existing accesses are not safe. He said, "Our objective is to improve at least one of the accesses. The problem with the County Road 15 access is Kelly Avenue. There is fast moving traffic on County Road 15 and there is a potential to have cars trying to exit off of Kelly and from the Super Valu parking lot at the sa.me time. That is dangerous. The existing access is not a good location, and the closer you move it to Kelly Avenue, the worse it gets. There may be difficulties with an access location off of Kelly Avenue, but we feel that those are workable problems that pose less of a safety hazard than the County Road 15 access. How many trucks would use that access a day?" Bloomquist replied, "We get in approximately four to five trucks a week." Cook said, "If the access off of Kelly Avenue was widened, it would help with truck maneuvering. This access would provide - 5 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 11, 1991 ZONING FILE 31600-RICK'S SUPER VALU CONTINUED far more safety for the customers that come to the store." Goetten asked Cook if he would foresee any problem with a truck coming into the parking lot off of Kelly Avenue. Cook stated that for the most par parking lot come from the south and access. the trucks entering the use the County Road 19 Bloomquist confirmed that the trucks do enter from the County Road 19 access. that he shops at Rick's Super the City Engineer's recommendation Valu to be V. Callahan stated frequently and finds highly theoretical. Cook stated that the idea is to get the cars out of heavy traffic movement before turning into the parking lot. Callahan asked Cook what basis he had for considering the existing access unsafe. Cook replied, "From experience we know that this is a high incident area. That is our concern, and we try to eliminate the built-in hazards that exist whenever we can." Callahan stated that relocating the access to Kelly Avenue would have a sharp impact on the customers that use the store. He said, "Using Kelly Avenue fro.m December to March may cause a lot of concern for drivers." Cook agreed that there would be reason for concern, but that the idea is to get cars out of the fast lane of traffic. He said, "Kelly Avenue can be salted, and there may be times when the road will be slippery. If that becomes a concern of a (jifiver, they would choose to use the County Road 19 access. A driver will tend to go where he/she is most comfortable." Callahan asked if in fact the applicants are proposing to keep the County Road 15 access in its present location. Fuller, Bloomquist and Kelley stated that they wish to keep the access where it currently is. Mayor Peterson stated that she understood the City Engineer's position. She said, "if you are leaving the store and wish to head west, you must cross three lanes of traffic. I ve seen several near-misses. However, I also have the same concerns that Ed expressed." Goetten concurred with Cal’ahan and Mayor Peterson. - 6 - r. ’’f ■' r.. f' •*' ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 11, 1991 ZONING FILE |1600-RICR*S SUPER VALU CONTINUED Mr. Fuller stated that the movement of the County Road 15 access 20' west was not emphasized at eif'er of the Planning Commission meetings. He said, "In preparation for this evening's Council meeting, we met on the site and were told by the County that they preferred to have the County Road 15 access remain in place. We believe we are providing Rick’s customers with the safest and most convenient access. Tnere have been two reported accidents on the County Road 19 exit in the past two years, but none on County Road 15. There has been no demonstrated need to move that access. Also, there has been discussion about someday vacating Kelly Avenue, which would conflict with intentions to place an access in that location. If you look at the other commercial entities in this area you will see that they have similar access situations." Bernhardson stated that if Kelly Avenue were to be vacated, a cul-de-sac would be placed south of Super Valu's proposed access on Kelly. He suggested that a compromise for the access would be to allow it to remain on County Road 15 for now, but require it to be relocated to Kelly if demonstrated problems occur in the future. Bernhardson suggested including such language in the resolution, if approved. Jabbour asked what time of day truck traffic is most likely to occur. Bloomquist stated that most of the trucks should be in and out between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. He reiterated that a Kelly Avenue access would create maneuvering problems for the large semi-trailer trucks. It was the consensus of the Council that the access should remain in its current location, and that language be included in the resolution giving the City the authority to require relocation should safety problems arise. Goetten asked about the noise level of the compactor and the hours it would be operated. Bloomquist replied, "It is an electric hydraulic compactor and the noise level will be very minimal." Fuller added that he had been unable to obtain specific decibel information, but has been told that the compactor will generate a low humming noise. He said, "1 believe the compactor will be operated once a day.” Goetten stated that she would have no objections to the compactor if it has a lew noise level and is operated in the morning hours, as opposed to evening. - 7 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 11, 1991 ZONING FILE 11600-RICK’S SUPER VALU CONTINUED Mayor Paterson asked Staff if any of the residents living in the area of Super Valu had expressed concerns. Mabusth stated that the City had heard nothing from the residents. Mayor Peterson asked how high the retaining wail will be. Mr. Neil Libson replied, "The wall is 17 feet high at its maximum height. The wall is approximately 3.5 feet above the delivery ramp. We are proposing the wall at that height so it will act as a guardrail for safety reasons. It will also act as a noise barrier for the trucks." Goetten asked what the hardship basis is for this Variance. Mr. Fuller referred to the Position Paper he had submitted. He said, "The topography and an existing water line limit our ability to expand the building anywhere else. The hardship runs with the land because of the unique topography." It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Goetten, to adopt Resolution #2923, as amended to include that the access on Highway 15 remain the same, and the condition that the applicant will relocate the access if deemed necessary by Council. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1605 DR. RICHARD LINDSTROM, 1065 WEST FERND\LE ROAD VARIANCE Mr. Paul Bedker, contractor, was present on Dr. Lindstrom's behalf. Bernhardson reviewed the information presented in Michae] Gaffron's February 4, 1991, memo. He stated that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of this application with three votes in favor, two against, and one abstention. Goetten asked Bedker to show the areas that would be new, including the proposed second story deck. Bedker defined the addition areas, garage would have two levels and showed achieved to each level. He stated how access that Che would be Goetten asked why Dr. Lindstrom required the additional garage and living space. Bedker replied, "Dr. Lindstrom has four vehicles and only a two-stall garage at this time. The reason he has four vehicles is because his parents have recently come to live with him. He is trying to provide living and garage space to accommodate his - 8 - )• f N- * ■1^ rf ]• ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 11, 1991 ZONING FILE #1605-LINDSTROM CONTINUED ^ , extended family. The plan for the garage is revised from our initial proposal which showed a one level, four car garage. We revised the garage in response to the Planning Commission s concerns about hardcover on this property. The garage is being placed on existing hardcover so there is no increase proposed in the 75'-250' zone." Goetten questioned whether the proposal would constitute a guest apartment. Gaffron stated that the proposal. He asked Bedker if kitchen area. aoplicant had not made such a the plans call for an additional Bedker replied, "There will be no second kitchen. There is a central dining room and kitchen. The addition will provide only bedrooms on the second level." Goetten asked how large this lot is. Gaffron stated that the lot is approximately 8/lOths of an acre. Goetten asked if it driveway area in exchange proposed. would be possible to remov** some for the added structural ha cover Bedker stated that a turn-around area will be necessary so that cars will not have to back down the driveway. He said, "When we relocated the garage to the driveway so not to increase ji^fdcover in the 75'-250' setback area, we eliminated the potential of reducing the driveway." Jabbour said, "I believe the house is over-ambitious for the size of the lot. I do not think this house would have existed as it is now, were it not for the trade-off to remove the original cabins. I think we need to consider whether we are moving closer, or farther away from our Code if we approve this application. Would it be necessary to remove any trees to accommodate the garage?" Bedker stated that there would be no tree removal and added that all of the additions will occur on existing hardcover. Goetten noted that the garage is being placed over existing plastic and gravel and did not consider that to be a practical exchange. She said, "This may be one of those properties that has been developed to its capacity. I am concerned about whether the property can accommodate this addition proposal." Mayor Peterson was appreciative of the efforts made by the - 9 - r: fe W- I- SJ- if 1 ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 11, 1991 ZONING PILE I1605-LINDSTROM CONTINUED applicant to reduce hardcover in the 0-75’ setback area. She said, "I still believe that the water surface of swimming pools should be included in hardcover calculations." Bedker stated that in this case, the pool water surface area was included in the hardcover calculations. Jabbour objected to trading rock and plastic for structural hardcover. He said, "I have never considered that as a conforming use. The rock and plastic should not have existed at all. How can an applicant trade something they should never have had, for something that they also should not have, but which will be more permanent." Goetten inqu>.red as to the existing square footage of the house and what it would be after the proposed additions. Gaffron replied, "The footprint of the existing house is 77' X 36', or 2,8JO s.f. The garage addition is 25' x 26’, which is 650 s.f. The second story addition and deck 2,414 s.f. The living space would be approximately doubled." Mayor Peterson asked if the applicant had stated a specific hardship for the Variances requested. Bedker stated that due to the size of the lot, a Variance would be required no matter what size addition is proposed. He said, "In order to achieve the goals of Dr. Lindstrom, this plan minimizes the impact on the property in terms of hardcover and tree loss. The first plan we presented to the Planning Commission showed the deck overhanging the second level. However, the Planning Commission expressed concern about the visual impact from the lake and we revised the plan to pull it back eight feet." Callahan asked what presently exists location for the swimming pool. in the proposed Bedker replied, "That area is presently driveway. The site is heavily wooded on both sides of the driveway." It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Jabbour, to conceptually deny application #1605. Staff is directsd to prepare a denial resolution with the appropriate findings for Council's review at their February 25, 1991 meeting. The applicant may have the opportunity to bring back a revised, less ambitious plan. Motion, Ayes-4.. Nays-0. Motion passed. OTHER Callahan stated that the City must take steps to address the issues of swimming pools and landscaping plastic. - 10 - tf Ii I I' f 15 ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 11, 1991 OTHER-SWIMMING POOL/PLASTIC HARDCOVER CONTINUED It ths conssnsus of Council that appropriate measures be taken at this time. It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to conceptually adopt a policy stating that the water surface area of swimming pools will be considered hardcover, and that any landscape plastic existing within the 0~<5' setback area is there and should be removed. Landscape plastic will no longer be accepted as tradeable "existing hardcover" wnen considering zoning applications requesting additional structural hardcover. Staff is directed to prepare the appropriate language fQjf such a policy and present it to Council at their February 25, 1991, meeting. Motion, Ayes-4 Nays-0. Motion passed. #1611 BRUCE a CAMILLE CURTISS, 1920 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD after-the-fact variance RESOLUTION #2924 Camille Curtiss and her attorney, Jeff Mohr, were present. Bernhardson stated the purpose of the Curtiss’s application, noting that the Planning Commission had recommended approval with a five to one vote. Gaffron provided Council with photographs of the deck. He stated that this property has been involved with previous zoning applications and that was the basis for the minority Planning Commission vote. He said, "The Curtisses have paid an after-the-fact Variance application fee. The Planning Commission recommended that an after-the-fact building permit fee also be paid. The deck is approximately the same size and shape as the old deck." Goetten stated that after-the-fact applications put the Council in a precarious situation. She said, "Council has usually voted to approve these somewhat reluctantly because we do not approve of blatant disregard of the City Ordinances. Perhaps this is another issue we need to re-examine." Callahan agreed that these applications are difficult. He said, "In this case, we would have granted the application. I believe that the after-the-fact fees paid by the Curtisses constitute a sufficient penalty." Mayor Peterson said, "It is my understanding that the issue of the footings will be addressed by the Building Inspector. If the footings do not meet the building standards, the deck must be rebuilt." Ns. Curtiss said, "We did not totally replace the existing deck. We had a friend that fell off of the deck because the railings are too low. We have small children and were concerned - 11 - 'b-. ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 11, 1991 ZONING FILE #1611-CORTISS CONTINUED about their safety as well. Bruce just started replacing joists that were rotted. We have paid the double fees and obtained a survey A motion was made by Callahan, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2924, granting Variances for an after-the-fact deck located within the 0-75* setback area. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1612 CHRISTOPHER DALE/GERI LEE PAULSON, 4085/4105 WATERTOV#N ROAD LOT LINE SUBDIVISION RBSOLOTIOM #2925 ^ ^Mr. Jack Vigoren, Attorney, v.as present on behalf of the applicants. Bernhardson stated the issues involved in this application and advised that the Planning Commission had unanimously recommended approval. Callahan asked Staff to further explain the issue regarding the easement and future lots. Mabusth replied, "Ths City is placing the property owner on notice that this easement cannot be included in area calculations if or when the property is further subdivided.” A motion was made by Goetten, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2925, *approving a metes and bounds subdivision of a lot line rearrangement and creation of a private easement. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1613 JBHSBN BOMBS, INC., 315 TONKAWA ROAD CONDITIONAL D8B PERMIT RBSOLUTION #2926 Jim Jansen was present. Bernhardson stated that this application involved a proposal for a non-rental apartment within a newly constructed home. He said, "No additional access is being provided from the lower level, but the windows do meet the egress requirements.^ The Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval." Callahan asked if the concerns regarding the septic systems capacity has been resolved. Mabusth replied, "Michael has confirmed that the septic jgy^tiem can be expanded to meet the Septic Code requirements. Goetten inquired as to the size of this lot. Mr. Jensen replied, "It is 3.78 acres." - 12 - •».- . • , fe/.. f >:r' m ri: V r ■ ^•:-- :v' f i»V’ % ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 11, 1991 ZONING FILE 11613-JENSEN HOMES CONTINUED A motion was made by Callahan, seconded by Goetten, to adopt Resolution #2926, granting a Conditional Use Permit for a non rental guest apartment. Motion, Ayes-1, Nays-0. Motion passed. #1615 GARY HROZ A KEN HOPKINS, 59 FERNDALE GREEN PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION #2927 AND #1616 GARY NROZ • KEN HOPKINS, 59 FERNDALE GREEN CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT RESOLUTION #2928 Mr. Gary Mroz was present. Bernhardson reviewed the information presented by Jeanne Mabusth in her January 15, 1991 memo. He said, -The City of Wayzata does not object to this property being served with municipal water and sewer. The lot to the south has been tested and could accommodate a primary and alternate septic system. A concern was raised regarding the control of weeds on the properties near Fcrndale Green. It would be the responsibility of the owners of the two lots, or the owner of the Outlet, to maintain the easterly portion of lots. Both lots meet the two acre minimum. There is also some concern about developing this property in light of the future Highway 12 corridor. It was felt that such an issue should be left to the individual property owners. With regard to the Conditional Use Permit to cross a wetlands, Bernhardson said, "Appropriate modifications will be made to the wetlands and the drainage occurring through a culvert system, so not to impede the storm water ponding." Mabusth added that the private drive that will serve this property has been pushed to the north side of the outlot. She said, "This was done to allow flowage from the low lying front yards of lot to the east to flow without restriction to the drainageway to the culverts. Mr. Anderson, the Engineer, has met on site with the property owner to the east. The revisions are reflected in the most recent plan, which the City is recommending." Bernhardson noted that the Planning Commission had voted unanimously in favor of recommending approval, but took no position on the sewer and water issue for Lot 1. Callahan asked Mabusth to elaborate on the situation that would exist between the property owners and the Viayzata Country Club. Mabusth stated that early on in this process she was contacted by an attorney representing an adjacent property owner. - 13 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 11, 1991 ZONING FILE #1615 I #1616“MROZ/HOPKINS CONTINUED She said, "There is no legal easement granting access for the adjacent property owners to the Golf Course. I would refer to Mr. Mroz for any information he may have in this respect. I explained to the Attorney that the City must be assured that two qj dry contiguous land is maintained. With the exclusion of the wetland, and the areas of the 30 foot and 15 foot drainage easements, the dry contiguous is reduced co 2.11 acres. I advised the Attorney that any access easement that is created over that portion of property may reduce that area below the required two acre minimum." Mr. M'oz said, "The property owner in question is John Powers. He had approached us about purchasing the portion of our ppQpgfty that is located behind his house. We informed him we could not sell any portion of the property. Mr. Powers asked us if we would allow the Club to continue maintaining any portion of that property that is not used by the new homeowner. We informed Mr. Powers that we would agree to such an arrangement. I do not believe we can legally grant an access easement." Callahan asked whether the access would continue to be used. Mr. Mroz replied, "It would depend on who owns the property I would imagine it may be used by the adjacent property owners." Jabbour asked if the City would be notified by the County if property owners filed an access easement after the subdivision is completed. Mabusth stated that the County would more than likely not provide any notification to the City of such an easement being filed. Barrett stated that the property owners could file such an easement. He said, "If an easement were filed and came to the City's attention, the City could treat it as a violation of our Subdivision Ordinance. Secondly, the City is putting the property owner on notice that, if the easement decreases the lot size, it cannot be developed. That is the practical leverage that the City has to prevent unwanted easements.” Callahan suggested that such language be included in the resolution. Goetten stated that she would grant the property owners access to sewer and water because Ferndale Green has sewer and fitter and the lots do meet the two acre minimum. Bernhardson suggested further amending the resolution to also place the property owners on notice that the provision of municipal water and sewer does not entail a potential reduction - 14 - R- Vy. - j ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 11, 1991 ZONING FILE #1615 « |16ie-MROZ/HOPKINS CONTINUED in the Two-acre Zoning in the future. Mabusth stated that the City of Wayzata has agreed to allow the City of Orono to initiate and handle the issuance of all permits. She said, "Billing will occur through the City of Orono and we will make any refunds deemed necessary to the City of Wayzata." It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Jabbour, to adopt Resolution #2927, granting Preliminary approval of the Plat of Fairway Hills Addition, as amended to include notification to the property owner of Lot 2, that the granting of any access easement to the Wayzata Golf Course may decrease the lot size below the required two acre minimum; and that both owners of be placed on notice that the provision of municipal water and sewer will not entail a reduction in the Two-acre Zoning in the future. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Jabbour, to adopt Resolution #2928, granting a Conditional Use Permit and Variance to cross a wetland for access purposes. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. NAORBBH STBBLB-BELLOWS, 265 BROWN ROAD SOUTH RBSOLUTION #2929* It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2929, amending Resolution #2077 that amended Condition of Approval of the Byfield Plat. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. BHGZMBBR'S RBPORT: PAY RBQUBST #4 - LIFT STATION #8* It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to approve the fourth and final Pay Request to Northwest Mechanical in the amount of $2,400.00, for work done to Lift Station #8. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. PAY RBQUBST #8 - WELL #3* It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to approve the eighth and final Pay Request to Keys Well Drilling Company in the amount of $10,351.95, for work done to Well #3. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. CHAMGB ORDER #1 - LIFT STATION #10 AMD #43 Mayor Peterson removed this item from the Consent Agenda. She asked why the City Engineer had not taken into consideration the tvventual return of the water table to a normal level. Cook explained, "With a project such as this, we consider only the existing conditions, not what may occur in the future. - 15 - ir‘ V:" I h'-^- U- $■' OROHO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 11, 1991 CHANGE ORDER #1 CONTINUED tjfy to anticipats what may occur to some extent# but in this esse we came up short on our quantities. It is necessary to place a bedding under the pipe. As the water comes up, that area becomes soft and requires more rock. Once the pipe is in place# it stays. Tne water is only a problem during the installation." It was moved by Mayor Peterson# seconded by Goetten# to ^ppjfove Change Order #1 for Lift Station #10 and #43 in the amount of $10,927.35. Motion# Ayes-4. Nays-0. Motion passed. PAY REQUEST |4 - PUMPHOUSE «3 It was moved by Callahan# seconded by Goetten, to approve Pay Request #4 in the amount of $66,829.17, to Richmar Construction for Pumphouse #3. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. NAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT: COUNCIL POSITION APPOINTMENT RESOLUTIONS t2931 and »2932 Mayor Peterson thanked those that participated in the appointment process. She said# "I know that all four CounciImembers spent a great deal of time considering the applicants. The decision was not one we made lightly. I would hope that those that are not selected at this time# would continue to seek involvement in other City activities." Bernhardson stated that Staff would prepare a thank you letter to send to each of the applicants. Goetten extended her appreciation to the applicants. She said, "Due to the major issues facing our Community, it is imperative that the person appointed be able to become immediately involved in making the important decisions that lie ahead." Jabbour stated that it was exciting to see the number of qualified residents willing to serve the City. He said, "It was a very difficult task to select just one person. I gave an enormous amount of consideration to this issue." Callahan said, "I too was struck by the quality of the people who came forward. It seems that over the past years, more and more qualified persons have responded to the call. In my opinion, any of the applicants could have served with complete distinction. All of the applicants were eminently qualified." It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Jabbour, to adoptIt was movea oy uoetten, secone.«.v. -j -- - - -- — -r- Resolution #2931# declaring a vacancy on the City Council, and Council further adopts Resolution 12932, a Resolution of Appointment of Mary Butler to fill the posit lucion a wj. Appointment of Mary Butler to fill the position of the two year unexpired term which expires December 31, 1992. Motion, Ayes-4, - 16 - p ■ r r ^ I F & ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 11, 1991 COUNCIL POSITION APPOINTMENT CONTINUED Nays-0. Motion passed. PARK COMMISSION INTERVIEWS mayor Peterson s’lated tliat slie hnd asked Planning Commissioner Susan Wilson to attend the meeting th .s evening because she had not had the opportunity to personally meet Ms. Wilson. Mayor Peterson asked Susan to briefly inform Council of her background and what she has m..^st enjoyed about her participation with the Park Commission. Ms. Wilson stated that Virginia Sweatt had encouraged her to apply for tho Park Commission vacancy. She said, "I sent in my letter of iiterest because I 1o enjoy the outdoors, environmentally and actively. I have served on the* Nature Conservancy Board for the past five years. I have been involved with the purchase of land for the purpose of preservation. My main interest with the Park Commission involved the development of bike trails. I am an avid biker and cross-country skier. I am working with another Park Commissioner on the issue of bike trails. I have enjoyed serving on the Park Commission and would like to continue doing so." Mayor Peterson said, "It was a pleasure meeting you. Thank you for coming this evening." She asked Sherokee Use to come forward to make her presentation. Ms, Isle stated that she has been an Orono resident for the past 10 years and that she has two sons, ages 6 and 8. She said, *Me appreciate the rural cSiaracter of Orono, but feel that the parks need improvement. I have spent some time looking at the various parks ii Orono and had written a letter to the Park Commission suggesting some eguipment improvements. I have realized the need to make all of the parks available and accessible to persons of all ages. I am excited about the prospect of having a bike trail someday and would hope it would include access to the schools. I have been attending Park Commission meetings on and off over the past nine months. I was involved with a neighborhood project that involved surveying the residents for their input about the parks in Orono." Council had no questions for Ms. Use and Mayor Peterson thanked her for her presentation. James Anderson was asked by Mayor Paterson to step forward and provide information about himself and his interest in the Park Commission. Mr. Anderson stated that he has been an Orono resident for the past six years and that he and his wife have three children. He said. "My interest tends to follow my children's involvement with various activities such as baseball, soccer, etc. I like - 17 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEP>'' 11, 1991 PARK COMMISSION INTERVIEWS CONTINUED living in Orono and would like to participate in the Community. I have talked with several residents, as well as John Gerhardson, regarding further development of the trail systems so we can connect the existing parks. That would be beneficial from a recreational and safety standpoint. I also believe it is important to maintain and improve the equipment we have in our parks.” Mayor Poterson asked Mr. Anderson what other improvements he would like to see other than a trail system. Mr. Anderson replied, "There seems to be a limited access to the parks for activities such as baseball, softball and soccer. I do not think you can compare the facilities provided by Long Lake and Maple Plain with what we have iri Orono. I agreed with the changes made to Bederwood Park last year to allow baseball." Council had no further questions for Mr. Anderson. Mayor Peterson thanked him and asked Stephen Johnston to step forward. Mr. Johnston briefly summarized his qualifications, noting chat he had previously appeared before the Council for other vacancies. He said, "From my perseverance, you can see that: I do want to become involved in the Community. I think that my work expertise will prove beneficial to the* Park Commission. I am also interested in seeing the development of a trail system. I believe it is important to not only coordinate with Orono Schools, but the Westonka School District as well. I would like to soe the City make use of the Hennepin County park system and exiting facilities in the development of a trail and park system. The other agencies may be able to assist with funding. I want to see that the City is preserving unique land masses that may prove beneficial in the future." Jabbour asked Mr. Johnston to state the positions for which he had previously applied. Mr. Johnston stated that he had applied two times for the Planning Commission. There were no other questions for Mr. Johnston and Mayor Peterson thanked him for his continued interest. She again thanked all of the applicants, and Susan Wilson, for coming this evening. Bernhardson referred to Attachment 0 of his January 30, 1991, nemo and asked Council if they had any input or revisions. It was the consensus of Council to accept Attachment 0, Park Commission Responsibilities, as presented. - 18 - :r \r. wrh I' i'. i;', •. ^r. W C- h\- OROHO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 11, 1991 PARR COMNISSION INTERVIEWS CONTINUED Ms* Use expressed h-^r appreciation for adoption of the Advisory Board Selection Process. the Council’s CABLE TV APPOINTMENT It was moved by Mayor Peterson, seconded by Goetten, to appoint Timothy Pattrin and Mary Butler as primary Qsentatives, and Barbara Peterson as an alternate representative to th» Lake Minnetonka Cable Commission for 1991. Motion, Ayes-1, Nays-0. Motion passed. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: LNCO COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMD LAKE USE MANAGEMENT AND SHORELAND REGULATIONS Bernhardson stated that it is his understanding that the LMCD was granted a 90-day extension of. time to work with the Lake Minnetonka Communities on the Management Plan. He said, "We are presenting, for your consideration, a letter oiitlining our position that would be sent tc the other cities. CounciImember Callahan has indicated that he would like to revise the letter somewhat and suggested that we send a cover letter to the Mayors of the other communities asking them to work together to improve the Plan. I am asking Council to review the drcft letter and indicate any other revisions they would like to see. Also, the City Attorney is continuing his effort to research the information Council requested at their last meeting." LMCD Representative, JoEllen Hurr, stated that she had just received a copy of the draft letter today and that she had not been able to review it. Callahan asked Hurr if the LMCD is aware of an apparen** discrepancy between the LMCD and Met Council regarding the process for making revisions to the Plan once adopted. Hurr stated that she was not aware of the discrepancy, but aaid, "I believe the Matropolitan Council views the LMCD Plan much as they do the Comprehensive! Plans of the individual cities. I do not know whether the LMCD is aware of the Met Council's position, but I will ask." Callahan said, "When you ace discussing this with the LMCD and find they are not aware of the Met Council's position, ask them if that decision has any bearing on the LMCD's decision to lock themselves into this position against the wishes of eight cities." Jabbour said, "I was told that quite a few items the LMCD adopted into their Plan were included to please the Net Council and DNR. I understand, however, that the Metropolitan Council - 19 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 11, 1991 T' r'‘ il V I Ir t U«CD COMP PLAN AND LAKE USE MANAGEMENT CONTINUED was not pleased with the Plan. Apparently Met Council did not like the change of the Board, is that true?” Hurr replied, "Some of the initial studies that were done, and in which the Met Council participated, called out that the should expand. T^«at was basically a directive. However, the Met Council, ONR and Hennepin Parks, do not have any interest in providing a member. Tnat means that we will revert to the It communities, whica I believe is preferred by everyone. The LMCD believed it was necessary to respond to that option as directed by the Met Council." Jabbour said, "You (Hurr) and I nave discussed in the past the awkward positions of the City and LMCD in the review and licensing process of m.r.rinas, the Minnetonka Boat W.vrks. in particular. You had indicated that no action is taken prior to the LMCD receiving input from the respective city." Hurr said, "Cities have 30 days to respond to such requests for licensing or additional boat slips. The City of Orono had right to deny the land use aspects of the Minnetonka Boat Works expansion. The LMCD did nvot force the City to approve that application." Jabbour asked how the City can play a more effective role in bhe licensing procedure of marinas, private docks, and other such issues. Hurr stated that there should be a means of coordinating such procedures between the LMCD and the respective city. Mabusth stated that JoEllen worked vary closely with City Staff on the Minnetonka Boat Works application and attended the Council meetings when the issue was reviewed. Jabbour thought that Bernhardson's letter accurately stated his opinions about the various marinas in the area. He asked Council for their opinion about this issue, noting that he was particularly concerned about Lakeside Marina. Hurr stated that t.he LMCD has a low water policy in place that allows private and marina docks to extend out until a water level of 36 inches is reached. She said, "We prefer to have docks extended temporarily, rather than dredging. The owner of Lakeside Marina was able to show that t.he dock had to extend that far in order to reach 35 inches. I did raise a great deal of concern when the dock was not taken in for winter. It is not visible and poses a safety problem for snow mobiles. The dock is not totally In compliance with our requirements. I measured it myself. with regard to the low water extensions, I believe that a maximum dock length should be established. I recently attended - 20 - t. I I-:-/ I I- i:-' f ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 11, 1991 LMCD COMP PLAN AND LAKE USE MANAGEMENT CONTINUED a meeting where w-2 discussed that. Everyone suffers when tne 2.evel is low. It may be in such cases that some people 3*^st cannot have a boat." Jabbour stated that the area did receive much rainfall last summer and that the lake level is up. He said, "I would like to see the docks retracted as fast as the lake level rises." Hurr stated that the LMCD has already determined that the ipcoming season will again have a low lake level. She said, "We have to establish a specific date, measure the level of the lake, and use that measurement when considering dock extension applications. It could be February, July or anytime in between. However, I think it would place an undue hardship on marinas if they are asked to retract doc.'s during a particular season as the lake level changes." Jabbour asked how much the lake level has risen since last year. Gaffron estimated that the lake level is uo approximately one fooc and stated he would confirm that. Hurr stated that the LMCD did not approach each city when it was considering the low water level dock extensions for marinas. Goetten suggested considerations of the establish. that s-ich issues should be included in Lake Use/Marina Committee the City may Jabbour reiterated the Lakeside Marina dock in particular is a major concern. Hurr encouraged the City to establish a Marina Committee and stated that she would coordinate the efforts of that Committee with the LMCD. Callahan stated that the letter to Me. Strommen should be sent. He said, "The LMCD has the jurisdiction to allow docks to extend as far as they see fit. I do not believe that there have been any instances in t.he past where coordination between the LMCD an the City fell apart. I believe the system has worked so far. I do believe the City needs to establish a Marina Committee to address concerns about licensing and land use issues." It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to direct Staff to send a letter to the LMCD regarding its concerns on the 1991 marina licensing, and to adopt Resolution #2930, reguesting funding from the DMR to assist w\th the City's adoption of a shoreland management ordinance. Motion Ayes~4, NayS'O. Motion passed. - 21 - r f<s>- fij f.-l‘ p OROKO COUNCIL HEETING HELD FEBRUARv n, 1991 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT - CONCEPT REVIEW Bernnardson presented Council with information regarding the conceot of storm water management. He requested CouncLu. to review the information and provide further direction to Staff. It was moved by Mayor Peterson, seconded by Goetten, to table this item until the Mc.rch 11, 1991, Council meeting. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR SELECTION Mayor Peterson anked Staff to clarify what the Planning Commission's recommendation is expected to be. She asked, "Will they be recommending a specific corridor?” Mabusth stated that the Planning Commission would probably provide Council with a recommendation indicating where, in their opinion, is the best art?a for a corridor. It was the consensus of Council that there is no need to delay the Planning Commission's recommendation until the traffic forecast is received. Goetten stated that she was disappointed in the number of Planning Commission members that attended the February 6, 1991 meeting. Mayor Peterson concurred and asked Staff to convey the Council's disappointment and concern about t:.e attendance of Planning Commissioners at the Highway 12 meetings. She directed Staff to contact tho Planning Commission members unable to attend the work session and to advise them that Council considers the Highway 12 matter of great importance and seeks the direction of the Planning Commission. Council also added that they were concerned that members failed to advise Staff prior to the meeting of their absence. Mabusth stated that she will convey to the Planning Commission members not in attendan.te at the last meeting of Council's concern and of the need to advise Staff prior to a meeting of their inability to attend. Bernhardson said, "If it is Council's wish, the Planning Commission recommendation could be presented for your consideration at the March 11. 1991. The information presented would include goals and objectives, as well as a preferred corridor location. Council may want to just accept the information at that meeting and wait for the traffic forecast before discussing this issue publicly." Callahan stated that it would not be beneficial if the Planning Commission's recommendation stated that there should be no Highway 12 project at all. - 22 - !>- .5' 1 t'V I ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 11, 1991 HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR SELECTION CONTINUED Mabusth assured Council that the Planning Commission h.is already indicated for the record that a "no build" position would be irresponsible and unrealistic. She added, "In fact I believe the Planning Commission will also indicate the type of road they would like to see in addition to a location." Jabbour stated that he had previously encouraged the Planning Commission to be innovative and nvnt limit themselves to corridors that have already been suggested. He said, "I have talked to the residents about this issue. It is my feeling that they are somewhat disappointfjd because Orono has not taken a position on a corridor location. It was my understanding that one of the groups had intended to do a City-wide mailing in an attempt to rally everyone's interest to one position." Callahan stated that the City is reacting in a timely manner to this issue and that responding too quickly may have drawbacks. Goetten stated that this issue was before prior Councils and that, in her opinion, they abdicated their responsibility. She said, **1 vdo not think the City can afford to do that this time. One of the roles of Council is to look into the future and make sound decisions that will benefit the City as a whole. This issue requires a lot of hard work and consideration." Goetten further stated that she approved of the Citizen Committee Charge to Members draft prepared by Staff. It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Goetten, to adopt the City of Orono Citizen Committee Charge to Members as the City's policy. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. Bernhardson referred Council to the draft letter prepared in response to questions raised about mass transit, and asked for their comments. It was the consensus of Council that the letter be sent as presented. POLICE CHIEF SELBCTIOM PROCESS Bernhardson requested that this February 25, 1991 Council meeting. item be tabled until the It was moved by Mayor Peterson, seconded table this item until Council's February 25, Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-O. Motion passed. by Jabbour, to 1991, meeting. FACILITIES WORKSHOP Bernhardson provided Council with information regarding the issues related to a common facility site, opposed to split sites. He stated that Staff i.3 in the process of preparing a questionnaire for the residents living in the Crystal Bay area. - 23 - r i-t fc I ORONO COUNCIL HBETING HELD FEBRUARY 11, 1991 FACILITIES CONTINUED Bernhardson also presented information addressing options for 3torage of Public Works eguipment on an interim basis. He said, "We looked at the possibility of repairing what we have, but that would not be possible. I wou..d like Council's reactions to the options presented. I obtained an estimate cost to have Boarman prepare alternative sketches for building designs suitable for the Crystal Bay site. It would cost approximately $3,000. It may be helpful to include a schematic drawing of a building with the questionnaire we are sending to the Crystal Bay residents. Council may also wish to establish a meeting date." Jabbour asked if it would be appropriate to send the questionnaire prior to making a decision about common or split sites. Callahan replied, "If the residents indicate that they do not want a facility in this location, there is no point to following through with that aspect. There is also the possibility that some of the residents will not like the particular scheme we include with the questionnaire and may reject the concept entirely on that basis." Goetten and Mayor Peterson agreed that they would only like the residents' opinions about using the present location, not how they would like the building to look. Bernhardson stated that some residents may agree to this location, based on how the building will appear. He said, "We could just send a basic footprint of the angular and square des-igns we have on file. Wc; are sending the residents some basic information and background regarding this issue." Goetten indicated that she did not fully support the expenditure of an additional $3,000 without having input from the Crystal Bay residents. Callahan said, "It was ray understanding that the schematic drawing was to help Council make a decision." Jabbour stated that he was anxious to hear Mary Butler's views on this issue. He said, "Other than the cost concerns, I am also questioning whether the City is prepared to grant itself a Variance, which would be requirad if construction occurs on this site. I think the City needs to address the philosophical issues before we worry about aesthetics or what the neighbors want." Goetten stated that she favors the utilization of one site as opposed to two, but wants Council to reach a consensus in that regard before it takes the next step. - 24 - II- I «ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 11, 1991 FACILITIES CONTINUED Bernhardson stated that ha would bring this matter back to Council at their February 25, 1991, meeting. Council took no formal action on this item. ¥ %•«; • j , t r- r> - k' t i [c Iir', 1990 CORPORATE REPORT It was the consensus of Council to accept the 1990 Corporate Report as presented by Mark Bernhardson. RECEIPT OF DONATION > DARE PROGRAM It was movad by Mayor Peterson, secondad by Jabbour, to authorize the Staff to accept the donation on its behalf from Mr. Iverson, and to direct Staff to send a thank you letter to Mr. Iverson. Mayor Peterson asked that Council have the opportunity to si«3n the letter before it is sent to Mr. Iverson. Motion, Ayes>4, Nays-0. Motion passed. COMPENSATION ADJUSTMENT - LT. FRITZLER* It was m.nved by Callahan, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to authorize the increase from $18.26 to $19..iO under the 1990 Supervisor's Contract for Lt. Fritzler, based on his satisfactory performance. The increase is effective 2/1/91. Motion, Ayes--4, Nays-O. Motion passed. PERSONAL WATERCRAFT - PROPOSED LEGISLATION Ms. Hurr stated that the LMCD has adopted a Personal Watercraft Ordinance for Lake Minnetonka, and that she would compare it to the legislation proposed by Representative Smith. Jabbour stated that the proposed regulation to restrict boat speeds when going through a weed-infested area may cause more harm than good. He said, "It is preferable that boats avoid weed areas altogether. Secondly, if a boater finds himself in a weed area, it is beat to go through it as fa.at as possible. Going through at a slow speed may cause the propellers to clog and stop. That would leave the boater ii a dangerous situation because it is difficult to swim through Milfoil." Callahan stated that, in his opinion. Representative Smith's proposed legislation is redundant, and therefore unnecessary. Council took no further action on this item. RBQ0B8T FOR FUNDING - WEST SUBURBAN MEDIATION CENTER* It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to authorize the payment of $500.00 as outlined in Attachment A, as the request is within the amount budgeted for 1991. Motion, Ayes- 4, Nays-0. Motion passed. - 25 - F IvL ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 11, 1991 CANINE PROGRAM Mayor Paterson and CounciImember Goetten requested the removal of this item from the Consenv Agenda. Goetten asked what will happen to Baron. Bernhardson replied, "Chier Kilbo indicated that Baron would first be offered to his original owner, or to a security firm that does not need a dog capable of sniffing out drugs.” Mayor Peterson asked what would happen in the event that neither of those placement attempts are successful. that. Bernhardson stated that he would ask the Chief to respond to Goetten and Mayor Peterson stated that they did not want to see Baron end up at the Humane Society. Goetten also expressed concern about additional costs the City will incur because of the need to train another officer for this program. Bernhardson replied, "It -nay not bo nscessary to have an officer fill in for the officer that will undergo training. It depends on the schedule. I think it may be worthwhile to go through the process once more to see if the program can be successful.” Mayor Peterson indicated that she too was concerned about additional costs. Bernhardson stated that he would look further into the questions raised and provide a response at the February 25, 1991 Council meeting. He noted that in the event the second dog will not sniff for drugs, the City would still keep him. Council took no formal action on this item. 1991 HATBRIALS AMD EQUIPMBMT BID AWARD* It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Mayor Paterson, to accept the bids as presented for the calendar year 1991. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-O. Motion passed. AONimSTRATOR' S INFORMATION* It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to accept the City Administrator's Information regarding: cigarette Licensing, Well #3 (Highway 12), Policy Body Materials Preparation, Navarre Heights, Administrator's Goal Setting. Notion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORTS None. - 26 - ■ r;‘- K«t. ■.. iv¥5'if;>vr- ^.: i • -••- ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 11* 1991 LICENSES* It was mDved by Callahan, approve the following license; seconded by Mayor Peterson, to Septic System Installer: Jerry Johnson Excavation 2445 Morningsids Road Motion* Ayes-4, Nays-0. Motion passed. BILLS* It approve Nays-O. was moved by Callahan, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to payment of the All Funds Account. Motion, Ayes-4, Notion passed. EXECUTIVE SESSION City Attorney Barrett requested that Council adjourn to an Executive Session for the purpose of discussing pending litigation. At 10:31 p.m.* the Executive Session began. ADJOURMNENT It was moved by Callahan, seconded by Goetten, to adjourn the Regular Council Meeting at 11;J5 p.m. Motion, Ayas-4, Nays-'O. Motion passed. Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk - 27 - i . tr Tot Mayor Peterson & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson f Froms Datas Subjact: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning February 20, 1991 OTy OP #1605 Dr. Richard Lindstrom, 1065 West Ferndale Road - Variance - Denial Resolution List Of Bxhibita Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Denial Resolution Notice of Council Action 02/15/91 Memo of 2/4/91 Site Plan 2/4/91 DiscnsaioB At your February 11th meetingr Council voted 4>0 for conceptual denial and directed to staff to prepare a denial resolution. Such a resolution is attached for Council review. The applicant's architect has met with staff and wishes to further revise his proposal to reduce the magnitude of the variance request. Applicant requests additional specific direction from the Council regarding the following concerns: 1.In the 0->75' zone# applicant has always proposed to remove the rock/plastic hardcovert leaving the existing house and deck as the only hardcover in that zone. The only options for expansion of the existing residence are constructing above the existing bulk of the hottsor or expanding laterally northward into the 75-250* zone. .. Staff notes that the existing open deck along the lakeside of the house did appear as an .Exhibit to the 1974 variance request which allowed the existing house location. While that deck is non-conforming* it is legally non-conforaiing. Would partial removal of that deck assist in gaining approval for construction of the second story as proposed? 2.Absent the issue of additional garage structure in the 75-250* zone* which of these specific concerns most strongly affect Council's reluctance to allow a second story in the 0-75* zone: - Additional bulk of structure as viewed from the lake? - Increasing the longevity and permanence of structure in the 0-75* zone? - Degree of conformance with character of the neighborhood? L'!- U !■ ,1- b r':‘ [■ tlt' t-' ti' %:■. OVf' Soiling File #1605 February 20, 1991 t€fi Is the average lakeshore setback an issue? ^^\incil give applicant any direction as to what degree of variance if any^ will be considered for hardcover in the TS^ISO* zone, taking into account the fact that most drainage from that zone heads to the northeast corner of the lotr then to the McCourtney property to the east* back to the lake* providing additional distance for infiltration? Your response to the above questions should help applicant in determining the nature of further revisions to this proposal. Staff Ware—wnilation The applicant has requested additional direction from Council* and would request a tabling to allow further revision. Council has the following options for action: 1. Adopt the denial resolution. 2. Table for sulmiittal of revisions to Council. 3. Table* referring further revisions to Planning Commission for recommendation. 4. Other. lav h RBSOLOTIOH DBHmC VARUOKatS TO mnilCIPAL I0HIM6 OODB CBCTI0H8 10.22, 80BDITI8I0HS 1 t 2, MB) SBCnOB 10.55, 8DBDIVI8I0H 8 FIU 11605 HmUBAO, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation oroeaised and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota? and 1IBBMA8, pursuant to State Statute 412 et. seq. and 462 et. seq., the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted soning regulations for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare? and BBBMA8, Dr. Richard Lindstrom (hereinafter "the applicant”) is owner of the property located at 1065 West Perndale Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City ) and legally described as followss Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1372, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property")? and > VnRBA8, the applicant has applied to the City of Orono for variances seeking approval of structural additions within 75' of the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka where no structure or hardcover is noraally allowed per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (A), Section 10.22, Subdivision 2, and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8, and seeking approval of variances to allow encroaehnent of new structure nearer the lakeshore than ^be average lakeshore setback line where no encroachment is QPi^miilly allowed per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B)i and V8BRBA8, the City Council has reviewed the application! the recommendations of the City staff and the Planning Commission? and the comments and written statements submitted by the applicant and applicant's consultants. ___,, TBBRBPQRB, BB IT BB80LTBD that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby denies the application as described above based on one or store of the following findings of fact concerning this propertyI Page 1 of 6 ft- i ...f' h: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. €. PIVDIS6S The property is located in the LR-IA Single Family Lakeshore Zoning Districtf and consists of approximately 0.86 acres in area. The LR-IA district requires 2.0 acres in area. Pre-existing improvements to the property include a residence structure located approximately 45* from the shoreline* with attached open deck located 33* from the shoreline. The majority of the existing residence is located in the 0-7S* setback zone. This house location was allowed as a result of variance approval by the City Council in 1974. The applicants propose to construct a second story addition over the easterly two-thirds of the existing residence* not extending outside the existing footprint in the 0-75* zone. Existing hardcover in the 0-75' zone is 36% including portions of gravel driveway and plastic-lined landscape beds. Existing 0-75* hardcover including only the house and deck is 31.7%. Mo hardcover or structure is normally all'>wed in the 0-75* setback sons. Hardcover in the 75-250* lakeshore setback zone currently is approximately 38%* the majority of which is gravel driveway and parking areas. Only 25% hardcover is normally allowed in the 75-250* zone. In the 75-250* zone* applicants propose construction of a two-level garage with a third level of living space. Hardcover in the 75-250* zone is proposed to remain at approximately 38%* exhibiting no increase above the pre-existing percentage. Application #1605 was reviewed by the Orono Planning Coasdssion at a public hearing held during the regular Planning Coanission meeting of Moveoiber 19* 1990. The Planning Commission after hearing comments by the applicant*s architect* voted 5 to 0 with 1 abstention to recommend tabling of the original request to allow applicant to come back with a revised plan. Page 2 of 6 -----^ - — -J 7. At their regular meeting of January 22, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed the applicant's revised request for variances as described above. In the letter of request r ed January 11, 1991, the applicant's architect 'ered as a hardship the fact that virtually the e structure is within the average lakeshore setbo-x zone, and that the proposed addition above the existing residence, while not extending outside the footprint of the existing residence, would be located in the 0-75' zone. After reviewing the statements of the applicant's architect and written materials provided by str"* and applicant. Planning Commission voted 3 in fa^ 2 against, 1 abstention to recommend approval of - proposed plan as revised. 8. At their regular meeting of Pebruaxy 11, 1991, the City Council reviewed the applicant's rc»vised request for variances, and voted 4 to 0 to direct ctaff to draft a resolution of denial for the requested variances, based on the following findings: r' "S:i a. Hardcover on the property already exceeds the hardcover limitations imposed by the Code, and the applicant's proposal does not provide sufficient decreases in hardcover in either the 0-75' or 75- 250' zones to support approval of the requested variances• b. Removal of non-scructural hardcover in the 0-75' zone does not justify increasing the bulk and permanence of structure in the 0-75' setback zone. c. The fact that a variance was granted in 1974 to allow construction of the residence in its current location 45' from the lake with decks 33' from the lake, is not justification for allowing a^ itional structure in the 0-75' zone above the existing structure. 9. The applicant has not demonstrated sufficient hardship because he has not shown that no other options exist for construction in the 75-250' rone meeting hardcover lisdtations. Page 3 of 6 y 10.Th€ granting of the required variances would be contrary to the provisions of Municipal Zoning Code Section lO.OBr Subdivision 3 (A) with which the applicant must first comply in order that variances be granted. The Council finds that: . The essential character of the neighborhood will be altered if the proposed variances are granted and the structure in the 0**75' zone is allowed to be expanded. The property in question can indeed be put to reasonable use as an existing single family residence under official controls. The property can be continued in use "as is” as a single family residence. The plight of the applicant is created by the applicant's wish to expand the area of the residence and not by circumstances unique to this property nor out of the applicant's control. Granting of the proposed variances would appear to serve as a convenience to the applicants and the applicants have not demonstrated any reasonable hardship or practical difficulty. The conditions and zoning code limitations imposed on and existing on this property generally apply to all other land and structures in the zoning district in which this property is located. The granting of this application is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property right of the applicants. Denial of substantial additions to an existing legal non-conforadng structure is not considered by Council to be denial of a substantial property right, especially when such additions in and of themselves do not meet all current zoning requirements. Page 4 of B k- f-- V?.'■ *;P-. “•'v : •- L^r In-. V? t ■ r rl;f :4 I,: 11. In review of the factual findings noted above* the Council finds that granting of the proposed variances to allow structural additions in the 0-75' zone and excessive hardcover in both 0-75* and 75-250* zones would be in complete conflict with the environmental standards for lakeshore development within the City and would be detrimental to public health* safety and welfare. The City also looks to the broader environmental principals and goals set forth in its Community Management Plan and the intent of the specific zoning district when dealing with matters of the public health* safety and welfare. Issues involving public health* safety and welfare are not only resolved by securing of the obvious traffic and drainage concerns* but the City also feels obligated to provide the citizens with a designated and optimum level of density* open space and quality of life. Adopted by the Orono City Council of the City of Orono on this 25th day of February* 1991. ATTESTI Dorothy N. Ballin* City clerk Barbara A. Peterson* Mayor STATE OP MIMMBSOTA ) ) 88. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 25th day of February* 1991* by Barbara A. Peterson & Dorothy M. Hallin* Mayor a City Clerk of the City of Orono* a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public My Commission Expires' Page 5 of 6 w-APPLICATiaa NO. 1605CXTT OF ORONO P.O. Box 6$ Crystal Bay, NH 55323 473-7357 NOnCS OP COONCIL ACTION Date of Notice: 2/15/91 Waysata, MN 55391 Faribault, 55021 f rm OF AFFLICATIONs Variance 019B OF MBBTZ96S 2/11/91 VOTBs 4 For 0 Against dL ACTION * MOTIONS Conceptual denial of variance request, directing staff to prepare a denial resolution for the next meeting. Staff net with Mr. Bedker on February 14, 1991 and discussed possible prov*de"additlonaV*information*^fo^ February 25th meeting, please submit as soon as possible. Your next scheduled meeting is Monday, February 25, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. In the Council Chambers. If you desire certified copies of the official Council minutes, jthey are available from the City Clerk after review and approval by the City Council• % v:* k,'H ^;- Hv Tot Mayor Paterson & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Froas Michael P. Gaffronr Asst Planning 6 Zoning Administrator Datas Snbjaets February 4» 1991 #1605 Dr. Richard Lindstrom, 1065 West Perndale Road Variance - Resolution ling District - LR-IA# Single family lakeshore residential# 2 acre# sewered Application - Request for lakeshore setback# hardcover and average lakeshore setback variances to construct additions to existing residence List of Bsiiibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D •* A Discussion Resolution Planning Commission Action Notice 01/23/91 Planning Coomission Minutes 01/22/91 New Exhibits of 01/22/91 fwsM£> exfifot-rs Please review th* memo and exhibits of January 14# 1991. Briefly# the applicants propose to construct a second story addition above the existing residence# a two'*level attached garage with a third level of living space# and a proposed pool. Variances required for this construction to proceed are as follgwsi 1.Lakeshore setback variance to allow construction above the existing Residence within the 0-75* lakeshore setback tone. 2. Average lakeshore setback variance. 3. Hardcover variance. As noted in the memo of January 14th# the proposal results in a hardcover reduction in the 0*75* zone from the existing 36% down to 31.7%. Hardcover in the 75-250* zone remains at approximately 38%. Flawing Oowission Race dation At their January 23nd Meting# Planning Commission voted 3 in favor# 2 against# 1 abstention for approval of the proposal as ravisad. (Applicant's original proposal had been rejected by Flanaiag Commission in Hovestber). The majority of the Planning Coamissioa felt that the reduction in hardcover in the 0-75* soaa# along with no expansion of the existing footprint in the 0- ‘•i* • • \ k [ If' 'f. ' i •r‘ . ; 1 h: I'- t.-;-; ^ i f- : * t H ([?■ sn \.? -y^‘ »4Al>^qy* ZUi r.f^ ( L I \e ■■i • V ' ■ ^ J r Q N m 22191.2 4TotMayor Peterson & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning 6 Zonin^^tfMClL _^ February 21, 1991 2 ^^991 Subjects Hardcover Policy Qf QHQ|^| List of Bzhibits rroMt Dates Exhibit A - Current Hardcover Handout Exhibit B - 12/4/90 Staff Memo - Planning Commission Consideration of Revisions to Hardcover Standards At your February 11th meetingr Council directed staff to effect a policy change to require that the water surface of a pool be considered as hardcover. Also, Council directed that in future applications, underlined landscape beds shall not be reported as existing hardcover for "trade-off purposes, and applicants shall be advised that such hardcover must be removed. These changes could be incorporated in a revision of the definition of hardcover. The definition of hardcover in Section 10.02.29 is I '"Hardcover” - any structure, blacktop or other materials which interfere to any degree with the direct absorption of rainfall into the ground'. The Planning Commission is currently considering revisions to this definition (see Exhibit B). Exhibit A is the hardcover calculation handout which has been in effect for approximately the last 5 years. The only revision to that handout to date has been to Include fabric under landscape rock as hardcover. Pool water surfaces will now be added to that list of items that are hardcover. Etmctiirel vs. Eon-structaral Hardcover and Hardcover Trade-offs - The soning code hardcover definition does not differentiate between structural and non-structural hardcover. Trade-offs of patios or plastic lined rock beds in exchange for structure in the 0-75* sons have been occuring since the ordinance was adopted in 1975. Within the first year after adoption, the Council granted new structure in the 0-75* over an existing patio (1392 Baldur Park Road, Ted Boer), and denied an after-the-fact variance for a concrete patio and plastic lined crushed rock sidewalk in the 0-75* which was done without a permit (3587 North Shore Drive). In 1976, on Bayside Road, the Counciallowed an open, "non-hardcover* deck to be constructed in ihe 0-75* in exchange for removal of a somewhat smaller area of concrete patio in the 0-75*. tT'-. ■v. !. [■ Hardcover Policy February 21, 1991 Page 2 of 3 Through the degree of attention to hardcover by City Councils hM increased appreciably, leading to the need for hardcpif^r WorKsheets and detailed surveys of hardcover in virtually^ eys^Mk^uiIding permit application. Since 1975, sinne^er variance requests have been reviewed. Thehundr^Pl oi0 shee*r nunber of past variances granted has allowed (or forced) the variance review process to evolve into a negotiation process, since new applicants expect to be given the same consideration as their neighbors have been granted in the past. Of course, this ■akt it harder for the Council to maintain an objectivity about whetner a "hardship ” exists. It is a reasonable conclusion that in the 0-75' zone, non- structural hardcover which has been placed without oermits since 1975, should be removed because it is not legal. Administratively, it may be very hard to determine the origin date of an item of hardcover. Remember also that when the hard cover ordinance was written, no provision was included for the gradual removal of pre-existing hardcover in the 0-75' zone. Perhaps the final question to mull over is, what is the City's hardcover goal for the future? Past Councils have made little headway in gradually removing hardcover from the 0-75* sone, in staff's opinion. It has been a battle just holding to the existing conditions. Every time a structure or an addition in the 0-75' zone is approved, that action prolongs the permanence of that hardcover. If the Council's goal is to eventually remove all hardcover from the 0-75' zone, then no additions, decks, or other 0-75* hardcover should be approved unless there 1s absolutely no other option for use of the property. There will obviously, be times when a variance must be granted. Now, balance a strict hardcover policy vs. the technical realities. Many sources document the fact that once "point source discharges" (sewer plants, factory discharges, etc.) are eliminated, the greatest detriment to our lake is the urban runoff, especially oil, leaves, dirt and debris from the streets, and from lawn maintenance chemicals and fertilizers. The extra 100 s.f. of hardcover in a room addition probably has much less isq>act than the fertilizers, la%m maintenance chod.cals, and the constant drippings of oil and other toxica from automobiles onto driveways and roads which often drain to the lake. While our current code tries to maximize the lawn areas available for treating the pollutants generated by our occupation of Orono, we have to date not taken all possible steps to attempt to reduce the volume or intensity of those pollutants. Limiting hardcover is not the be-all, end-all of saving the lake. Ml hl‘1Hardcover Policy February 21, 1991 Page 3 of 3 Staff Recc latioo - Staff would recommend that Council have the Planning Conmiaslon consider not only hardcover standards per the December 4th memo, but to additionally incorporate the definition and procedural policy changes which Council made on February 11th, into their discussion. Perhaps Planning Commission should also be directed to consider what additional lake protection measures should be promoted more strongly by the City, and whether such measures would allow the Council some flexibility in granting hardcover variances on as regular a basis as has historically occurred. . 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. CITYof ORONO Post Office Box 66«Cry*fRl Bay. Minnaaota 5&323eMiiAidpal Offitaa 1 O N () On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka I ■■lypo nyiflffy FOR C0MPMTIB6 HARDCOVER CAIXiUlATIOE tfORX^BBT Circle which ietback zone (0-75% 75-250% etc.) the calculation ie for. For each iten of hardcover within that zone# enter the length and width, and multiply to get square footage (s.f.). Add up all the square footages to get total square footage of hardcover . Divide by the total area of property within the zone and multiply by 100 to get percentage of hardcover in the zone. If changes in hardcover are proposed, you should do a "before* worksheet and and "after" worksheet. If either results in greater thaiTthose allowed, contact City staff before proceeding with your project planningi vegetated yard areas before entering the lake. 0-75*0% 75-250*25% 250-500*30% 500-1000*35% ■atdoover inelmdest - Roofs - Sidewalks - Paved or gravel driveways • Patios 4 decks (includes slatted decks) : rSnt^n into the ground SUUMHC a ZONINC - 47M1S7 ADMiNmitAllON a FINANCE - 479-73II PUSLiC WORKS - 473*7359 t:: ■. .-v r i: 11 ’ i .C'* Uitff «ma tt mmt Umm m iiwiim Ml IfVw^ »-2Sr 2SMtt« M-lfW* ^ JO' . ao'r2. ISO .. © •• C. tol Z$£ , i.f. t.f, I.f. t.f. t.f. t«f. •.f. t.f. t.#./ Z£kS.„.(iZ) Srsi ••#. i«f. t*f. t.f. SSE t.f. m t.f. 2j ‘ **** ?c Mcmuouiui uTttart tMi ttn Ctitftat aiMcavtt M 2a« tATiflt m-w* io:__10 jd-.^ JLS^.-LSl ,jni I. hfM^ &»& VtMtlUKt_dd_, MS— foo„,® /SO ..rp (aQO t.f. t.f. I.f. t^. ».f. t«f. d> CD »a.Q> €> g) t.l. t.f. •lO#. •.#. U$. f.f f-y,r __ i.f. QJIff tA wmmm m Imm • 3y 1mm, Nmmw mum Urn • 200 Q| {3 iy|DfS»tfgtMi» 2fcVtlg^ k TOs Froas Dates Planning Conunission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Conunission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Flanring & Zoning Administrate December A, 1990 Subjects Hardcover Standards - Consideration of Revisions List Of Bxhibits - Exhibit A - Draft Amendment Wording (for discussion) Exhibit B - "Hardcover Standards" Memo 8/9/90 Exhibit C - Hardcover Variance Protection Memo 8/9/90 Exhibit D - Current Code Wording Exhibit ' - Effect of Proposed Revisions on Various Lot Types 4k.ntrodactlon - Orono adopted hardcover restrictions in 1975 as part of the major zoning code revisions adopted at tnat time* The issue of hardcover can be separated into two discussion topics» i.e. standards and enforcement procedures. The intent of this memo is merely to discuss our hardcover standardsr leaving enforcement procedures for a later discussion. Three Baelc Issoes - Staff would request that Planning Commission consider three basic hardcover policy issues: 1. Should we revise hardcover policy to allow porous ' landscaping materials over permeable geotechnical fabric as a non-hardcover landscaping method? 2* Should we revise the basic method of cal '^ting hardcover to allow a specific percentage of the tocal lot areSr rather tnan dividing the lot into incremental zones? 3. If so* what 'percent is appropriate? To answer this questionf determine whether the City's goal should be: A) To maintain a restrictive hardcover standard while simplifying the calculation procedure? B) To relax ci\e standards to reduce the number of hardcover variance requests? /r- HArdcover Standards December 4, 1990 Page 2 of 3 able Fabric - Regarding the issue of permeable geotechnical fabric as an underliner for landscape materials, staff is confident that most of the fabrics currently sold for this use indeed allow absorption into the ground while inhibiting weed growth. Certainly, plastic sheeting (which is not permeable until it has aged and decayed) could be considered hardcover from the standpoint that it does not allow direct rainfall absorption. Note however that many landscape beds have a plastic underliner which allows water to puddle and evaporate rather than forcing it to run overland off the site. The intent of plastic and fabric underliners is to inhibit weed growth. Absent any underliner, the two remaining available methods for eliminating weed growth are regular hand pruning or mowing, and the use of chemicals. Because most people install decorative landscape beds in areas which are difficult to mow or which are not condusive to growing grass, and because most homeowners do not want to physically pick weeds out of their rock beds, the use of chemicals could be anticipated. In the scheme of things, it may be more detrimental for tne lake for everyone to use weed killer on their rock beds than to be using passive weed control methods such as permeable fabric. miR Shoreland Regulations - Department of Natural Resources is requiring that Orono and all other shoreland cities adopt specific shoreland regulations. The DHR proposes that for all properties within 1,000 feet of the shoreline, hardcover be limited to 25% of the lot area. Most other cities that have a hardcover ordinance currently allow 30%. Orono is the only city which divides the 1,000 foot shoreland district into incremental areas with various hardcover allowances. Exhibit E-l shows that, when taking the entire 1,000 foot shoreland district as a whole, Orono allows about as muc^. hardcover as other cities and more than the DNR would propose to allow. However, Orono is less restrictive at points far *rom the lake, and more restrictive near the lake, than other cxties or the DNR wou}-* require. Staff f suggesting that Orono reduce the number of zones to just twos A) All properties which abut the lakeshore. B) All non^lakeshore properties located within 1,000* of the shoreline. 1, i.'b f" i D-*- s Hardcover Standards December 4, 1990 Page 3 of 3 Staff would then recommend that the hardcover allowed on any lot be a percentage of the total lot area. For lots which abut the lakeahore, a 15% hardcover level would generally yield hardcover square footages equivalent to the current code. If Planning Commission wants to decrease the number of hardcover variance applications for lakeshore lotSr this percentage could increase to as high as 18% or 20%. In the non-lakeshore shoreland district lots, staff would pi^opose a 25% hardcover allowance to coincide with the DNR proposed regulations. This will likely reduce the hardcover allowance for lots between 250-1,000* from the shoreline which currently are allowed 30-35% of their total lot area. This will liXely result in additional variances for areas further from the lake* Exhibits E-2 and E-3 help to quantify these effects. Draft Ordiaaiice - For discussion purposes, attached is a draft ordinance revision which revises Section 10.22, Subdivision 2. Also, the proposed language revises the definition of hardcover (Definition 29) by describing items which are considered hardcover. Staff ten—anils Mnn - Staff would recommend adoption of the revised dt.£inition of hardcover as proposed above. Permeable fabric rock bed underliners are purposely excluded from the definition of hardcover. Staff would further recommend that Planning Commission thoroughly discuss the merits of revising the hardcover calculation method, determine whether the proposed change is warranted, and based on your goals, determine what percentages of lakeshore and non-lakeshore lots should be hardcovered. ?: EXHIBIT A Hardcover ABendeent - Draft wording Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 is hereby repealed, and the following language substituted in its place: Subd. 2. Lakeshore Hardco^ver and Land Alteration Regulations. Within 75 feet of^shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures except as permitted under Subdivision 1 of this section. For all properties which abut the shoreline, hardcover shall not exceed 15% of the lot area. For all properties not abutting the shoreline but located less than 1,000* from the shoreline, hardcover shall not exceed 25% of the lot area. Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10>02, Definition 29, "Hardcover** is hereby repealed and the following language substituted in its place: 29. "Hard Cover" - Any structure, blacktop or other material which interferes to any degree with the direct absorption of rainfall into the ground. Hardcover includes but is not limited to the following: roofs, sidewalks, paved or gravel driveways, patios, decks (including slatted decks), tops of retaining walls and rock walls, decorative landscape areas (clean rock, wood chips, etc.) underlaid with plastic sheeting or other impervious material. All driveway areas subject to regular vehicular traffic or parking, regardless of surface material, shall be considered as hardcover. I I' I* Voi Mark E. Barnhardaon^ City AdministratorMichael ?; Gaffron, Asst Planning zoning Administrator Dates August 9, 1990 Subjects Hardcover Standards List of Bzhibits Exhibit A - Survey of Hardcover Ordinances Exhibit B " Diagrams Relating Various Ordinances We have conducted a survey of the all of the Lake Minnetonka cities, the cities abutting White Lake, and certain other cities with significant lakes in the metro area. The findings were not surprising, but do indicate tha^ Orono Indeed has a unique hardcover ordinance. Of the 14 Lake Minnetonka cities, only 2 did not our request. Of the 12 for which we have information, 5 have hSrdeov.t regulation.. These S are Waytata, Shorewood, Minnetonka Beach (all o£ which allw , 50^^ “ne tobe hard surfaced), Minnetonka (allows 30% of the 0 150 zone to be h\rd surfaced with a 50* setback from the lake) and Orono (with our incremental hardcover zones). adopted by Eden Prairie and Plymouth. The Department of Natural Resources in Shoreland Regulations would limit impervious surfaces to 25% of the total lot area. The DNR informs me that many who previously adopted a 30% standard are opposing the idea of having it dropped to 25%. Having discussed our ordinance with many contractors who work throughout th. Lake Minnetonka area, with o£ Matera personnel, and now having reviewed incremental zones which Orono adopted. One can look at this as the City Council being farsighted municipalities, and leading to the need to grant ®*®®J*^^® of variances because an unusually high percentage of properti in the City do not or cannot conform to the standard. Hardcover Standards August 9, 1990 Page 2 of 2 Exhibit A is a synopsis of the hardcover ordinances of 22 which surround or abut Lake Minnetonka » White Bear Lake» or other significant lakes in the metro area. Exhibits B are a •eries of diagrams showing the relationship between Orono s hardcover-allowances on a given size/shape property, compared to the DNR standard and the standard adopted by some other cities. Maps 1 through show the variability based on lot width. Maps 4 through 6 show the differences in allowed hardcover related to lot depth and lot shape. It is clear from comparing Maps 1 and 3 that most other lake communities allow almost twice as much hardcover as Orono, on typical rectangular lakeshore lots. Maps 4 through 6 indicate that as the proportion of lot area in the 0-75' zone increases, the differences between Orono s limits and those of most other lake communities are even more disproportionate. This also holds true for pie shaped lots. The point of this memo is to document the significant differences between Orono's code and virtually all other area municipalities' codes. In light of the fact that a high proportion of building permit requests in our lakeshore areas require hardcover variances, Orono's staff spend a <Siaproportionate amount of time on hardcover issues, and there is no question that much private time and money is spent in planning for property improvements only to be held up or denied ultimately because of hardcover issues. In most cases, a home owner or contractor who has not previously dealt with Orono's hardcover codes would not "in their wildest dreams" think that they ® hardcover problem, based on their experiences in most other cities. The concept of hardcover zones, rather than just a percentage of the entire lot area, is most often the point at which homeowners and contractors throw up their arms in disbelief. That is also one of the reasons why staff has to spend significant amounts of time reviewing hardcover calculations - quite often they are not done correctly, due to the cooq>lexity of multiple zones. Lacking clear documentation that Orono's position is definitely correct and other ci-les are definitely wrong, I would hope that we could move towards taking some of the complexity out of our hardcover ordinance, and work toward a total lot area denominator concept while still not allowing hardcover in the 0- 75* sons. (That raises another issue - our 75' setback vs. the OHR's 50* setback for Lake Minnetonka - but that is an issue for a future date.) k irr'k- SXHIBIT A Status of Hardcover/Lot Coverage Ordinances (residential districts)(GD lakes) Lake Minnetonka: 1. cnanhassen - did not respond 2. Deephaven - no regulations 3. 4. Excelsior - did not respond. Greenwood - maximum 30% of lot area may be covered by buildings. S. Minnetonka - maximxim 30% of 0-150* *in shoreland areas. 6. Minnetonka Beach ~ 30% of lot area - 75* setback. 7. 8. 9. Minnetrista - maximum 20% of lot area covered by^ structures. Mound - pending. Orono - 0% in 0-75*; 25% maximum within 75-250*; 30% maximxim within 250-500*. 10. Shorewood - maximum 30% impervious surface* in shoreland areas. 11. Spring Park - pending. 12 j Tonka Bay - no regulations. 13. Wayzata - maximum 30% impervious surface* in shoreland 14. Woodland - maximum 10% lot coverage by buildings. White Bear;BircKwood - maximum 30% (not verified - sent us wrong code section). 2. 3. 4. Dellwood - maximum 30% impervious surface site area Mohtomedi - no (pending). White Bear Lake - maximum 30% impervious surface* in shoreland areas. Men Prairie - maximum 30% impervious surface* in shorelandi; 2. 3. 4. Lino Lakes - no regulations. Worth Oaks - did not respond. ^ ^ ^ Plymouth - maximum 30% impervious surface* in shoreland DWB PROPOSED STAMDARDS - maximum 25% of lot in shoreland areas. fj^ft^^oPOSED STAMPARDS - maximum 25% of lot in shoreland areas ..impervious pr r I f. j? P: Ki’;- E KV CoX>^ t, sZS/o or- ys-Z^* zo^)^ fifCA • 0a\^ i M€^ • ;^' J * It" -ni^ 0. 1^ A*- 1, *®** '•i.1^,000 iS. t/l ^ ’ ' |7,zso ^5. • • = 232^ ••s Z*100» •-> ' l7*/o “ n*/"’= p % oP OF Of 1”^ I 0.5/ Ac' ia,ooo r ZS,750 s9. - ^5 “' n Vo Of UOT S ip- « n% «p /"•Si? * • •• /or COtt^Thi T>)R. fieofosAm;: I * s 25% &yr\^ • *r . |- .1 t • 4onr !•1.1 I f 'T ^r Y. ■■ t>"S h ituiMKI>* t30O sS* •25% A '^ecA 5 *. n,3S Ar AAJtA : 0,5/ AO r O.OUA*- H>so6 (%,Aoo 1^. ' |7,zso 1.?, ^3,eoo 3 t»7^si .IsMSO j5r.1/312- «?•5*7^0 t.-f. -r^s"/*- 2-f */»^ 2r*/- pf t®T loT 6p tor /\if.£A * 0^ •zviyifO ri^. p,. u ♦ , i • • ;* I* * I • i. ; il tf. A V'V-. 6 • L4>T~ ti\0%T oTHtn^ 4AKe CO|Mivav^miTI«‘S '• I 30 '/o e>F foT" [•! ^ -r AtCA *. ' |7,zso <!.?. J 0,5^# AC* I'i.oOO 5 S^. AlOfAJ A< iS.7Sl> sf. |:2>HSDjS. - ipVo tff UlT ' 3C>‘'“ s^. r -3O'/’ OF *■«Op 1-Ot 0,‘joo sL 3.0 *4 OP UJT ! 5.0 V» : I op Marr, • • i ’ I • ' • • Ii • h- t: w. ? V' V- /lr«A'« 0.17 *«- '^vvo S^. 0. n geso A<’ > • 0.i\ A' ®|ltS 5.^- *. '1^^s S.? 0.2.2- ► /M£«A : 0.3t. A< (■ipArA. -TVTAus = /.VVac SIS = 12.1 after 112'^ |3.tV. OP = l^M % 6F l^»T 15\Z -fS.'iV. t<n rt<»s iS. Of i-oT z.t»W> »5 • = 11.^ '/• i^T = <^sno si. /5. ^ •/• (Avtr> u.. r: >■ ‘ r V ' h i. 'i t- t-- ti p. fV h i I l^r bAi/C f(Zofv^^L\ 2 s7o of gTOTl<2€? 4-toT* /IrisA: o.n A<^ qvso S^. A^^c^; A«' ^ * C). n^'- 02SO^C. ®|i?S si. ^ * 0.Z3> T "7^ 1 I i|7i . Ai^eA ' 0.3V A< \zn^r jL jotA vs , ^ Ac An^v>cl» \\c : /0|^ ^Oli»^^-r. 7-MU'\ vC. 3t|u(D £ 2sY» Of I.o*' » zsT/o Of «••! ' 2s ’4 or- ««•» <«/ t * •. / ® /^r. I rr t czr*4 OF- t»T * /5,^S = Zs’’/o OF AU c A -_ * i# l- I T >.-pf ‘/«T # I 30% 0^ hftA^ o.\n AC. Tvvo s-R.g^so ®ii?S 5^ /iu<HAjei> v\C-’. znc «i;. z»i»-:S 01 ? r» V-r ? r> i ^'T r?r 7. I - # 1^1 ^leeA:*1 ^'^^<. i 0. VJ. •■'0.3V »« »- /. V'/ 1 i p ^ ^ .\'i^n<Ss- A. = /&,(>/« vf.‘Iizfc Hia*1 t»5. -• ioVo r 30*/^ 6?.h5 « r 1 o1 or t©T*- 3o*/^ Atfik r^-'-.-r- f..,- •<; ■ Hk c r I ‘V V:?, TO: PIIOMt rtayor and City Council Mack E. aernhardson, City AdministcatorJlV vJ . •» OATS: August 9, 1990 SOBJBCT: Hardcover Variance Protection Attachment! A. Standard Lansuage for Hardcover variances B. Mike Gaffron Memo Dated 0/9/90 TSSL'E - At the Council’s July 23, 1990 meeting Counci Imember SS?n;?‘‘in‘^;airiroi^7“hV"ii?:d"?h;%« ;Tn\‘.ji"tVr i‘»"prov»»t7 t7VhV7ror«:r-r'uMtj,^ nSen of hVrdeover variances granted to a previous owner. fchav aav have been not granted any variances absence retno als wifehin ^he existing variance numbers, the excess hardcover, SiiSthor^ed m«;«es made it that much to deal elth getting a variance. As noted above since city has used the standardised language in ^“achment A in inclusion in all hardcover variances. These have been filed with the chain of title (although the Hennepin County Recorder s SSfice ha. been reluctant to take these with fJ^Utered property.) while listed, there is nothing that *\*^^* * • xeminer to the fact that this may be a problem for the purchaser . DXSCwSSION - The City currently deals with * SfnnlUv when the owner is looking to make some permanent Structural Improvements. These hardcover regulations have been In effect since the 70*s. Over that period these have gone, although placed in ordinance, from being "a guideline ^ being a .icnifleant standard to be dealt with. In that period of time Sh2 iViM haa UnVfrom a kind of "eye ball" look to a very refinad objective meaaurement. An additional change has definition of what has *»••" -gtiyDla.it Ic/punch plastic and permeable fabric being the ^st g«y Sree*. While herdcover over those numbers on any Sn^wsra violatloii of the ronlng code th. City he. the position of dealing with it on more than additions, reaodelings or developments. The following represent alternatives to consider for dealing with hardcover. A. Comprehenaiye Hardcov^ Invenioc^ - VJ»rl esplore establTshlng a RicTcover pro^rtles that do fall within the catagocy. either necessitate each property * .if iiJilJrthe lakeshore to have a survey cone or In manner similar J. U\- "v ir tV' t-:: i • i * iS' ^.■ h 4 - N'’ H. fr i". t A 'yt'. ^■ - #.W- &■,r- .^ioi. to the eeptie ptoptam, have the City hire « «® aufe and Inventory hardcover on each property. The City Mold insoeet on a repulat/occaalonal baals to l;r«^5‘Vhe‘^^oVeVt/'^?t'Ve^'n•7ot.roria^cV:^^rc^^^ SSFuTaXf4i!?lo«“7o- *t City determine on a case by case basis which be allied to be over the given percentages. Or may ?; factTequire the City to either grant above those or just to accept each one with a blanket acceptance statement as of a certain date. B. Mew Construct ion/Additions - If the City a.«.»77ridk aniv dealinc with properties when they are Hekuig to expand buildings thata wlplalnt basis for otliar stcictut.s), the City could nanfeinue in the manner In which it does but do one of the following to Insure that what was approved Is In fact what is installed. These include: % pAfTuirinci pcopcrty own^r to hdV6 o surveyor ?;con?}rm upon VoSpIetion that the hardcover existing on completion date is in fact that what was approved. B Have staff do the indepth measurements upon aamoletion. (The City currently only does a cursory review which only yields if specific Items are removed as Indicated.) Such a proposal may require that the City for *uch variances have a type of "certificate of occupancy for completion of the project. In addition the City could look to in order to ensure that (f prior to • of occupancy for this, that the hardcover is in line with the approval. This JfPJJJJ** would not deal with improvements made the •certificate of orcupany" is granted, **®*'®]f*'' ^ may be difficult for people given variances to have Indiffinate bonds/letters of credit outstanding on the property. c. Revised Standardis ed Language - As discussed above cuerent language does noc necessarily place new PMP.Vty .p.clfle.lX, on notic. £,5.1...: R.vi..a .t.nd.tdl,«J l.n9a.«.inclusion of the survey In the recording could more p?*5^ti*“liy.V'to *v.'l*7nyt»*n9 on the property that is not shown on the survey may 4 I \. ♦ ir fact b# con8id€r<?d hardcover* This may entail at each property change, contact staff *P*ff inspaction. (This would be even more staf^ Intensive.) snr.^:ir.rv/K.”^r.*^\v.n.S’.;rjs regulations establish. In addition the City would lllttict no hardcover within the 0-75'. to this is that persons can arrange things on the pwerty and probably would affectively reduce the number of variances required, however, the net given no hardcover in the 0-75* may be not substantially different from the present. If we remain our own standard there may be times when the City’s proposed LHCD's nay be in conflict. 15. Develop A Storm Water Run-Off Computer " An alttrnativ# way to handle the hardcover would ^ establish specific run-off rates for specific rain fall rates based on topography, soil conditions, ana ^ne issue of hardcover run-off, it may make what is already a difficult exercise infinitely more complex as each property would need to do a topographic survey and have that computerized to the model. ACTrOW ALTHWATIVES - 1. Accept the information. 2. Indicate any desired direction. 3. Take no actim. 4. Table. mm *, *f“"111?.* JfiirihJ A. Explore upgraded standardised language and Inclusion of survey with property filings. 0f security to ensure that such a reconfirmation is completed* C* took at revising the standards during the process of 4 bringing tbe City shoreline regulations into accordance with ONR/LMCD. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by _, that the Council direct staff as to the areas it desires to improve hardcover protection* Ayes Nays . f too J r t- I fr. i-' -■. i'4 L. Tpt Wtomt Oat* I SvOjacti Jaanna Mahuath, DulJLdlnq » Zoning Adminlnttato f f\ Mlchaol P. Caffron. Aaat Plannlnq « Zonlnq Adwlniaerator Auguat 8, 1990 Standard Hardcover Raaolutlon wording rl«M« comid.r th. followin, slUhtly revi.ed hatdeov.r beilar platot 1 Hardeovar in tho _____*one Is approved a * All oxiatino and proposed hardcover approved with thl VarTance^eoproval is recorded in the calculation *!! inspection for the new construction. VIMM c.vi«< »iid r.vlM thi« •• you fool appropriat., and ?ST .iVi'.%«r.nrVaVun%.":/So?^ ;v;t '‘JSci«d« .oi i« plate. Isv 0 k f"-' 9 Subd. 5. Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. A. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2-1/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10.75. be observed: B. Lots. The following minimum requirements shall Lot Lot Ares Width 1/2 sere 100 feet Front Yard ITTeet Side Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street 10 feet 15 feet Rear YardTUTTeet in 22 RBGDLATIOHS FOR "LR-lA", "LR-lA-l*# "tR-lB*, •L1-1C^A«D -LR-lC-l* ORB FAMILY LAKBSBORB *“SIDBRTIJa DISTO iff4^K4vi *IiR*XA “*X*# **LR^XB*f *I#R^XC # 03T IiR^XC^X On© r»ii “ “L.hor. si.ia.ntl.l District th. foilowin, r.guiations Shell spply: Subd. 1. Lakeshore Set Back Regulations. The setback from the shoreline for lakeshore lots • A. Shall be 75 feet for all structures except that on iskeshore lots divided by a major ^^«^®“9hf^e, a lock box not in excess of 20 square feet in area and 48 inches in ”"h. l.k..hor. portion of th. Ic and raqnir.s a building permit from the City. B. No principal or accessory structure shall •lA lACAted within 75 feet of the lakeshore nor closer Xaksshor© than th© av©rag© distance from th© shoreline of existing .rSd.Be. Elding, on adjac.nt Iota (r.f.r to Orono Manual of Design Standards and Specifications) except that this does no ^ppXy to structure allowed in subsection A a^ve. Subd. 2. Lak.aber. Bardcov.r and Land ■.galaMoa.. Wthln 75 f..t of ahoralin. th.r. ^ •aMTatlag, filling, wlthlS *5 tfaVo fee*?~ the shoreline there shall be no hardcover. Rlthln 250 feet to 500 shall be no greater than 30% hardcover. feet of^the'shoreline there shall be no greater than ***^^f®^ * ► . >aw *-*. *.•, a - 4> e *4% ^ I OROMO CC 283 (4-1-84) >• U‘. • - - lit?' * ■w «< c>e^€ f »•*? ‘‘t ........ ii J r. *'♦. mmirn § 10.0228. "Guest Bouse" - An accessory separate dwelling constructed on an existing undivided lot for the sole use of the occupants, including their domestic employees or their non-paying guests, of the primary dwelling. All regular lot requirements shall be met by the guest house. Source! Mi2nicipal Code Effective Date: 9-14-67 29. "Hard Cover" - Any structure, blacktop or other material which interferes to any degree with the direct absorption of rainfall into the ground. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 30. "Home Occupation" - Any gainful occupation meeting all of the following requirements when engaged in only by persons residing in their dwelling, when that occupation is conducted within the principal structure only, when evidence Of the occupa tion is not visible from the street. No signs other than those pendtted in "R" Districts are present, no excessive stock in trade la atored on the premises, over the counter retail sales are not involved, and entrance to the home occupation is gained from within the structure. A professional person may use his residence for consultation, emergency treatment or performance of religious rites but not for the general practice of his profession when such ganeral practice will involve the need for more than three off- street parking spaces for the occupant and visitors. fO cc 244-1 (4-1-84) ■‘***^^—_____ 'I' i; r -■ Im % R-- I I 'h c.\ f#- N;-. m. Wm w i^OST OTfltCt^•• t/. ^ ^ ^ ‘ 2£% joca y/oro* ’^23191 rv>-'3»»Sr x<froOx/ooc^ .= /7^;60 o 30 X (z^^foo^ » 7r^Of>r> 2,S“ xfps ^/ooo^ r <9 >-75 “A/t)00 fz<\3^’7SO I hop' /»oo' tfe.■feP- f-W' h¥^; ^iJ^T t *TW€* ptfixow/*JtA ^ THflCA'i^ »s 2«ro' P«rty : 2.SO>toao X ./*■ « 3^,s^>o « 7rO K /«•© K.xt" ^ |«^7,yt>0 ^ jT .doO 1^. >. I . ti^ta^CATS^ ^/^J LOXS BASeC» Of^ C*a.<NZ.v<‘-<T Cot^fi i-^ 4s.: ^4 ft- ii’, ^f.i-4 P'" rfev' r; (. : ' h^1. ^-:- uri' ■»:; ■4 ___A®r • ^ Q. Ac£e*6e ^MJ>«.jefc./Joco .2^*1 a .i; ,':> <1^ .£, ^ AT /jr/o /fo*/o ..._«^'~0 »'/SD 7'Z^9.M =)Vo t 1^00 -f./l-ZS'.. f'2pp . .. *5^ X ZOO fo^ OOO 0,Z2.fSX^XD ^ 2000 J-./SOO t /feoO ...._5!P.A,2.ro zno t. Z'SDO ; 4’_/_&7 *' J.20 00 __-■?.r./></Sp.d.tL*l¥lO r 22 so A —tJf^o.tj^ ___7X A ioo .•fTjOor^2 2. Vo f_Zooo_- 0;2sp. T 2*/^ ...j?#:. xT-ro f%pr^0.H2 3290 f ^nro _.Aj2fi>/0 . .t 3ooQ . J /<>»_. A/STO /sysm 0.3<//87r t .3ooo f'zzso f-zyoo . /eo.^ZOo Z^OOD f Vooo „. 3oOO f 3200 ... JOt» >r.»rO Z^ooO H^ir f :Tooo • •^ 37ro \| yooo //D X/ST>^vs 2(yzr f V^oo '/'fO.xZAO 28 o»>/ d.b'^‘'»i7r f £Z:<>o J?!?P t VV80 /yo X iT^ooO ^^i2r f 7000 4r 5Z»CO .. ioo A /«>0-^S75T>f (5f®0C>A_ij<n>o f . a m>o Ho,00^dA2-t ^oop ^peoo t 4Voo ...2oo.X2.ST> , -• ;.»r ^750 ^ _7.:f0p. .4/ d!??!? • •«• »» * ... ^Sz^no •70,200 • SP,SSD. . S'f r^o L-v. IIyj: ...AT. ZOV^^ Auu^t/^ -j^/;r.?i,psri3;s^sir, 4-.., 4-rs 6A|a* ' ^ •* i- .. _... A»o A»arrcM4w^6 A^ H0 A SMAtlovj • .................|.4rs rK^ YiifU> & Loie :4' ’• :f • •♦ ••• •••« • ■■(!: I /^ Adtl^ IS To ^wcf* ^ ^Mtmae de^zsr^^ do *ro 2,0^ e>^ ^ A4UtAr lAte^smA^ (>F iK»bg aUd<L dAJ« • . . m <«• •*• • *•» • • * >• ♦ A • • ’4:. ^-‘■ ■ j' K' r r' I ^ :r. g-1-i^T ^i^l?CS ’<> - ]/a<I0^1 Za^^eTS. Zf^r'/klOLoe^ 0.?.b}i-^1»owm ^rtrn ’ #—75'-250^“^'^ SO re! 2^/itSD O.l'i ISCiO !S(0O A>C 1 X /SD ^ CCO ^,zi 2.2.ST3 _7J2JS!^/OC ■ ■■——i *7^ X 7yv^fSfiCO o.vl 3”SO S7SO AJC i /oO x2CO ZOflOO O.HU ^-T5CO .A)C * y */o k ZSO 3r.eoo Ofio 07SO_„„e7so •AiC _ __ 200 X2CO <o^eoO ^S8 .._/i^«f=0 -1£fOO /OC SDxITS LVSQ' a.N l&~7 )S(aO t,axtsr> '?,eco O.ZI zr?Oc> 2.2-s-Q___-VS JS.»JS£i-..-IS ,eco 0-t 'l V-ST>0 X-? rt) - 75^:) /op X 2flr> lo am OMU ^(/yOO_____'^OOO j/z - /CgJ \ 7tV.8^ /yo KZSP 3r,eeo 3g e» X300 *0.000. /. 5S S7ro - /7rr> \ jrv^- /8;i3PP -3eoo !•' Ltixisn 4^^ _ ^,J3CO A 2/2/«T?2.2,ro -9co f—i •i •7S * 200 IS mo OiVi C2.^27 ro -ISOO /OOXSOO • ' ^f ........ ZOflCO O.HU 7^00 — yofOOlr ./ r 5 •/ye K2TO ?r,eoo ^,«0__/2ASS2__S25a - 3^0 W4./^:- 2ep x3co ooooo ..Asa__zi^oeO__Js,ss& ■i- ‘ A - i I I I .. f' !'■ !|V^ Wjfp’ ,V: ■• :r- f-t • $ ?)' '>\1'-H I r; ■r- $-k ?f ■' ‘i|- ■ *■ m - m iki- - , Vos Oates Sobjocts Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator ^^^^^LMECTli John R. Gerhardson* Public Works Director FEB 2 jTlBBl February 11, 1991 COV Of ff HPHQ c: Final Pay Request Lift Stations #10 & #43 - LaTour Construction Attached for review and approval is the second and final pay request for the Lift Stations #10 & #43 projects. The work has been completed and meets the specifications and requirements as outlined in the contract with LaTour Construction• OeeomBendetion - To approve the second and final pay request for the Lift Stations #10 & #43 project for LaTour Construction for an amount of $27,078.45. Proposed Notion - Moved by ___, seconded by ___, to approve the second and final pay request for the Lift Stations #10 6 #43 project for LaTour Construction for an amount of $27,078.45. Ayes_ _, nays_ _. TO; FROM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat Forwarded recommending ^proval !v''I-:.:.,If REQUEST FOR PAYMENT OATS I Cih I • • W January 4. 1991 HACEt tfe*^brono. Mlnnasota nOJSCT flOJICT HO. I_ _ _ _ __ to5. 10 t A3 Replacement _ _ _ PILE MO.I liftMTaACTOMi Latour Conatniction Company ADOtSSSI RR 1 PO Box 76_______________ 139A0 FOR PERIOD: Proa: Aug. 23. 1990To; Dec. 31. 1990 SPECIFIED CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE: Mania Lake. MN 5S358 BBQUIST FOR PAYMENT NO.t 2 fc FINAL lARYt 1. Original Contract Amount 2. Changa Ordar - ADDITION 3. Changa Ordar - DEDUCTION A. Rayltad Contract Amount 5. Valuo Conplatad to Data g. Notarial on Hand 7. Amount Bamad g. Laao Ratalnaga 0 I g. Sub'Total $ $ $ $ $ $ Lata Amount Paid Praviously AMOUNT DUB THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO.: 2 t F_ $ $ $ $ Raconmandad for Approval by: BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK i ASSOCIATES. INC. feS' ; V- Hm APPROVAL: 77.465.00 77.465.00 88.320^ 0.00 88.320.20 0.00 88.320.20 61.241.75 27.078.45 Approvad n^r. CONSTRUCTION CO Contractor llfAOPt li m^ . .• % k nftjicTit rucBt Lift Station Nog. 10 fc A3 Replacement Orono. Hlnneaof_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ r cOBTH^CTOKt Latour Conatruction Cowp«ny PAYMENT NO.i 2 t FINALFILE MO.:_ _ _ _ _139A0 DATE: January ». 1991 STATEMENT OF WORK i r«‘-^r Contract Itea Unit Unit Price Est’d Quantity Quantity To Data Anount To Data jit- I »A1T I - LIFT STATIOW HO. 10 REPLACEMENT Baaova Lift atation No. 10 Claar 4 grub traaa I:,laawva axiatlng nanhola iroaion control fanca L.S. Each Each L.F. $1,175.00 205.00 305.00 3.00 L S 5 5 100 i Claaa 5« lOOS cruahadwf'. aggcagata baaa ahouldar p 10* NVC, 0*- 8* daap In place •r^ S'10* FVC, 8**10' daap In place M 10» FVC, 10*-12' daap In place !:V-10* WC. 12*-14* daap In place ltd. m 8*>daap, 4* dia. a/1942B catg.t,}#■m % COnaact to axiatlng nanhola Ton L.F. L.F. L.F. L.F. Each Each 9.00 32.30 34.50 36.50 38.50 1.625.00 550.00 65 120 30 25 25 1 1 t: be i- i: W:iil "s- jg TI - LIFT ItATlOM NO. 43 KEPLACEMEHT 10* rvc. 10*-12* deep in place 10* rvc, 14'-16' daap in place {< W Paga 1 p isftort E;'-' Kv.. 5 90 $1,175.00 1.640.00 1.525.00 270.00 106.25 45 75 25 25 1 1 956.25 1.453.50 2.587.50 912.50 962.50 1.625.00 550.00 tnprovad pip# foundation fta 0* incranant dapth L.F.2.00 400 948 1.896.00 Machanical trench conpaction L.F.0.55 200 170 93.50 goading with 5* topaoil, BMlch i fortlllaar Acre 1.050.00 0.3 0.32 336.00 TOTAL FAIT 1 - LIFT STATION NO.10 REPLACEMENT $15,982.73 L.F.$29.70 800 733 $21,770.10 L.F.33.90 75 144 4.881.60 ■ra» nojicTtft.lUCBi Lift Station Ho«. 10 k *3 Replacement Orono. MinnesotaCOHTRACTORt Latour Congtructlon Coapany k f'"kI Contract Itea Unit BAIT II - LIFT STATION HO. A3 REPLACEMENT. CONT'D I,-10* PVC. 16'-18* daap in placa ^ Std. MB 8' daap, 4* dia. v/1642B cstg. k; h Rawnra axiating nanhola F-f Drop nanhola tactionI ^ 10* X 4* PVC aanrica aya branch 10* s FVC itnrice wf% branch IrV tut into axiatig nanhola tConnact axis ting aarvica lina 4* CX8f aanrica pipa in placa 0* CZSr aanrica pipa in placa L.F. Each Each L.F. Each Each Each Each L.F. L.F. * Inproaad pipa foundation .par 8* incranant dapthii4 #; ^^Hachanical tranch eonpaction jSitaMva P axcavation IjOloao 5 aggragata baaa« lOOZ cniahad Claar I grub traaa goad aith 3* topaoil P L.F. L.F. L.S. C.Y. Ton Each S.Y. goading aith 3* topaoil* . mOch 4 fartilisar ft V I • Acra S-iv' lOfAL PUT XX • LXPT STATION NO. 43 tSPLACEMENT Paga t g 1S040»I SVa m- ■ -Mv PAYMENT NO.! 24 FPNAL •FILE NO. t 13940DATE;January 4. 1991 WORK Unit Est‘d Quantity Anount Price Quantity To Date To Data 36.00 50 50 1.800.00 .520.00 3 3 4*560.00 305.00 4 5 1.525.00 475.00 3.8 3.8 1,805.00 95.00 15 16 1*520.00 95.00 1 2 190.00 135.00 1 I 135.00 110.00 16 18 1*980.00 18.70 150 160 2*992.00 20.60 10 22 433.20 2.00 1.300 3.935 7*870.00 O.SS 1*075 1.109 609.93 .175.00 L S 1 1*175.00 2.10 500 725 1*322.30 9.00 950 1,226.4 11.037.60 205.00 5 8 1*640.00 1.50 3*500 3*009 4*313.30 .050.00 0.3 0.34 337.00 $72*337.43 ■J$■: 5?:f-PWJE6^i^ PLACE!_ _Lift. Station Hot. 10 t 43 ReolaceaentOrono. Minnesota PAYMENT NO.t 2 t FINAL PILE MO.:_ _ _ _139A0COWTIACTORt Latour Construction CompanTk;-;.date: January 4, 1991 iP-PROJECT PAYMENT STATUSCITY* raOJECTt ms NO.: COmACTORi Orono, MinnesotaLift Station Nos. 10 i 43 Replacement13940 Latour Construction Company OtlQIllAL COMTHACT AMOUNT $77,465.75 TOTAL CHANGE ORDERS $0.00 REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT $77,465.75 f.X* HAT! Im. WL. 1 2 3 CHANCE ORDER DESCRIPTION AMOUNT */■ i;TOTAL CHANGE ORDERS • ADD $0.00 rnmasL lARH i < J PERIOD I-tm PAYMENT THIS VOUCHER VALUE COMPLETED RETAINACE 'M 1 2 S Start S-2S-90 6.22.90 12.31.90 $61,241.75 27.078.45 $64,465.00 88.320.20 $3,223.25 0.00 \ r-.' i;fe iA'- ■% i'r. V '*v -.k fOtSL PAtnmiT TO DATE WTAtlfAW fOI PAYMENT NO. 2 8 F $88,320.20 0.00 [vJl,mSL VUm COMPLETED $88,320.20 ^ liiSAOPR ■>K. ' . ■ ■ ■ - m J fe’ ." v ri'^lSv' WM P#;:teWf |p„ tfJS ») • iv-'- fe- ftMS?‘ f tfr '‘/ fe;7,-- 21191.1 / TOs Mayor and City Council FMM:Mark E. Bernhardson^ City Administrato ““w-aiiw 3 g- jggj •”y»oiioiu naiBs February II# 1991 SUBJECT: Park Commission Appointments Attachments: A. Park Commission Appointments Memo Dated 1/30/91 (Memo Only) ISSUE - Select individuals for the Park Commission positions. INTRODPCTIOW At the Council's February 11# 1991 Council meeting they interviewed applicants for the position. Incumbents are Richard Flint# James Gilbert and Susan Wilson. Applicants are Sherokee Ilse# James Anderson and Stephen Jonni IS ton. DISCUSSION - As noted in Attachment A three of the incumbents indicated their continuing interest with a total of four positions being available for appointment at this time. Given that Dee Brger had agreed to serve only one year so the terms are as follows: Three terms run from 1/91 - 12/93 One term runs from 1/91 - 12/92 ALTERNATIVES 1. Select. 2. Table. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council make a selection based on the interviews of February 11# 1991. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _# seconded by _# that Council appoint # . __ to 3 year terms and _ to a two year term on the Park Comission. Ayes _# Nays _. *j ^. h !v' t:.-. TO: Mayor and City Council FBOI|: MaCkE. Bernhardson, City Admin is trat^?'^ 13091.2 1 /rr^/flsp^ h Di^J^uary 30, 1991 suBjacps Attachment: A. Park Conuaission Application Dated 1/23/91 B. Letters of Invitation to Interviewees C* Attendance Record 1989 to 1991 D. Roles and Responsibilities of the Park Commission - Draft ISSUE 1. Interview individuals interested in positions. the Park Commission 2. Select individuals for those positions. 3. Determine if Council wants to develop an outline of roles and responsibilities for the Park Commission. ZETSODUCTZON - Attachment A was presented to the Council at the January 1991 and interviews for new applicants was established for February 11th. Based on Council desires, Susan Wilson also requested to be in attendance. DISCUSSION -Selection - As noted in Attachment A there are four terms which are available for appointment with three of the incumbents having Indicated an interest in continuing. Roles and Responsibilities of Park Commission - Attachment D represent8*"7‘«r7?^^*'prepared by John Gerhardson that is to be utilised as a guide fbr Park Commissioners. As noted, this charge brings together information contained in the City Ordinances, its Comprehensive Plan together with the historic cooperation of the Commission. ALTERNATIVES 1. Interview. 2. Select. 3. Table. IRCONMENOATIOM - It is recommended the Council after interviewing either seleci' or table for further discussion until February 28th In addition it is requested that the Council give direc);:ion as to the draft layout of Roles and Responsibilities for the Park Oommission. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by that the Coucil appoint___, $___*»d to the Park Commission for a three vaar term! ASSTtionally tEe* Council directs staff after giving ooMtnri to refer the charge to the Park Commission for any input they would desire regarding the charge. Ayes Nays r* r. •Ii-:I-If i. f:-. i t i U 5* p % U' T- % 21191.2 TOt Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat DATBt February 19, 1991 SUBJECT: LMCO Comprehensive Management Plan ^C/i D»o Attachment:A. City of Orono Letter Dated 2/14/91 to LMCD B. LMCD Comprehensive Management Plan Memo Dated 2/6/91 (Memo Only) C. City of Wayzata Letter Dated 2/14/91 D. Draft Letters to LMCD/Member Cities ISSUE - 1. Update Council on LMCD’s Comprehensive Plan progress. 2. Present to Council for adoption draft letters to LMCD and member cities. 3. Up date Council regarding the City Attorney's opinion work. IMTRODDCTIOM - At the Council's February 11, 1991 Council meeting they directed that a memo be transmitted to LMCD regarding the direction they would like to see LMCD take regarding revision of its Comprehensive Management Plan. DISCUSSION • 1, LMCD Comprehensive Plan - The LMCD has not yet transmitted their review program for the Comprehensive Manangment Plan over the next 90 days. The result of a meeting held on Wednesday, February 6, 1991, between Gene Strommen of the LMCD and staff Pat Pahl and Ann Hurlbert of the Metropolitan Council has not been transmitted to the 14 cities. Ann will apparently serve as the Council's liaison to assist in work between the LMCD and the cities. 2. Draft Letter - These are revisions from Ed Callahan to the (Drafts were presentedletter presented at the 2/11/01 meeting, to the "group of 8* at their 2/22 meeting.) 3. Attorney's Opinion - Mr. Barrett will be presenting that at- -"fr - -the 3/11/91 meeting As noted in Attachment C a meeting of the 8 cities is to be held 2/22. ALTBRHATIVBS - 1. Accept the information. 2. Adopt and amend, if needed, the letters presented for I ■ ^ -- - A. ti. I k*:' I , r.!■' FI ,HV KP, 'v'* h ^•v i‘p-tfp.. !S'. ft '•r>. F:'-KV- II' r’.-. &.'V' P"- ■rt'-.'vw Ib'\ .k- Sfe«: transmission to LMCD and the member cities. 3. Request add^t^ipnal information 4. Table for further discussion. Rsd^MMENDATION - It is recommended that having received the information this item be tabled until the Council's March 11, 1991 Council meeting. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _« seconded by , Council table further discussion of this item until March1991 Council meeting. Ayes , Nays __. CCS JoBllen Burr, Orono LMCD Representative ViA. X i ■ ,'.'V i I E 'l^aKfiNCP CITYi ^TrnaHix^ it /f Pom ORlc* Bos 66*CryM«i Bay. Mini On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka February 14, 1991 He* Butene R* Stromnen, Executive Director Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 900 East Lake Street Mayzata, HN 55391 Subject: 1991 Marina Licensing Dear Gene, licensing process for these narinas, the following concerns be responded to during this process: general Concerns - A. Tesmorary "dock extensions" - It is our understanding that for the last year and a half the marinas, some more thasWMiWmmFurther# %»e request that appropriate action be taken so thia there is no chance that Individual marinas, because of the extended nature of these temporary leverage themselves into greater dock limits in ttiMii wAfcttr hAs ctttusn^d to ifcs norisAX l6VttXe As you be aware, the City of Orono and LMCD went to Court with i<or^ Star Marina back in the *70»s to reduce its docks from 30(f to a 200* limit. • . srsa a “;.Ti.*r5«“.iSS.as of the operating licenses. ~4nnm imnunoNanNAMCx au.4D4nt punjcwa Hr. Eugene Stronunen Eeburary I4r 1991 Page 2 of 3 It ahould be noted the City of Orono is considering, as it reviews Its shoreland regulations, what additional regulation it would desire related to marinas. This will be reviewed in context with the level of jurisdiction and enforcement LMCD already has in this area. Soeeific Orono Land Ose/Zoning Requirements - Based on the that, per LMCD Section 2.03 Subd. 2(e), LMCD in their licensing process requires that the licensee must meet all LMCD requirements as well as all the requirements of a local government (with the most restrictive applying) we would like to inform you of the following ongoing issues the City of Orono has with specific marinas, as follows: 1. North Shore Drive Marina A. Encroachment into an adjacent dock residentially zoned Millard property east marina. of B. The 1991 LMCD license application indicates an increase in boats over and above the number historically licensed by Orono. The last license that was issued by Orono (1984) was for 76 rental slips, 6 transient slips, 4 company slips, 20 boats dry stacked and 45 boats stored for sale or service with a maximum density of 151 total. Apparently since 1988, North Shore Drive Marina has been given an LMCD license for a total of 165 boats. 2. Lakeside Marina A. The City has received complaints about the condition and status of the floating dock extensions. The complainant was referred to the LMCD. B. A 1985 variance review for limited commericial use of non*adjaeent lakeshore lots owned by the marina, has left unresolved issues of boat storage on and off land, as well as parking and related land use issues. C. The City originally was in support of the applicants previous west side dock layout because it limited impact on the affected neighboringftf'sssr p?i*'hi."s:rrV/»i\Vd from that neighbor. - A L ’ ^ k . . . .k' ..a N-'f.: 'i »►tv*: :. • t.V E> tyjil t-Vh"- S!’W- piu-©- t£. h'-Fi'£If:, -. fli: *Ir /■' 0- V:v Mt. Eu9®ne StroBiffl®n February 14r 1991 Page 3 of 3 3, Gaylea Marina A The City has advised the marina owner that oMMtion ol a dredging business Is not a petnitted use in the B“2 zone* . The Citv has not licensed Gayles Marina since issues of screening and plantings. w d.sb-1. ».hat existing violations or proposed changes upa^t \\'«d":s\"‘it''?.‘ ;.^2. “r="eVsV. ^orh^af, ^*;t “oSs' wVrdlnV s^SilA/s, please contact Michael Gaffron ncerely# fulT ^Mvavk Be Biwnjarason City Administrator ec: S:i p Ilannxn, a Zoning Adsun. / *• rr K h TO: FROM: DATK: Mayor and City Council Mark E. BernhardsoHr City Administrator February 6# 1991 1309: SUBJECT: LMCD Comprehensive Plan Attachment:A. Memo on LMCD 1/24/91 (Memo Only) B. LMCD/Draft Letter on Corap Plan C. Weekly New# Article 1/31/91 ISSUE • Update Council on the following issues: A. Status of LMCD's plan B. Attorney's opinion regarding: a. ) Length of term b. ) Authority of City related to shoreland regulations INTRODUCTION - As noted in Artachraent A, LMCD authorized their Chairman to request a 90 day extension for review of their plan to Metropolitan Council contingent upon their receiving meditation assistance from Metro Council. Which they, Metro Council had offered. To date we have received no further information from LMCD as to when they would like to sit down to further discuss modifications to their proposal with either Orono as an individual city, with the cities in opposition or with all the cities around the lake. As noted in Attachment C LMCD apparently holds little hope of resolving issues with Orono. DISCUSSION - At the Council's January 28, 1991 meeting Council further outlined two issues that they would like to have the City Attorney explore which are: A. The term of appointment for LMCD representatives. B. Approval authority the cities have in relation to shoreland regulations. Be is currently conducting the research. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the information 2. Request additional information. 3. Table for further consideration. RECOMMENDATION - Pending determination of the structure for eonsideration of the plan by the LMCD it is requested the item be tabled until at least the Council's Febraury 28, 1991 Council meeting • PROPOSED MEETING - Moved by __, seconded by , Coun<-*.l table further discussion of this item until its F^ruary 25, 1991 Council meeting. Ayes Nays ce: JoEllen Burr, LMCD Rspresentative f- n' Ik I--k,v '''V‘c*',i’.'. k-/ •t. ■V ■/■ w CITY w nTT/tCf^nievr O ♦00 RICE S' CtTV COCNCIL aoitMU Mbm f. Ambnm JUduriC Hirmoo K Mir Hcifiinb NEHO TO:UfCD M«ab«r Communities Deephaven Greenwood Minnetonka Orono Spring Park Tonka Bay Victoria FROM: SUBJECT: DkTB: City of Hayzata Special Meeting February 14, 1991 The City of Hayzata will host a special meeting of ropresentatives of those communities opposed to certain portions of the UlCD Management Plan. The meeting is scheduled at A A.M. gn Friday^ February 22XhL. in the Maysata City Council Chambers* Following severalIlls, the 22nd appeared to be the most acceptable date > 4n«i4vi<iuAia. VQU can*t make the phenstoth oan Lve from your community Hope to see you on the 22nd. Coffee and dcughnuts will be available. rtefc. I,m 21191.4 » I • / t \ I Jm\p/^€vr i) - L'-J y *Groiq> of 8 Subject: LMCD Comprehensive Plan and DRN Shoreland Regulation To the Mayors As you are aware , the LMCD has requested a 90 day extension from February 4th to attempt to work out modifications of its proposals which will be acceptable to the cities. Orono realizes that the major concerns of our city may differ in emphasis from those of certain other cities. But as a prelude to further discussions with one another» we attach a copy of a letter from us to the LMCD. We note with some concern, but little surprise, that contrary to the stated opinion of the LMCD, the Metropolitan Council asserts the right to veto all or any portions of the LMCD plan. This assertion means that, also contrary to the LMCD view, the Metro Council believes that it can veto any suggested future changes or prevent future deviations. Therefore, every effort must be made by us all to prevent any LMCD plan or proposal from being presented which is not positively favored by at least the vast majority of cities. To accomplish this goal and obtain the modification we seekf Orono suggests, m did the Metropolitan Council, that it is essential that the representative of each city on the LMCD board act under the control of, and in accordance with the wishes of, the respective city councils. As a practical matter, unless the cities agree to any LMCD plan, and the representatives follow instructions, the vote of the representatives is meaningless. Witness the current situation. In a related matter, you no doubt had forwarded to you a recent letter from John Stine of the DNR dated February 5, 1991, relating to shoreland regulations and funding. We again suggest that it is basically undersirable to negotiate with the LMCD concerning DNR shoreland regulations. Therefore we encourage you apply directly to the DNR for your share of the funds DNR has allocated for your use through LMCD in dealing with its proposals. If successful you can then leave the proposed agreement unsigned, or to rescind your agreement if already made. Our joint efforts to obtain modifications to the current proposed plan seem to have had some success. Orono hopes we can all build on that result. We trust, therefore, you will accept this letter as presenting our own suggestions and views and not as an attempt to exert pressure on your internal affairs. Sincerely, pI'. liV tH CJ f:.; K;- •iV-u. 13091.7 A I rr*. lit — • I -*» I u I i * ^ > • 3u Mr. Eugene R. Stromaen, Executive Director Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 900 Bast Lake Street flayzatar MN SS391 Subject: LMCD's Comprehensive Plan Dear Gene, During the 90 day period that LMCD has requested the Metro Council place Its plan In a hold status, the City of Orono would like to again reiterate Its position related to the plan. This letter is in addition to and not preemptive of previous comments on the plan. It is the desire of the City of Orono that LMCD remain within its original charge and not transform the organization as envisioned in the plan to an organization that has agendas and constituencies that are no longer shared by at least the majority of the cities around the lake. Specific areas of comment on the plan include: Board Sturcture - Based not only on Orono's continued opposition to an alteration to the Board, but now to the apparent reluctance of Suburban Hennepin Parks and Metro Council to participate as Board members, that the plan be amended to retain the Boards original composition. If any alteration is appropriate, the Board should look at amending the composition of the Board to more accurately reflect the financial contribution and/or shoreline on the Board. This being reinforced by Metropolitan Council's statement as to the need for LMCD to work closely with at least a majority of their Cities to make any plan realistic. Shore land - It is Orono's position that any reference to LMCD being involved in the shoreland area be deleted partleularily Appendix C and allow either DNR or Metropolitan Council handle. At most the plan should only indicate the regulations and objectives set forth in the plan are a model, that has DNR acceptance and that the cities then individually deal with DNR in further developing their regulations. It is ............J k t r-'t . \ ■ r I b- 'K ‘V :i- i I. " additionally requested that L?!CD also support the cities individual grant requests to DNR for the monies that were originally earmarked for the cities through LMCD. Finally the LMCD should limit its role in additional parking spots for public accesses to that of determining any adverse impacts on the surface use. Surface Dse Management - The City of Orono would again encourage change in the emphasis of the plan so that the first priority is handling the existing safety problems on the lake before allowing additional access growth on the lake. Further that the emphasis be changed so that the tools be pro-active and be put in place prior to allowing further growth in access. The City of Orono again encourages the establishment of a standard density for the lake beyond which no growth would be allowed. While it has been argued that the literature would not support establishment of any standard, it is no different than many of the standards set forth in DNR shoreland regulations. No specific literature supports the precise standards selected. This is also true for many of the city's land use standards. However, the policy decision has been made by the policy boards which have considered them to be reasonable in light of the various factors. The City also urges that LMCD further explore regulation by type of craft and inclusion of the ongoing survey methodology as an appendix. The City •Iso feels that the plan should address that LMCD should have not only control of the surface but also below the surface, currently DNR "jurisdiction". Such a dichotomy is not rational. ________ Funding Structure - The City of Orono encourages that LMCD not further pursue, and in fact delete from their plan, broading of taxing authority independent of the cities particularily in light of Metropolitan Council's concern in this regard. Orono would also like the budgeting process be clarified so that cities have a date by which they can express objections to proposed budgets before final adoption of that budget. Additionally, the City of Orono in line with its support of LMCD as it was originally conceived would continue to encourage minimal staff for the board to only conduct existing powers in an effective manner. r "I I k •t w’ fA. 1r »' &’v. ?;■ r' IIfir- B . KS: fe»-- Ro le of Plan - In light of Metropolitan Council assertion of authority as to LMCD's plan Orono again requests that LMCD include in their plan the status that this plan has been given by not only LMCD, but Metro Council and other agencies and that their roles be specifically defined within the plan to include the following: A. Sections over which of the various agencies specifically have review and/or approval authority. B. The process for review and amendment by LMCD and to the extent required other governmental bodies. C* Specifically address the relation of LMCD actions to the comprehensive plan and how inconsistencies are determined together with how any inconsistencies are to be resolved. He remain open for further discussion either on a one to one basis# on the basis of the eight cities with whom we are joined in expressing our opposition or with all the cities that compose LMCD. We await your answer. On behalf of the Orono City Council. cc: Mark E. Bernhardson City Administrator Mayor and City Council JoEllen Burr# LMCD Representative ; '<t ifc.Ill- I 13091.5a TO« FBOMt OASBs Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson# City Administrat February 12, 1991 SDBJBCT: Lake Use and Management/Draft Shoreland Regulations Attachment:A. Draft Shoreland Regulations B. DNR Regulations Dated 7/89 C. Propos^ Shoreland work Plan D. DNR Letter Dated 2/6/91 E. City of Orono Letter Dated 2/13/91 - Request for Funds ISSUE 1. Present an initial draft of Shoreland Regulations to Council for information purposes only at this point. 2. Present to Council the funding request sent to DNR. 3. Present Letter sent to LMCD regarding marinas. INITIAL SHORELAND DRAFT As noted in Attachment A the City has developed an initial draft regulation at staff level which it will review with John Shardlow and then undertake meetings with Planning Commission and Council as outlined in Attachment C. The draft Resolution (Attachment A) illustrates with an afterisk those which currently represent changes from the present ordinance. Staff is currently preparing a comparison of these proposals, not only with existing Orono regulations but also DNR regulations and LMCD's regulations together with alternatives to the proposed regulations. ALTERNATIVES Draft regulations - 1. Make any comments 2. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that Council accept the information regarding shoreland regulations eoi Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building and zoning Administrator Nike Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator JoBllen Burr, Orono LMCD Representative riii iMiiifi i.-ii ■ i i mii .. . -■■i'1 Draft 12.26.90 Revised 2.19.91 SHORELAND REGULATIONS 10.«« JMirtreland Overlay District Vi»‘ Zb an affort to protect the natural water amenities that exist within the City's corporate limits and in response to the Department of Natural Resources Shoreland regulatioBs» the following represents the City of Orot.o's Shore land Overlay District. Applicability - These regulations apply to all lands within 1000 feet of the Ordinary High Water Nark (OHM) of the following water bodiest Name OHM Classification Lake Minnetonka 929.4 GD Long Lake 944.3 (DNR 1987)6D French Lake NE? Lake Classen RD/NE? Dickey Lake RD? Lydiard Lake RD/NB? Mooney Lake 980.0 (DNR 1976)RD Additionally it applies to the following lakes where the within 1000 feett Xake Hadley Unnamed/Nedina Zb addition# the regulations apply within 300 feet of the landward extension of the flood plain of the followings Flood Plain Elevation Classification Painters Creek Stubbs Creek? ZiOBg Lake Creek (French Creek) *Dickey Creek* "liolsfeld Creeks* "Forest Lake Creek* i». Xi •fe li: iir ■ % ■ P' #1 *' ^' pt-ili'K: Ip: fri-;’ p'; ■ te:;.--' PI'-'-- m- fc:.p,r- > '•» &■ aity i?-«- W^'piP.- .■■■■.,. 'i Zoning RggnirgiBnnta - The zoning requirements that exist within the City of Orono currently meet or exceed those set forth by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in Management of Shoreland Regulations# 6120.2500 to 6120.3900# and as such a specific delineation of the Standards is not required. These include# except as otherwise addressed in the the following section: Lot Size. Lot Width. Permitted Uses. Conditional Oses. Districts falling within the Shoreland areas include: LR-IA RR-IA B-1 LR-IB RR'IB B-2 LR-IC RR-lB-1 B-3 LR-lC-1 RS B-4 B-5 Additional zones that meet or exceed the requirements in those areas that can be used within the Shoreland areas: PRD PDD B-6 R-IA R-IB N-6 (Currently not allowed within 1000* of any lake) 'Changes in any of these zones in the categories listed above mast not be less than the DNR regulations effective 7/3/89. m^ >*Nbrictiye Applies - This overlay district is applicable in areas defined oelow and represent requirements that are in addition to the requirements set forth in the various zoning districts. Zn case of conflict# the most restrictive provision applies. Administration - Notice to DNR. Any of the following require thita copy of any public hearing notice be sent to the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources designated representative t Variances to these standards which result in conditions less restrictive than DRN standards. b. Conditional uses in the shoreland. e. Amendments to this section. iHgfilfti— I ' '• 1. iV“:4r ^}if fX’ • L’ "■ >". Lv I; ‘^•r^, ►i: 1\ f ,- ,'i- iv:--. C, S'ft1^: W- I'in •if L.\ '1' Pinal Action to DNR - In addition, all copies of approved plats and final actTon on all the above shall be forwarded to the designated representative for the DNR. Definitions • (To be determined) Overlay District Standards - In addition to the standards set forth in the various districts, the following standardly additionally applys 1. Setbacks *■ Lakeshore a.No structures or accessory facilities including water oriented structures or facilities and decks may be placed, nor grading or filling allowed within: 0'>75* of the shoreland (both lake and river) 0-26* of the wetlands 0-30' of bluff impact zones. b.Average Setback - No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residential buildings or adjacent lots (refer to Orono's Manual of Design Standards and Specifications). c. 2. 3. Exceptions to subsection a) and b) of this section all of which require a building permit prior to construction include: 1. Stairways not over 4* in width. Lifts not over 4* in width. Landings not over4* in width and 32 s.f. •in area. Combinations of the above. Docks which do not have more than 16? 32? square feet landward of the Ordinary High Mater Mark/reference elevation of that water body of course. A lock box not in excess of 20 square feet and 48 inches in height is allowed on lakeshore lots divided from the principal structure by a major thoroughfare. 4. 5. 6. 2. Lot Width. Lot width for shoreland purposes shall be the shortest distance between the two side lot lines both at the shoreline and at the required lakeshore setback line (or parallel to the shoreline at the shoreline and at the required lake setback line or at a line perpendicular to the side lot lines at both the shoreline and required lakehsore setback line). ft- 1; P Bardcover/Iolpervious Surface Requirements. No hardcover or impervious surface shall be allowed within 75 feet of a lakeshore except for needed public facilities and those itep'.s allowed as exceptions under Subdivision 2. The overall hardcover/impervious surface for all lots in the defined shore land area shall not exceed 25% in total or not over 25% of the portion of the lot that is in the defined shore land area whichever is more restrictive. The following represent items which considered impervious surfaces: are not 1) 2) Wood chips and loose clean landscape rock when no plastic or fabric underliner is used. Non~cemented shoreline rip-rap. All other items apart from natural vegetation are considered hardcover/impervious surface. Screening and Vegetation Requirements. For construction of roads, driveways, septic systems and other improvements on steep slopes, soil erosion and impact on existing screening from the public waters must be minimized. The City requires a staff permit prior to construction of such facilities. No live tree within 75 feet of the shoreline with a diameter of six inches or more (or 19 inches in circumference) measured 3 feet above the ground may be removed without first obtaining a permit from 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. Appeals of staff determinations as to type, size and quality of the trees to be replaced will be to the Planning Cosinission and Council. (Source Ordinance 26, 2nd Series adopted July 14, 1986 as revised in this draft) Clear cutting of vegetation on riparian lots within 75 feet of the shoreline is prohibited without a permit from the City staff. No cutting will be allowed which reduces screening of motor vehicles, dwellings and other structures when viewed from the lakes. I* Ml pfe !S; W I ^ *1 \-V f ) ^'ri fI 'I-. r*‘ ■ d. All ground apart from sand beaches* allowed impervious surfaces and natural drainageways shall be vegetated within the designated shoreland areas. Exterior lighting in all xoning districts on riparian lots shall be directed away from public waters so that its beams do not cross the shoreline. Lights on docks shall not exceed X candle power at the <;ource. 5. Building Height (in Defi Ii ns. Section 10.02). b. c. "Building height* is the vertical distance between the highest adjoining ground level at the building or ten feet above the lowest ground level whichever is lower* and the highest point of a flat roof or the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. Topographic changes which elevate «ne adjoining ground level above the natural surrounding terrain so as to appear artifically contrived* shall not be considered in determining building height. Maximum allowed building height as defined above is 30*. Exceptions to Section a) 10.75. are set forth in Section 6. Eartilisers and Pesticides. Fertiliser and pesticides manufactured by chemical processes shall not be used within 75 feet of the lakeshore. 7. Riparian access of lots and outlets. a. No new lots or outlots shall be created for riparian access after (date) Those created prior to that shall be regulated in accordance with Section 5.42 of this Code. b. Exceptions. The only exceptions to this are outlots created as part of a planned unit development (including PRD's) in whicht 1) the outlet is owned by all owners of the planned unit development who have riparian access. -isa t.- V ■> -■>• i[:: I"'ti.*. the total number of riparian owners does not exceed the lot width at the shoreline divided by the City required lot width of the zoning district. c.In the case where there is a planned unit development replacing a more intense use* the number of owners of the out lot will be one less than the number of dwelling units on the lot which had riparian rights prior to the planned unit development. All such riparian owners are required to o«m land abutting the riparian outlot. d.In such cases where an outlot is allowed* all dockage must be centralized and owned by the same association that o%ms the outlot and the amount of dockage cannot exceed 75 lineal feet or 300 square feet per lot which has riparian rights through the outlot. 6. Manufacturing and Industrial Any existing manufacturing or industrial use (Including boat manufacturing and repair?) which are permitted under the zoning Section shall not be expanded or intensified within the deferred shozeland as set forth in Section X30C . Mo new manufacturing or industrial use shall be allowed within that area. 9. Agricultural Use and Forest Management a. Lakeshore - There shall be no use of any lands within 1000 feet of the lakeshore that entails agricultural use of feed lots or confined large animal storage or forest management use for commercial purposes (differentiate agriculture from gardening). There shall be no crop farming and over 1 acre in the zone that uses pesticides and fertilizer. b. Watercourses - Mo feed lots or confined large animal outdoor storage shall be allowed within 300 feet of the water course and no fertilizer or pesticide use for crops over 1 acre within 100 feet of such a water course • 10. Planned Unit Developments. a.Mo planned unit developments shall exceed maxisnim building height or minimum lakeshore setbacks* density or lot width requirements. r I'"' w PiA % ■ \?:- b.Design criteria to be reviewed include consideration of aesthetics# land slope# water depth, vegetatiort, soils depth to ground water and others set forth in the applicable zoning section. c.Shore recreation facilities shall be limited to docks and swimming areas as set forth in Section €• (Do we want to require all PUD's to have the riparian lot in common?) 11. Water Supply and Septic Treatment. These services for properties in the defined shore land area shall either be by public water and sewer or when such is not available to the property it shall be in accordance with Section 12.30 of these ordinances, for septic treatment with on-site water supply in accordance with applicable regulations (Local, MPCA, MDH, MDHR). 12. Soil Processing. There shall be no grading, filling, moving or extraction use of the ground within the defined lakeshore except as allowed under Section XXX . 13. Subdivision. Subdivision shall be in accordance with Chapter 11 of these ordinances which meet or exceed DNR regulations. STATEWIDE STANDARDS FOR ■MANAGEMENT OF SHORELAND AREAS* Effective Date: July 3,1989 \ r'_ INNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF ^ NATURAL RESOURCES Division of Tf aters SHORELAND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (612) 296-9226 >'• I !*>'[:' 1:^ h.. k- iI/; W' 1^- I-fe4',fc/- ■ l*r-m tii:. -?r .■js*/.' *• e«K'-‘ KV'-': ml Table of Contents Statewide Standards for Management of Shoreland Areas Citation Number 6120.2500 6120.2600 6120.2800 6120.3000 Definitions Policy Scope subp. 1. Subp. 2. Subp. 3. Responsibilities and authorities Adoption schedule Implementation flexibility Shoreland Management Classification System Subp. 1. Subp. la. Subp. 2. Subp. 3. Subp. 4. Subp. 5. Criteria Classes - Lakes and Rivers Supporting data Classification procedures Reclassification Modification and expansion of system 1 6 7 7 7 9 10 12 12 12 6120.3100 Land Use Districts 6120.3200 m. fe-:. P'pfA. , ; t;c.vv'' ^ 6120.3300 Criteira for Land Use Zoning District Designation Criteria Designation of zoning districts Land use district descriptions Shoreland classifications and uses - lakes Shoreland classifications and uses - rivers Subp. 1 Subp. 2 Subp. 3 Subp. 4 Sxibp. 5 Zoning Provisions Subp. 1. Purpose 13 14 14 <■ JiP' %■ #■ a. ,. 0-. citation Mumbar Subp. 2. Subp. 2a Subp. 2b. Subp. 3. Subp. 4. Subp. 5. Subp. 7. Subp. 8. Subp. 9. Residential lot size Lot area and width standards for single, duplex, triplex, and quad residential development lake classes Lot width standards for single duplex, triplex, and quad residential development - river classes Placement and height of structures and facilities on lots A. Structure setbacks B. High water elevations C. Bluff impact zones D. Steep slopes E. Proximity to unplatted cemeteries and significant historic sites F. Proximity to roads and highways 6. Height H. Accessory structures and facilities I. Stairways, lifts and landings J. Decks Shoreland Alterations Placement and design of roads, driveways and parking areas Agricultural use standards Forest management standards Extractive use standards Pag 23 23 24 25 25 25 25 26 27 27 30 30 31 31 fe'*m-«?• iUm kfl' 'i' »• ! rK^rr,J* • '■ U ‘r ■: s '•>^•i- fStf'- I'P:': ’A'‘' 'i "L\.- ir-': • E y*: Clfcafeion Muidaar «120.3400 6120.3500 6120.3800 6120.3900 #1- ,,, 1 Paas Subp. 10. Subp. 11. Subp. 12. Standards for connercial, industrial, public, and semi public uses Storawater management Mining of metallic minerals and peat Sanitary Provisions Subp. 2. Water supply Subp. 3. Sewage treatment Subdivision Provisions Subp. 1. Stibp. 2. Subp. 3. Subp. 4. Subp. 5. Land suitability Platting Consistency with other controls Information requirements Dedications Subp. 2. Subp. 3. Subp. 4. Planned Unit Development Subp. 1. Scope of planned unit “ development provisions Land use district designation Information requirements Dwelling unit or site density evaluation Residential planned unit development (PUD) density evaluation steps and design criteria Commercial planned unit development density evaluation steps and design criteria Subp. 5 Subp. 6. Aiteinistration 32 33 34 34 35 35 35 36 36 37 37 38 mm. Citatlen Mumbar £ag Subp. 1.Administration and enforcement 47 Subp. 3.Variances 47 Subp. 3a.Conditional uses 47 Subp. 4.Nonconformities 48 Subp. 4a.Shoreland management by townships 48 Suop. 5.Joint exercise and powers 49 Subp. 6.Notification procedures 49 i' ,.- 0; - pl-.r #?v%-: SiiV .' rv i^'^V—ill" NAKAGEMENT OF SHORELAND AREAS 6120.2S00 DEFINITIONS. Subpart 1. Scope of terms; mandatory; distances. For the purpose of parts 6120.2500 to 6120.3900, certain terms or words used shall be interpreted as follows: the word "shall" is mandatory, not permissive. All distances, unless otherwise specified, shall be measured horizontally. Subp. la. Accessory structure or facility. "Accessory structure" or "facility" means any building or improvement subordinate to a principal use which, because of the nature of Its use, can reasonably be located at or greater than normal structure setbacks. Subp. lb. Bluff. "Bluff" means a topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment having all of the following characteristics: A. part or all of the feature is located shoreland area; in a B. the slope rises at least 25 feet above the ordinary high water level of the waterbody; C. the grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the ordinary high water level averages 30 percent or greater; and D. the slope must drain toward the waterbody. An area with an average slope of less than 18 percent over a distance for 50 feet br more shall not be considered part of the bluff. Subp. Ic. Bluff impact zone. "Bluff impact zone" means a bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff. Subp. 2. Boathouse. "Boathouse" means a structure designed and used solely for the storage of boats or boating equipment. Subp. 3. Building line. "Building line" means a line parallel to a lot line or the ordinary high water level at the required setback beyond which a structure may not extend. Subp. 3a. Commercial planned unit developments. "Commercial planned unit developments" are typically uses that provide transient, short*term lodging spaces, rooms, or parcels and their operations are essentially service*oriented. For example, hotel/motel accommodations, resorts, recreational vehicle and camping parks, and other primarily service-oriented A-1.1 p' t- ■•I % ¥'hr-r y t' ■ .,■*IfeI K..-V 'ti i;.- %■,i PI... p%'V'.i-m %■ 4"r- r’‘- ‘ activities are commercial planned unit developments. Subp. 3b. Coameccial use. "Commercial use" means the principal use of land or buildings for the sale/ lease/ rental/ or trade of products/ goodsr and services. Subp. 3c. CoMissioner• "Commissioner" means the commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources. Subp. 4. [Repealed/ 13 SR 3029] Subp. S. Conditional use. "Conditional use" means a use as this term is defined in Minnesota Statutes/ chapter 394. Subp. 6. [Repealed/ 13 SR 3029] Subp. 6a. Deck. "Deck" means a horizontal, unenclosed platform with or without attached railings, seats, trellises, or other features, attached or funccionally related to a principal use or site and at any point extending more than three feet above ground. Subp. 6b. Duplex, triplex, and quad. "Duplex," triplex, and "quad" means a dwelling structure on a single lot, having two, three, and four units respectively, being attached by common walls and each unit equipped with separate sleeping, cooking, eating, living, and sanitation facilities. Subp. 6c. Dwelling site. "Dwelling site" means a designated location for residential use by one or more persons using temporary or movable shelter, including camping and recreational vehicle sites. Subp. 6d. Dwelling unit. "Dwelling unit" means any structure or portion of a structure, or other shelter designed as short- or long-term living quarters for one or more persons, including rental or timeshare accommodations such as motel, hotel/ and resort rooms and cabins. Subp. 6e. Extractive use. "Extractive use" means the use of land for surface or subsurface removal of sand, gravel, rock, industrial minerals, other nonmetallic minerals, and peat not regulated under Minnesota Statutes, sections 93.44 to 93.51. Subp. 6f. Forest land conversion. "Forest land conversion" means the clear cutting of forested lands to prepare for a new land use other than reestablishment of a subsequent forest stand. Subp. 6g. Guest cottage. "Guest cottage" means a structure used as a dwelling unit that may contain sleeping spaces and kitchen and bathroom facilities in addition to those provided in the primary dwelling unit on a lot. Subp. 7. Hardship. "Hardship" means the same as that term A-1.2 t 5^:4'' ¥' fl j . ■■r',' - i is defined in Minnesota Statutes^ chapter 394. Subp. 7a. Height of building. "Height of building" means the vertical distance between the highest adjoining ground level at the building or ten feet above the lowest ground level» whichever is lowers and the highest point of a flat roof or average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. Subp. 7b. Industrial use. "Industrial use" means the use of land or buildings for the production, manufacture, warehousing, storage, or transfer of goods, products, eonmodities, or other wholesale items. Subp. 7c. Intensive vegetation clearing. "Intensive vegetation clearing" means the complete removal of trees or shrubs in a contiguous patch, strip, row, or block. Subp. 8. Lot. "Lot" means a parcel of land designated by plat, metes and bounds, registered land survey, auditors plot, or other accepted means and separated from other parcels or portions by said description for the purpose of sale, lease, or separation. Subp. 9. Lot width. "Let width" means the shortest distance between lot lines measured at the midpoint of the building line. Subp. 10. Nonconformity. "Nonconformity" means the same as that term is defined or described in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 394. Subp. 11. Ordinary high water level. "Ordinary high water level" means the boundary of public waters and wetlands, and ahall be an elevation delineating the highest water level which has been maintained fof a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape, commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. For watercourses, the .-.rdinary hign water level is the elevation of the top of the bank of the channel. For reservoirs and flowages, the ordinary high water level is the operating elevation of the normal summer pool. Subp. 12. Planned unit development. "Planned unit development" means a type of development characterized by a unified site design for a number of dwelling units or dwelling sites on s parcel, whether for sale, rent, or lease, and also usually involving clustering of these units or sites to provide areas of common open space, density increases, and a mix of structure types and land uses. These developments may be organised and operated as condominiums, time-share condominiums, cooperatives, full fee ownership, commercial enterprises, or any combination of these, or cluster subdivisions of dwelling units, residential condominiums, townhouses, apartment buildings, campgrounds, recreational vehicle parks, resorts, hotels, A-1.3 aatbLiSii f f-. ph -m € ;• motels, and conversions of structures and land uses to theseuses. Subp. 13. Public waters. "Public waters" means any waters as defined in Minnesota Statute*^ action 105.37, subdivisions 14 and 15. However, no lake, pond, or flowage of less than ten acres in size in municipalities and 25 acres in size in unincorporated areas need be regulated for the purposes of parts 6120.2500 to 6120.3900. A body of water created by a private user where there was no previous shoreland may, at the discretion of the local gcvern.ment, be exempted from parts 6120.2500 to 6120.3900. The offi.cial determination of the size and physical limits of drainage areas of rivers and streams shall be made by the commissioner. Subp. 13a. Residential planned unit development. "Residential planned unit development" means a use where the nature of residency is nontransient and the major or primary^ focus of the development is not service-oriented. For example, residential apartments, manufactured home parks, time-share condominiums, townhouses, cooperatives, and full fee ownership residences would be considered as residential planned unit developments. Subp. 13b. Semipublic use. "Semipublic use" means the use of land by a private, nonprofit organization to provide a public service that is ordinarily open to some persons outside the regular constituency of the organization. Subp. I3c. Sensitive resource management. "Ser.sitive resource management" means the preservation and management of SiTeas unsuitable for development in their natural state due to constraints such as shallow soils over groundwater or bedrock, highly erosive or expansive soils, steep slopes, susceptibility to flooding, or occurrence of flora or fauna in need of special protection. Subp. 14. Setback. "Setback" means the minimum horizontal distance between a structure, sewage treatment system, or other facility and an ordinary high water level, sewage treatment system, top of a bluff, road, highway, property line, or other facility. Subp. 14a. Sewage treatment system. "Sewage treatment system" means a septic tank and soil absorption system or other individual or cluster type sewage treatment system as described and regulated in chapter 7080. Subp. 14b. Sewer system. "Sewer system" means pipelines or conduits, pumping stations, and force main, and all other constructions, devices, appliances, or appurtenances used for conducting sewage or industrial waste or other wastes to a point A-1,4 -i- I ■s^I ■■vi t- I r-.- A- I 'r: ■ <V--. h r of ultimate disposal. Subp. 14c. Shore impact zone. "Shore impact zone" means land located between the ordinary high water level of a public water and a line parallel to it at a setback of 50 percent of the structure setback. Subp. 15. Shoreland. "Shoreland" means land located within the following distances from public water: 1,000 feet from the ordinary high water level of a lake, pond, or flowage; and 300 feet from a river or stream, or the landward extent of a flood plain designated by ordinance on a river or stream, whichever is greater. The limits of shorelands may be reduced whenever the waters involved are bounded by topographic divides which extend landward from the waters for lesser distances and when approved by the commissioner. Subp. 15a. Significant historic site. "Significant Historic site" means any archaeological site, standing structure, or other property that meets the criteria for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places or is listed in the State Register of Historic Sites, or is determined to be an unplatted cemetery that falls under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 307.08. A historic site meets these criteria if it is presently listed on either register or if it is determined to meet the qualifications for listing after review by the Minnesota state archaeologist or the director of the Minnesota Historical Society. All unplatted cemeteries are automatically considered to be significant historic sites. Subp. 15b. Steep slope. "Steep slope" means land where agricultural activity or development is either not recommended or described as poorly suited due to slope steepness and the site's soil characteristics, as mapped and described in available county soil serveys or other technical reports, unless appropriate design and construction techniques and farming practices are used in accordance with the provisions of these regulations. Where specific information is not available, steep slopes are lands having average slopes over 12 percent, as measured over horizontal distances of 50 feet or more, that are not bluffs. Subp. 16. Structure. "Structure" means any building or appurtenance, including decks, except aerial or underground utility lines, such as sewer, electric, telephone, telegraph, gas lines, towers, poles, and other supporting facilities. Subp. 17. Subdivision. "Subdivision" means land that is divided for the purpose of sale, rent, or lease, including planned unit development. Subp. 16. [Repealed, 13 SR 3029] Subp. 18a. Surface water-oriented commercial use. A-1.5 t K "Surface water-oriented commercial use" means the use of lane for commercial purposes, where access to and use of a surfuc' water feature is an integral part cf the normal condor-'nee business. Marinas, resorts, and restaurants with tra ■'-'.t docking facilities are examples of such use. Subp. 18b. Toe of the bluff. "Toe of the bluff" means the lower point of a 50-foot segment w’.th an average slope exceeding 16 percent. Subp. 10c. Top of the bluff. "Top of the bluff" means the higher point of a 50-foot segment with an average slope exceeding 18 percent. Subp. 19. Variance. "Variapce" means the same as that term is defined or described in M;.n;-.dsoti s-atutes, chapter 394. Subp. 20. Water-oriented acctir^oocy structure or facility. "Water-oriented accessory structure or facility" means a small, above ground building or other improvement, except stairways, fences, docks, and retaining walls, wnich, because of the relationship of its use to a surface water feature, reasonably needs to be located closer to public waters than the normal structure setback. Examples of such structures and facilities Include boathouses, gazebos, screen houses, fish houses, pump houses, and detached decks. Subp. 21. Wetland. "Wetland" means a surface water feature classified as a wetland in the United States Tish and Wildlife Service Circular No. 39 (1971 edition;, which is hereby incorporated by reference, is available through the Min .tex interlibrary loan system, and is not subject to frequent change. NS s 105.485 13 SR 3029 6120.2600 POLICY. The uncontrolled use of shorelands adversely affects the public health, safety, and general welfare by contributing to pollution of public waters and by impairing the local tax base. In furtherance of the policies declared in Minnesota Statutes, chapters lOS, 115, Hi, 394, 396, and 462, the commissioner .{Nluvides the following minimum standards a?id criteria for the i>division, use, and development of the shorelands of public waters. The standards and criteria are intended to preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters, conserve the economic and hatural environmental values of shorelands, and provide for the wise use of water and r«. *ted land resources of the state. MS S 105.485 A-1.6 13 SR 3029 (K120.2700 (Repealed, 13 SR 3029] m 6120.2800 SCOPE. Subpart 1. Responsibilities and authorities. These minimum standards and criteria apply to those shorelands of oublic waters of the state which are subject to local government land use controls. They are intended to be incorporated into local government shoreland management controls. Each local government is responsible for administration and enforcement of its shoreland management controls adopted in compliance with these standards and criteria. Nothing in these standards and criteria shall be construed as prohibiting or discouraging a local government from adopting and enforcing controls that a.e more restrictive. Subp. 2. Adoption schedule. Counties, and those cities designated by the commissioner in consultation with the appropriate county, must adopt or amend land use controls to bring them into substantial compliance with these standards and criteria within two years of being notified by the commissioner. Subp. 3. Implementation flexibility. Local govern.Tients may, under special circumstances and with the commissioner s approval, adopt shoreland management controls that are not in strict conformity with these minimum standards and criteria, provided the purposes of Minnesota Statutes, section 105.485, ars satisfied. / A. Special circumstances may include the following situations: (1) where shorelands have been developed with an assortment of urban land uses for many years and much of the development does not meet the standards in parts 6120.2500 to 6120.3900; (2) cities with central business districts located within shorelands; (3) cities whose only shorelands are along rivers classifi'^'. «s trioutary; (4) small cities that have not had, and do not anticipate, much development activity within shorelands; (5) counties or portions of counties with topography or vegetation characteristics that would make use of particular minimum state standards impractical; % k..--1.7 F t I k: f- i;.. (6) shorelands that are managed under other water and related land resource management programs authorized by state or federal legislation with goals compatible with Minnesota Statutes# section 105.485, and parts 6i20.2500 to 6120.3900; o. (7) individual lakes or systems of lakes that are being managed under standards developed specifically for these vf3rer resources after a comprehensive study and planning effort. B. Alternative management standards may use the following concepts and approaches, or others: (1) expanded or different public waters classification systems; (2) designation of areas where land use districts and associated standards are more restrictive than these standards i'.:’ criteria as trade-offs for other areas where they are less restrictive; (3) standards and other management approaches that are developed for specific water resources after a comprehensive evaluation and planning effort; (4) standards developed to take in-account commonly occurring hydrologic, geologic, propert. '.iiership,^ topographic, and vegetation patterns and shorelc*r.u accessibixity issues that would make use of these standards and criteria impractical; or ; (5) Other types of management or acquisition programs such as stormwater management and public land acquisition programs that reduce the need for use of specific standards in parts 6120*2500 to 6120.3900. C. Local governments must request consideration of an 3Xternative approach under this subpart and must provide written justification and supporting information, maps, and documents, as appropriate, to justify the request to the commissioner, including the following: (1) existing land use plans and controls for shorelands of each public water; (2) for the shorelands of each public water, the number, average size, and percent of shoreline occupied by undeveloped lots of record and land in public ownership; (3) characteristics of existing development, including types, densities, heights, colors, and presence or absence of screening vegetation or topography; (4) presence or absence of public sewer and A-1.8 I. ^ 4^ .. . ri'- h I k I i stormwater management practices or facilities; and (5) explanations of how deviations from state standards are justified. D. The commissioner shall respond to the local government's request for consideration of an alternative approach under this subpart in accordance with subitems (1) to (5). (1) The commissioner shall in writing acknowledge and approve or deny the request within 60 days of receipt of the request and all necessary supporting documents and technical data. For extraordinarily complex issues and requests involving multi-government coordination or multi-organization coordination, the commissioner and the affected local units of government may mutually agree to an extension of the 60-day response. (2) The commissioner in the approval or denial pursuant to this subpart shall state to the local governments the reasons for the approval or denial and, as appropriate, suggest alternative solutions or regulatory approaches that would be acceptable to the commissioner. (3) The local governments proposing the alternative control and the commissioner shall solicit the input of the public and other governmental bodies that could be affected by the alternate control. (4) Alternate shoreland controls must be approved by other units of government having adjacent land use authority impacted by the alternate controls. (5) The*local government either proposing an alternate local control or a local government being impacted by an alternate local control may request a contested case hearing under Minnesota Statutes, section 105.44, subdivision 3. MS s 105.485 13 SR 3029 6120.29'>0 (Repealed, 13 SR 3029 ] 6120.3000 SHORELAND MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM. Subpart 1. Criteria. The commissioner shall classify all public waters in accordance with the following criteria: A. size and shape; A-1.9 Ip i t B. amount and type of existing development; C. road and service center accessibility; D. shorelands; existing natural characteristics of the waters and E. state, regional, and local plans and management programs; F. existing land use restrictions; and G. presence of significant historic sites Subp. la. Classes. The classes of public waters are natural environment lakes, recreational development lakes, general development lakes, remote river segments, forested river segments, transition river segments, agricultural river segments, urban river segments, and tributary river segments. All of the river classes except tributary consist of watercourses that have been identified as being recreationally significant on a statewide basis. The tributary class consists of all other watercourses identified in the protected waters inventory. General descriptions of each class follow; A. Natural environment lakes are generally small, often shallow lakes with limited capacities for assimilating the impacts of development and recreational use. They often have adjacent lands with substantial constraints for development such as high water tables, exposed bedrock, and unsuitable soils. These lakes, particularly in rural areas, usually do not have much existing development or recreational use. B. Recreational development lakes are generally medium-sized lakes of varying depths and shapes with a variety of landform, soil, and groundwater situations on the lands around them. They often are characterized by moderate levels of recreational use and existing development. Development consists mainly of seasonal and year-round residences and recreationally-oriented commercial uses. Many of these lakes have capacities for accommodating additional development and use. C. General development lakes are generally large, deep lakes or lakes of varying sizes and depths with high levels and mixes of existing development. These lakes often are extensively used for recreation and, except for the very large Xakes, are heavily developed around the shore. Second and third tiers of development are fairly common. The larger examples in this class can accommodate additional development and use. D. Re.mote river segments are primarily located in roadless, forested, sparsely-populated areas of the northeastern part of the state. Common land uses include multiple-use forestry, some recreation facilities, and occasional seasonal or A-1.10 V. I f h year-round residential. Low intensity recreational uses of these river segments and adjacent lands are common. This class has limited potential for additional development and recreational use due to land suitability and road access constraints. E- Forested river segments are located in forested, sparsely t( oderately populated areas with some roads in the north-centidl part of the state. Predominant land uses include multiple-use forestry, some recreation facilities, seasonal residential, and, within commuting distances of several cities, some year-round residential. Low-intensity recreational uses of these rivers and adjacent lands are common. This class has substantial potential for additional development and recreational use. F. Transition river segments are generally either located within the Minnesota and Mississippi river valleys, or within the middle reaches of several rivers in all regions except the north-central and northeast. Common land uses include forested within riparian strips and mixtures of cultivated, pasture, and forested beyond. Some seasonal and year-round residential development exists, particularly within commuting distance of major cities. The types and intensities of recreational uses within this class vary widely. C. Agricultural river segments are located in well-roaded, intensively cultivated areas of the western and southern regions of the state. Cultivated crops are the predominant land use, with some pasture and occasional feedlots, small municipalities, and small forested areas. Residential development is not common, but some year-round residential use is'Occurring within commuting distances of major cities. Some intensive recreational use occurs on these river segments in particular areas, but overall recreational use of these waters and adjacent lands is low. Although potential exists for additional development and recreation, water quality constraints and competing land uses, particularly agriculture, will inhibit expansions. H. Urban river segments are located within or adjacent to major cities throughout the state. A variety of residential and other urban land uses exists within these segments. Recreational uses of these segments and adjacent lands are common, but vary widely in types and intensities. These segments have potential for additional development, for redevelopment, and cor additional recreational use, although recreational use on some of these segments competes with commercial river traffic. I. Tributary river segments consist of watercourses mapped In the Protected waters Inventory that have not been assigned one of the river classes in items 0 to H. These segments have a wide variety of existing land and recreational A.1,11 a IeK ii;1^ use characteristics. The segments have considerable potential for additional development and recreational use, particularly those located near roads and cities. Subp. 2. Supporting data. Supporting data for shoreland management classifications is supplied by the records and files of the Department of Natural Resources, including maps, lists, and other products of the Protected Waters Inventory; data and publications of the Shoreland Update Project; the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Statewide Outstanding Rivers Inventory; Bulletin No. 25 (1968); and Supplementary Report No. 1 * Shoreland Management Classification System for Public Waters (1976) of the Division of Waters, Minnesota's Lakeshore, part 2, Statistical Summary, Department of Geography, University of Minnesota; and additional supporting data may be supplied, as needed, by the commissioner. These publications are incorporated by reference, are available through the Minitex interlibrary loan system, and are not subject to frequent change. Subp. 3. Classification procedures. Public waters s.hall be classified by the commissioner. The commissioner shall document each classification with appropriate supporting data. A preliminary list of classified public waters shall be submitted to each affected local government. Each affected local government shall be given an opportunity to request a change in the proposed classification. If a local government feels such a change is needed, a written request with supporting data may be submitted to the commissioner for consideration. If a local government requests a change in a proposed shoreland management classification and the public water is located partially within the jurisdiction of another governmental unit, tbe commissioner shall review the recommendations of the other governmental units before making a final decision on the proposed change. . Subp. 4. Reclassification. The commissioner may, as the need arises, reclassify any public water. Also, any local government may at any time submit a resolution and supporting data requesting a change in any shoreland management classification of waters within its jurisdiction to the commissioner for consideration. Subp. 5. Modification and expansion of system. The commissioner may, as the need arises, modify or expand the shoreland classification system to provide specialized shoreland management standards based upon unique characteristics and capabilities of any public waters. MS s 105.485 13 SR 3029 6120.3100 LAND USE DISTRICTS. A-1.12 ■ife F' The development of shorelands of public waters must be controlled by means of land use zoning districts which are designated to be compatible with the classes of public waters in part 6120.3000. Land use zoning districts may be established to provide for: A. the management of areas unsuitable for development due to wet soilSf steep slopes, flooding, inadequate drainage, severe erosion potential, presence of significant historic sites, or any other feature likely to be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents of the community; I?- . I •• • [• c f r % 1^ f i; 4: B. the reservation of areas suitable for residential development from encroachment by commercial and industrial uses; C. the centralization of service facilities for residential areas and enhancement of economic growth for those areas suitable for limited commercial development; D. the management of areas for commercial or industrial uses which, by their nature, require location in shoreland areas; E. the protection of valuable agricultural lands from conversion to other uses; and F. the preservation and enhancement of the quality of water-based recreational use of public waters including provisions for public accesses. MS s 105.485 13 SR 3029 6120.3200 CRITERIA FOR LAND USE ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATION. Subpart 1. Criteria. The land use zoning districts established by local governments must be cased on considerations of: A. preservation of natural areas; B. present ownership and development of shoreland areas; C. shoreland soil types and their engineering capabilities; 0. typographic characteristics; E. vegetative cover; F. in-water physical cha yteristics, values, and A-1.13 ir- h. > V V- constraints; G. recreational use of the surface water; H. road and service center accessibility; I. socioeconomic development needs and plans as they involve water and related land resources; J, the land requirements of industry which, by its nature, requires location in shoreland areas; and K. the necessity to preserve and restore certain areas having significant historical or ecological value. Subp. 2. Designation of zoning districts. Local governments with adopted land use zoning districts in effect on the date of adoption of parts 6120.2500 to 6120.3900 may continue to use the districts until revisions are proposed. When amendments to zoning districts on lakes are considered, local governments, at least for all the shoreland wichin the community of the public water involved and preferably for all shoreland areas within the community, must revise existing zoning district and use provisions to make them substantially compatible with the framework in subpart 4. On a river, zoning districts and use provisions for all shoreland on both sides within the same class in the community must be revised to make them substantially compatible with the framework in subpart 5. If the same r’ver class is contiguous for more than a five-mile segment, onl^ vhe shoreland for a distance of 2.5 miles up and down stream or to the class boundary, if closer, need be evaluated. When an interpretation question arises about whether a specific land use fits within a category in subpart 4 or 5, the question must be resolved through procedures in local government official controls and state statutes. Subp. 3. Land use district descriptions. Land use district descriptions are as follows: A. A special protection district is intended to be used for two basic purposes. The first purpose is to limit and properly manage development in areas that are generally unsuitable for development or uses due to flooding, erosion, limiting soil conditions, steep slopes, or other major physical constraints. A second purpose is to manage and preserve areas with special historical, natural, or biological characteristics. B. A residential district is primarily intended to allow low to medium density seasonal and year-rour.d residential uses on lands suitable for such uses. It is also intended to prevent establishment of various commercial, industrial, and other uses in these areas that cause conflicts or problems for residential uses* Some nonresidential uses with minimal impacts on residential uses are allowed if properly managed under A-1.14 ilM r conditional use procedures C. A high density residential district is intended Cor use on lands with heterogeneous mixes of soils, vegetation, and topography that are not well suited to residential development using standard, lot*block subdivisions. This approach enables such areas to be developed, often even with higher than lot-blocic densities, while also avoiding and preserving unsuitable terrain and soils. Other compatible uses such as residential planned unit development, surface water-oriented commercial, multiple unit sir.gle-family, parks, historic sites, and semipublic, are also allowed, primarily as conditional uses. 0. A water*>oriented commercial district is intended to be used only to provide for existing or future commercial uses adjacent to water resources that are functionally dependent on such close proximity. E. A general use district is intended to be used only Cor lands already developed or suitable for development with concentrated urban, particularly commercial, land uses. It should not generally be used on natural environment lakes or remote river classes. Several other intensive urban uses such as industrial and commercial planned unit development are allowed in this district if handled as conditional uses. Subp. 4. Shoreland classifications ard uses; lakes. For the lake classes, districts, and uses in this subpart, P « permitted uses, C > conditional uses, and N - prohibited uses. A. Lake classes in special protection districts. Uses General Recreational Natural development development environment Forest management Sensitive resource management Agricultural: cropland and pasture Agricultural fsedlots Parks and histor* * '^rtes Extractive use Single residential Mining oC metallic minerals and peat P ? B. Lake classes in residential districts. P Cccc cccc pcccc Uses General Kecreational Natural development development environment Single residential A-1.15 k’ L': f f;' pJ- d- •. •b ■ f' lit f; *.•' •* * Mvr- t^r i-:. 'I; p'li" ■ l^/: -: ,„.. Sftmipublic Parks and historic sites Extractive use Duplex, triplex, quad residential Forest management Mining of metallic minerals and peat C C C Ccc ccc p p p p c p C. Lake classes in high density residential districts. Uses (ieneral Recreational Natural development development environment Residential planned unit developments Single residential *Surface water oriented commercial Semipublic Parks and historic sites Duplex, triplex, quad residential Forest management 0. Lake classes districts. C P C D c p ccc ccc ccc p p p p p p in water-oriented commercial Uses General Recreational Natural development development environment Surface water-oriented commercial *^Commercial planned unit development Public, semipublic • Parks and historic sites Forest management E. Lake class<'<« P Ccc p ccc p c cc p i.n general ust. districts. Uses General Recreational Natural development development environment Commercial **Commer.cial planned unit development Industrial Public, semipublic Extractive use Parks and historic sites Forest management Mining of metallic minerals and peat C C P Cc p cc pcc p c Nccc p *As accessory to a residential planned unit development ** Limited e>mansion of a commercial planned unit A-1.16 development involving up to six additional dwelling uni.ts or sites may be allowed as a permitted use provided the provisions of part 6120.3800r subpart 2, are satisfied Subp. 5. Shoreland classifications and uses; rivers. For the river classes, districts, and uses in this subpart, P * permitted uses, C » conditional uses, and N = prohibited uses. A. River classes in special protection districts. Re- For- Trans- Agri- Tribu Uses mote r •rest management P .isitive resource m* 'ement P Agricultural: cropland and pasture P Agricultural feedlots C V Parks and historic sites C Extractive use c \Single residential c Mining of metallicr-minerals and peat p B. River classes in 1 . Re Uses mote e'V • '■ Single residential P Semipub.l ic C f'Parks and historic sites c Ki- Extractive use *“ Oup ex, triplex, quad c L 1 tadential c r>r Forest management P P P P P P P P P P C Ccc pc cc c p ccc c p cc c c pc ccc Tribu- P C C C Pc cc p ccc p ccc p r- c p c ? c p p p Mining of metallic minerals and peac '-mu C ? P districts. C. River classes, in high density residential Uses Re- For- Trans- Agri- Tribu mote ested ition cultural Urban tary Residential planned unit developments Single residential *Surface water oriented commercial Semipublic Parks and historic sites C P C P c p c p c p c p c ♦ c c cc c c cc cc c c V. c P 1.17 r*: Duplex, triplex, quad residential p P P ? P Forest management p p p P P D. River classes in water-oriented commercial districts. ? ? Uses Re- For- Trans- Agri- Tribu mote ested ition cultural Urban rary Surface water-oriented commercial **Commercial planned unit development Public, semipublic Parks and historic sites Forest management C C C C Cc ccc c pc c pc c pc E. River classes in general use districts. Uses Re- For- Trans- Agri- Tribu mote ested ition cultural Urban tary Commercial **Commercial planned unit development Industrial Public, semipubl Extractive use Parks and histor Forest management c N r Ccccc c Nccc c Nccc cc pcc ccccc Mining of metallic minerals and peat *As accessory to a residential planned unit development Limited expansion of a commercial planned unit development involving up to six additional dwelling units or sites may be allowed as a permitted use provided the provisions of part 6120.3800, subpart 2, are satisfied MS S 105.485 13 SR 3029 6120.3300 ZONING PROVISIONS. Subpart 1. Purpose. To manage the effects of shoreland and water surface crowding, to prevent pollution of surface and ground waters of the state, to provide ample space on lots for^ sewage treatment systems, to minimize flood damages, to maintain property values, to maintain historic values of significant historic sites, and to maintain natural characteristics of A-1.18 k shorelands and adjacent water areas/ shoreland controls must regulate lot sizes/ placement of structures, and alterations of shoreland areas. Subp. 2. Residential lot size. All single, duplex, triplex, and quad residential lots created after the date of enactment of the local shoreland controls must meet or exceed the dimensions presented in subparts 2a and 2b, and the following: A. Lots must not be occupied by any more dwelling units than indicated in subparts 2a and 2b. Residential subdivisions with dwelling unit densities exceeding those in the tables in subparts 2a and 2b can only be allowed if designed and approved as residential planned unit developments under part 6120.3800. Only land above the ordinary high water level of public waters can be used to meet lot area standards, and lot width standards must be met at both the ordinary high water level and at the building line. The sewer lot area dimensions in subpart 2a, items D to F can only be used if publicly owned sewer system service is available to the property. B. On natural environment lakes, subdivisions of duplexes, triplexes, and quads must also meet the following standards: (1) Each building must be set back at least 200 feet from the ordinary high water level. (2) Each building must have common sewage treatment and water systems that serve all dwelling units in the building. (3) Watercraft docking facilities for each lot must be centralized in«one location and serve all dwelling units in the building. (4) No more than 25 percent of a lake's shoreline can be in duplex, triplex, or quad developments. C. One guest cottage may be allowed in local controls on lots meeting or exceeding the duplex dimensions presented in subparts 2a and 2b if the controls also require all of the following standards to be met: (1) For lots exceeding the minimum lot dimensions of duplex lots, the guest cottage must be located within the smallest duplex-sized lot that could be created including the principal dwelling unit. (2) A guest cottage* must not cover more than 700 square feet of land surface and must not exceed 15 feet in height. • A-1.19 ii h- u i If- fr"Wr.K-I t;*'- %'''■"Mi--' ^tT^(r; < itv- ■V H' (3) A guest cottage must be located or designed to reduce its visibility as viewed from public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks, color, or other means acceptaole to the local unit of government, assuming summer leaf-on conditions. D. Lots of record in the office of the county recorder on the date of enactment of local shoreland controls that do not meet the requirements of items A to E and subparts 2a and 2b may be allowed as building sites without variances from lot size requirements provided the use is permitted in the zoning district, the lot has been in separate ownership from abutting lands at all times since it became substandard, was created compliant with official controls in effect at the time, and sewage treatment and setback requirements of the shoreland controls are met. Necessary variances from setback requirements must be obtained before any use, sewage treatment system, or building permits are issued for the lots. In evaluating all the variances, boards of adjustment shall consider sewage treatment and water supply capabilities or constraints of the lots and shall deny the variances if adequate facilities cannot be provided* If, in a group of two or more contiguous lots under the same ownership, any individual lot does not meet the requirements of items A to E and subparts 2a and 2b, the lot must not be considered as a separate parcel of land for the purposes of sale or development. The lot must be combined with the one or more contiguous lots so they equal one or more parcels of land, each meeting the requirements of items A to E and subparts 2a and 2b as much as possible. Local shoreland controls may set a minimum size for nonconforming lots or impose their restrictions on their development. E. If allowed by local governments, lots intended as controlled accesses to public waters or recreation areas for use by owners of nonripariA lots within subdivisions must meet or exceed the following standards: (1) They must meet the width and size for residential lots, and be suitable for the intended uses of controlled access lots. If docking, mooring, or over-water storage of watercraft is to be allowed at a controlled access lot, then the width of the lot must be increased by the percent of the requirements for riparian residential lots for each watercraft provided for by covenant beyond six, consistent with the following table: Controlled Access Lot Frontage Requirements Ratio of lake size to shore length (acres/mile) Lees than 100 100-200 201-300 Required increase in frontage (percent) 25 20 15 A-1.20 fr i ■ •* ^ ! ’ if- KS--iitea 301-400 10 Greater than 400 5 (2) They must be jointly owned by all purchasers of lots in the subdivision or by all purchasers of nonriparian lots in the subdivision who are provided riparian access rights on the access lot. (3) Covenants or other equally effective legal instruments must be developed that specify which lot owners have authority to use the access lot and what activities are allowed. The activities may include watercraft launching^ loading, storage, beaching, mooring, or docking. They must also include other outdoor recreational activities that do not significantly conflict with general public use of the public water or the enjoyment of normal property rights by adjacent property owners. Examples of the nonsignificant conflict activities include swimming, sunbathing, or picnicking. The covenants must limit the total number of vehicles allowed to be parked and the total number of watercraft allowed to be continuously moored, docked, or stored over water, and must require centralization of all common facilities and activities in the most suitable locations on the lot to minimize topographic and vegetation alterations. They must also require all parking areas, storage buildings, and other facilities to be screened by vegetation or topography as much as practical from view from the public water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions. Subp. 2a. Lot area and width standards for single, duplex, triplex, and quad residential development; lake classes. The lot area and width standards for single, duplex, triplex, and quad residential developments for the lake classes are: A. Natural Environment, no sewer: Lot area (square feet) Riparian lots Nonriparian lots Single 80,000 80,000 Duplex 120,000 160,000 Triplex 160,000 240,000 Quad 200,000 320,000 Lot width (feet) Single 200 200 Duplex 300 400 Triplex 400 600 Quad 500 800 B.Recreational Development,no sewer: Lot area (square feet) Riparian Nonriparian A-1.21 lots lots Single 40,000 40,000 Duplex 80,000 80,000 Triplex 120,000 120,000 Quad 160,000 160,000 Lot width (feet) Single 150 150 Duplex 225 265 Triplex 300 375 Quad 375 490 Lot ar«a (square feet) , no sewer Riparian lots Nonriparian lots Single Duplex Triplex Quad 20,000 40.000 60.000 40.000 80.000 120,000 160,000 Single 100 150 Duplex 180 265 eMTriplexe260375 Quad 340 490 0.Natural Environment,sewer: } Lot area (square feet) Riparian lots Nonriparian lots Single 40,000 20,000 Duplex 70,000 35,000 Triplex 100,000 52,000 Quad 130,000 65,000 Lot width (feet) Single 125 125 Duplex 225 220 Triplex 325 315 Quad 425 410 Lot area (square feet) Riparian lots Nonriparian 1 ots igle 20,000 15,000 A-I.22 ii I' Wit.' t-' Duplex 35,000 26,000 Triplex 50,000 38,000 Quad 65,000 49,000 Lot width (feet) Single 75 75 Duplex 135 135 Triplex 195 190 Quad 255 245 F.General Development, sewer: Lot area (square feet) Riparian lots Nonriparian Iocs Single 15,000 Duplex 26,000 Triplex 38-000 Quad 49,000 Lot width (feet) 10,000 17.500 25,000 32.500 Single Duplex Triplex Quad 75 135 195 255 75 135 190 245 Subp. 2b. Lot width standards for single, duplex, triplex, and quad residential development; river classes. The Icc width standards for single, duplex, triplex, and quad residential development for river classes are: Lot width (feet) Single Duplex Triplex Quad ReForTransAgriUrban 6 1 mote ested ition cultural Tributary No sewer Sewer 300 200 250 150 100 75 450 300 375 225 150 115 600 400 500 300 200 150 750 500 625 375 250 190 Subp. 3. Placement and height of structures and facilities on lots* When more than one setback requirement applies to a site, structures and facilities must be located to meet all setbacks. The placement of structures and other facilities on all lots must be managed by shoreland controls as follows: A. Structure setbacks. The following minimum setbacks presented in the following table for each class of public waters apply to all structures, except water**oriented accessory structures and facilities that are managed according to item Ht (1) Structure setback standards A-1.23 fUt,. ■. F:' Class Ordinary high water level setback {feet) Unsewered Sewered Setback from top of bluff (feet) Natural environment Recreational development General development Remote river segments Forested and transition river segments Agriculturalr urbanr and tributary river segments 150 100 75 200 150 75 50 200 30 30 30 30 150 150 100 (2) Exceptions to structure setback standards in subitem (1). Where structures exist on the adjoining lots on both sides of a proposed building site, structure setbacks may be altered without a variance tc conform to the adjoining setbacks provided the proposed building site is not located in a shore impact zone or in a bluff impact zone. B* .iigh water elevations. In addition to the setback reguirements of item A, local shoreland controls must regulate placement of structures in relation to high water elevation. Where state-approved, local flood plain management controls exist, structures must be placed at an elevation consistent witn the controls. Where these controls do not exist, the elevation to which the lowest floor, including basement, is placed or flood-proofed must be determined as follows: (1) For lakes, by jjiacing the lowest floor at a level at least three feet above the highest Known water level, or three feet above the ordinary high water level, whichev*er is higher. In instances where lakes have a history of extreme water level fluctuations or have no outlet capable of keeping the lake level at or below a level three feet above the ordinary high water level, local^controls may require structures to be placed higher. (2) For rivers and stiej'.. by placing the lowest floor at least thfee feet above the flood of record, if data are available. If data are not available, by placing the lowest floor at least three feet above the ordinary nigh water level, or by conducting a technical evaluation to determine effects of proposed construction upon flood stages and flood flows and to establish the flood protection elevation. Under all three approaches, technical evaluations roust be done consistent with parts 6120.5000 to 6120.6200 governing the management of flood plain areas. If more than one approach is used, the highest flood protection elevation determined must be used for placing structures and other facilities. (3) Water-oriented accessory structures may have the lowest floor placed lower than the elevation determined in this subpart if the structure is constructed of flood-resistant materials to the elevation, electrical and mechanical equipment is placed above the elevation and, if long duration flooding is A-1.24 tr nv'V.-- VM-M i I? 60- - te im.j}&-'fc'- livW anticipatedr the structure is built to withstand ice action and wind-driven waves and debris. C. Bluff impact zones. Structures and accessory facilities, except stairways and landings, must not be placed within bluff impact zones. 0. Steep slopes. Local government officials must evaluate possible soil erosion impacts and development visibility from public waters before issuing a permit for construction of sewage treatment systems, roads, driveways, structures, or other improvements on steep slopes. When determined necessary, conditions must be attached to issued permits to prevent erosion and to preserve existing vegetation screening of structures, vehicles, and other facilities as viewed from the surface of public waters, assuming summer, leaf-on vegetation. E. Proximity to unplatted cemeteries and significant historic sites. No structure may be placed nearer than 30 feet from the boundary of an unplatted cemetery protected under Minnesota Statutes, section 307.08, unless necessary approval i obtained from the Minnesota State Archaeologist's Office. No structure may be placed on a significant historic site in a manner that affects the values of the site unless adequate information about the site has been removed and documented in a public repository. F. Proximity to roads and highways. No structure may be placed nearer than 50 feet from the right-of-way line of any federal, state, or county highway; or 20 feet from the right-of-way line of any town road, public street, or others not classified. G. Height. lAll structures in residential districts in cities, except churches and nonre ;idential agricultural structures, must not exceed 25 feet in height. H. Accessory structures and facilities. All accessory structures and facilities, except those that are water-oriented, must meet or exceed structure setbacic standards. If allowed by local government controls, each residential lot may have one water-oriented accessory structure or facility located closer to public waters than the structure setback if all of the following standards are met: (1) The structure or facility must not exceed ten feet in height, exclusive of safety rails, and cannot occupy an area greater than 250 square feet. Detached decks must not exceed eight feet above grade at any point. (2) The setback of the structure or facility from the ordinary high water level must be at least ten feet. A-1.25 T j- tf- it'' I I Hr ir- K, Ifni'S- V-r^' ■ (3) The structure or facility must be treated to reduce visibility as viewed from public waters and adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks, color, or other means acceptable to the local unit of government, assuming summer, leaf->on conditions. (4) The roof may be used as a deck with safety rails, but must not be enclosed or used as a storage area. (5) The structure or facility must not be designed or used for human habitation and must not contain water supply or sewage treatment facilities. (6) As an alternative for general development and recreational development waterbodies, water-oriented accessory structures used solely fur watercraft storage, and including storage of related boating and water-oriented sporting equipment, may occupy an area up to 400 square feet provided the maximum width of the structure is 20 feet as measured parallel to the configuration of the shoreline. (7) Any accessory structures or facilities not meeting the above criteria, or any additional accessory structures or facilities must meet or exceed structure setback standards. I. Stairways, lifts, and landings. Stairways and lifts are the preferred alternative to major topographic alterations for achieving access up and down bluffs and steep slopes to shore areas. Stairways and lifts must meet the following design requirements: s • / (1) Stairways and lifts must not exceed four feet in width on residential lots. Wider stairways may be used for commercial properties,‘^public open-space recreational properties, and planned unit developments. (2) Landings for stairways and lifts on residential lots must not exceed 32 square feet in area. Landings larger than 32 square feet may be used for commercial properties, public open-space recreational properties, and planned unit developments. (3) Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or landings. (4) Stairways, lifts, and landings may be either constructed above the ground on posts or pilings, or placed into the ground, provided they are designed and built in a manner that ensures control of soil erosion. (5) Stairways, lifts, and landings must be located in the most visually inconspicuous portions of lots, as viewed from the surface of the public water assuming summer, . A-1.26 f:- leaf'On conditions^ whenever practical. (6) Facilities such as ramps, lifts, or mobility paths for physically handicapped persons are also allowed for achieving access to shore areas, provided that the dimensional and performance standards of subitems (1) to (5) are complied with in addition to the requirements of chapter 1340. J. Decks. Except as provided in item H, decks must meat the structure setback standards. Decks chat do not meet setback requirements from public waters may be allowed without variance to be added to structures existing on the date the shoreland structure setbacks were established by ordinance, if all of the following criteria and standards are met: (1) a thorough evaluation of the property and structure reveals no reasonable location for a deck meeting or exceeding the existing ordinary high water level setback of the structure; (2) the deck encroachment toward the ordinary high water level does not exceed 15 percent of the existing shoreline setback of the structure from the ordinary high water level or does not encroach closer than 30 feet, whichever is more restrictive; and (3) the deck is constructed primarily of wood, and is not roofed or screened. Subp. 4. Shoreland alterations. Vegetative alterations and excavations or grading and filling necessary for the construction of structures and sewage treatment systems under validly issued permits for these facilities are exempt from the vegetative alteration standards in this subpart and separate permit requirements fo& grading and filling. However, the grading and filling conditions of this subpart must be met for issuance of permits for structures and sewage treatment systems. Alterations of vegetation and topography must be controlled by local governments to prevent erosion into public waters, fix nutrients, preserve shoreland aesthetics, preserve historic values, prevent bank slumping, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. Public roads and parking areas, as regulated by subpart 5, are exempt from the provisions of this part. A. Removal or alterations of vegetation, except for forest management or agricultural uses as provided for in subparts 7 and 9, is allowed according to the following standards: (1) Intensive vegetation clearing within the shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes is not allowed. Intensive vegetation clearing outside of these areas is allowed if the activity is consistent with the forest management standards in subpart 8. A.1.27 r (2) Limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees to accommodate the placement of stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, livestock watering areas, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted water-oriented accessory structures or facilities, as well as providing a view to the water from the principal dwelling site, in shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes is allowed, provided that: (a) the screening of structures, vehicles, or other facilities as virwed from the water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced; (b) along rivers, existing shading of water surfaces is preserved; and (c) the above provisions are not applicable to the removal of trees, limbs, or branches that are dead, diseased, or pose safety hazards. (3) Use of fertilizer and pesticides in the shoreland management district must be done in such a way as to minimize runoff into the shore impact zone or public water oy the use of earth, vegetation, or both. a. Before grading or filling on steep slopes or within shore or bluff impact zones involving the movement of more than ten cubic yards of material or anywhere else in a shoreland area involving movement of more than 50 cubic yards or material, it must be established by local official permit issuance that all of the following conditions will be met. The following conditions must also be considered during subdivision, variance, building permit, and other conditional use permit reviews. (1) Before authorizing any grading or filling activity in any type 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 wetland, local officials must consider how extensively the proposed activity would affect the following functional qualities of the wetland: retention; (a) sediment and pollutant trapping and reduce flood damage; (b) storage of surface runoff to prevent or (c) fish and wildlife habitat; (d) recreational use; (e) shoreline or bank stabilization; or (f) noteworthiness, including special qualities such as historic significance, critical habitat for. A.1.28 fS JS V. h'- (} .K 4^V- K li>^ .? f % 'yk / k^ Ift jf it' (;■ h'-i.••S' endangered plants and animalsr or others. This evaluation must also include a determination of whether the wetland alteration being proposed requires permits^ reviews# or approvals by other local, state, or federal agencies such as a watershed district, the Minnesota Oepartm-nt of Natural Resources, or the United States Army Corps of Engineers. (2) Alterations must be designed and conducted in a manner that ensures only the smallest amount of bare ground is exposed fcr the shortest time possible. (3) Mulches or similar materials must be used, where necessary, for temporary bare soil coverage, and a permanent vegetation cover must be established as soon as possible. (4) Methods to minimize soil erosion and to trap sediments before they reach any surface water feature must be used. (5) Altered areas must be stabilized to acceptable erosion control standards consistent with the field office technical guides of the local soil and water conservation districts and the United States Soil Conservation Service. (6) Fill or excavated material must not be placed in a manner that creates an unstable slope. (7) Plans to place fill or excavated material on steep slopes must be reviewed by qualified professionals for continued slope stability and must not create finished slopes of 30 percent or greater. (8) Fill^or excavated material must not be placed in bluff impact zones. (9) Any alterations below the ordinary high water level of public waters must first be authorized by the commissioner under Minnesota Statutes, section 105.42. (10) Alterations of topography must only be allowed if they are accessory to permitted or conditional uses and do not adversely affect adjacent or nearby properties. (11) Placement of natural rock riprap, including associated grading of the shoreline and placement of a filter blanket, is permitted if the finished slope does not exceed three feet horizontal to one foot vertical, the landward extent of the riprap is within ten feet of the ordinary high water level, and the height of the riprap above the ordinary high water level does not exceed three feet. C. Connections to public waters. Excavations where A-1.29 I. t % ■ h !• • •( r i^•» the intended purpose is connection to a public water, such as boat slips, canals, lagoons, and harbors, must be controlled by local shoreland controls. Permission for excavations may be given only after the commissioner has approved the proposed connection to public waters. Subp. 5. Placement and design of roads, driveways, and parking areas. Public and private roads, driveways, and parking areas must be designed to take advantage of natural vegetation and topography to achieve maximum screening from view from public waters. They must be designed and constructed to minimize and control erosion to public waters consistent with the field office technical guides of the local soil and water conservation district, or other applicable technical materials. A. Roads, driveways, and parking areas must meet structure setbacks and must not be placed within bluff and shore impact zones, when other reasonable and feasible placement alternatives exist. If no alternatives exist, they may be placed within these areas, and must be designed to minimize adverse impacts. B. Public and private watercraft access ramps, approach roads, and access-related parking areas may be placed within shore Impact zones provided the vegetative screening and erosion control conditions of this subpart are met. For private facilities, the grading and filling provisions of subpart 4, item B, must also be met. Subp. 6. [Repealed, 13 SR 3029] Subp. 7. Agricultural use standards. The agricultural use standards for shoreland areas are contained in items A, B, C, and 0. A. The shore impact zone for parcels with permitted agricultural land uses is equal to a line parallel to and 50 feet from the ordinary high water level. B. General cultivation farming, grazing, nurseries, horticulture, truck farming, sod farming, and wild crop harvesting are permitted uses if steep slopes and shore and bluff impact zones are maintained in permanent vegetation or operated under an approved conservation plan (Resource Management Systems) consistent with the field office technical guides of the local soil and water conservation districts or the United States Soil Conservation Service. C. Animal feedlots as defined by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, where allowed by zoning district designations, must be reviewed as conditional uses and must meet the following standards: (1) Mew feedlots must not be located in the A-1.30 i'v II"' shoreland of watercourses or in bluff impact zones and must meet a minimum setback of 300 feet from the ordinary high water level of all public waters basins. (2) Modifications or expansions to existing feedlots that are located within 300 feet of the ordinary high water level or within a bluff impact zone are allowed if they do not further encroach into the existing ordinary high water level setback or encroach on bluff impact zones. (3) A certificate of compliance^ interim permit, or animal feedlot permit, when required by parts 7020.0100 to 7020.1900, must be obtained by the owner or operator of an animal feedlot. 0. Use of fertilizer, pesticides, or animal wastes within shorelands must be done in such a way as to minimize impact on the shore impact zone or public water by proper application or use of earth or vegetation.' Subp. 8. Forest management standards. The harvesting of timber and associated reforestation or conversion of forested use to a nonforested use must be conducted consistent with the following standards: A. Timber harvesting and associated reforestation must be conducted consistent with the provisions of the Minnesota Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment-Forestry and the provisions of Water Quality in Forest Management "Best Management Practices in Minnesota." B. If allowed by local governments, forest land conversion to another use requires issuance of a conditional use permit and adherence to the following standards: (1) shore and bluff impact zones must not be intensively cleared of vegetation; and (2) an erosion and sediment control plan is developed and approve, by the local soil and water conservation district before issuance of a conditional use permit for the conversion. C. Use of fertilizer, pesticides, or animal wastes within shorelands must be done in such a way as to minimize impact on the shore impact zone or public water by proper application or use of earth or vegetation. 8ubp. 9. Extractive use standards. Processing machinery must be located consistent with setback standards for structures from ordinary high water levels of public waters and from bluffs. An extractive use site development and restoration plan must be developed, approved by the local government, and A-1.31 i j-ii J. .av. h % 'h ■f ’ ^ :iV 'rT y-'. fi' r- followed over the course of operation of the site. The plan must address dust, noise, possible pollutant discharges, hou's and duration of operation, and anticipated vegetation and topographic alterations. It must also identify actions to be taken during operation to mitigate adverse environmental impacts, particularly erosion, and must clearly explain how the site will be rehabilitated after extractive activities end. Subp. 10. Standards for commercial, industrial, public, and semipublic uses. Surface water-oriented commercial uses and industrial, public, or semipublic uses with similar needs to have access to and use of public waters may be located on parcels or lots with frontage on public waters. Uses without water-oriented needs must be located on lots or parcels without public waters frontage, or, if located on lots or parcels with public waters frontage, must either be set back double the normal ordinary high water level setback or be substantially screened from view from the water by vegetation or topography, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions. Those with water-oriented needs must meet the following standards: A. In addition to meeting impervious coverage limits, setbacks, and other zoning standards presented elsewhere in parts 6120.2500 to 6120.3900, the uses must be designed to incorporate topographic and vegetative screening of parking areas and structures. B. Uses that require short-term watercraft mooring for patrons must centralize these facilities and design them to avoid obstructions of navigation and to be the minimum size necessary to meet the need. C. Uses that depend on patrons arriving by watercraft may use signs and lighting to convey needed information to the public, subject to the*following general standards: (1) No advertising signs or supporting facilities for signs may be placed in or upon public waters. Signs conveying information or safety messages may be placed in or on public waters by a public authority or under a permit issued by the county sheriff. (2) Signs may be placed, when necessary, within the shore impact zone if they are designed and sized to be the minimum necessary to convey needed information. They must only convey the location and name of the establishment and the general types of goods or services available. The signs must not contain other detailed information such as product brands and prices, must not be located higher than ten feet above the ground, and must not exceed 32 square feet in size. If Illuminated by artificial lights, the lights must be shielded or directed to prevent illumination out across public waters. (3) Other outside lighting may be located within A-1.32 {i} - ■■I L the shore impact zone or over public waters if it is used primarily to illuminate potential safety hazards and is shielded or otherwise directed to prevent direct illumination out across public waters. This does not preclude use of navigational lights. Subp. 11. Stormwater management. Local governments must consider proper stormwater management in all reviews« approvals, and permit issuances under shoreland management controls adopted under parts 6120.2S00 to 6120.3900. The following general and specific standards must be incorporated into local government shoreland management controls and their administration. A. The following are general standards: (1) When possible, existing natural drainageways, wetlands, and vegetated soil surfaces must be used to convey, store, filter, and retain stormwater runoff before discharge to public waters. (2) Development must be planned and conducted in a manner that will minimize the extent of disturbed areas, runoff velocities, erosion potential, and reduce and delay runoff volumes. Disturbed areas must be stabilized and protected as soon as possible and facilities or methods used to retain sediment on the site. (3) When development density, topographic features, and soil and vegetation conditions are not sufficient to adequately handle stormwater runoff using natural features and vegetation, various types of constructed facilities such as diversions, settling basins, skimming devices, dikes, waterways, and ponds may be used. Preference must be given to designs using surface drainage, vegetation, and infiltration rather than buried pipes and man-made materials and facilities. B. The following are specific standards: (1) Impervious surface coverage of lots must not exceed 25 percent of the lot area. (2) When constructed facilities are used for stormwater management, they must be designed and installed consistent with the field office technical guide of the local soil and water conservation districts. (3) New constructed stormwater outfalls to public waters must provide for filtering or settling of suspended solids and skimming of surface debris before discharge. Subp. 12. Mining of metallic minerals and peat, as defined by Minnesota Statutes, sections 93.44 to 93.51. Mining of metallic minerals and peat shall be.a permitted use provided the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, sections 93.44 to 93.51, are A-1.33 fc. L. . . ■ w h a: t I ev d: i*:^: -‘IPt '€;■ 41 ’ satisfied. MS s 105.485 13 SR 3029 6120.3400 SANITARY PROVISIONS. Subpart 1. [Repealedr 13 SR 3029] Subp. 2. Water supply. Any public or private supply of water for domestic purposes must meet or exceed standards for water quality of the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Private wells must be located, construcced, maintained, and sealed in accordance with or in a more thorough manner than the Water Well Construction Code of the Minnesota Department of Health. Subp. 3. Sewage treatment. Any premises used for human occupancy must be provided with an adequate method of sewage treatment. available. A. Publicly-owned sewer systems must be used where B. All private sewage treatment systems must meet or exceed applicable rules of the Minnesota Department of Health, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, specifically chapter 708fl for individual sewage treatment systems, and any applicable local government standards. C. On-site sewage treatment systems must be set back from the ordinary high water level in accordance with the following table: Sewage Treatment System Setback Standards Class Natural environment Recreational development General development Remote river segments Forested river segments Transition river segments Agricultural river segments Urban and tributary river segments Setback from ordinary high water level (feet) 150 75 50 150 100 100 75 75 D. Local governments must develop and implement programs to identify and upgrade sewage treatment systems that are inconsistent with the sewage treatment system design criteria identified in item B, exclusive of the appropriate A-1.34 setback from the ordinary high water level in item C. These programs must require reconstruction of existing nonconforming sewage systems whenever a permit or variance of any type is required for any improvement on, or use of, the property, and must include at least one of the following approaches: (1) a systematic review of existing records to determine which systems in the jurisdiction are nonconforming and requiring reconstruction when practicable; (2) a systematic on-site inspection program including all properties where adequate record of conformances does not exist, identifying nonconforming or illegal systems and requiring reconstruction when appropriate; (3) a notification or education program that is oriented toward convincing substantial numbers of property owners evaluate their sewage systems and voluntarily upgrade the sewage treatment system, if nonconforming; or commissioner. (4) other programs found to be acceptable to the MS S 105.485 13 SR 3029 6120.3500 SUBDIVISION PROVISIONS. Subpart 1. Land suitability. Each lot created through subdivision must be suitable in its natural state for the proposed use with minimal alteration. Suitability analysis by the local unit of government shall consider susceptibility to flooding# existence of •wetlands, soil and rock formations with severe limitations for development, severe erosion potential, steep top<pgraphy, inadequate water supply or sewage treatment capabilities, near-shore aquatic conditions unsuitable for water-based recreation, important fish and wildlife habitat, presence of significant historic sites, or any other feature of the natural land likely to be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of future residents of the proposed subdivision or*of the community. Subp. 2. Platting. All subdivisions that create five or more lots or parcels that are 2-1/2 acres or less in size must be processed by local governments as plats in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, chapter 505. Local governments must not record parcels or issue building or sewage permits for lots created after enactment of official controls under parts 6120.2500 to 6120.3900 that are not part of officially approved subdivisions. Subp. 3. Consistency with other controls. Subdivisions U"-.p- P A-1.35 hv [•I r I.- k:'- must conform to ail other official controls adopted by local 90vernments under parts 6120.2500 to 6120.3900. Local governments must not approve subdivisions that are designed so variances from one or more standards in official controls would be needed to use the lots for their intended purpose. In areas not served by publicly owned sewer and water systems, subdivisions must not be approved by local governments unless domestic water supply is available and soil absorption sewage treatment can be provided for every lot. A lot shall meet the minimum lot size in part 6120.3300, subparts 2a and 2b, including at least a minimum contiguous lawn area, that is free of limiting factors (location and type of water supply, soil type, depth to groundwater or impervious layer, slope, flooding potential, and other limiting factors), sufficient for the construction of two standard soil treatment systems. Lots that would require use of holding tanks must not be approved. Subp. 4. Information requirements. Subdivision controls must require submission of adequate information to make a determination of land suitability under subpart 1. The information shall include at least the following: A. topographic contours at ten-foot intervals or less from United States Geological Survey maps or more accurate sources, showing limiting site characteristics; B. the surface water features required in Minnesota Statutes, section 303.02, subdivision 1, to be shown on plats, obtained from United States Geological Survey quadrangle topographic maps or more accurate sources; C. adequate soils information to determine suitability for building and on-site sewage treatment capabilities for every lot from the most current existing sources or from field investigations such as soil borings, percolation tests, or other methods; D. information regarding adequacy of domestic water supply: extent of anticipated vegetation and topographic alterations; near-shore aquatic conditions, including depths, types of bottom sediments, and aquatic vegetation; and proposed methods for controlling stormwater runoff and erosion, both during and after construction activities; and E. location of 100-year flood plain areas from existing maps or data. Subp. 5. Dedications. If local governments require land or easement dedications, they must provide easements over natural drainage or ponding areas for management of stormwater anu significant wetlands. MS s 105.485 A-1.36 - - F f’ f'-. 13 SR 3029 6120.3600 [Repealed, 13 SR 3029] 6120.3700 [Repealed, 13 SR 3029] 6120.3800 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. Subpart 1. Scope of planned unit development provisions. Local governments must consider incorporating, with approval of the commissioner, provisions into shoreland management controls to allow planned unit developments. The provisions may allow planned unit developments for new projects on undeveloped land, redevelopment of previously built sites, or conversions of existing buildings and land. The provisions must be consistent with standards in this part. During the period between adoption of parts 6120.2500 to 6120.3900 and adoption of local government official controls meeting the planned unit development standards in part 6120.3800, preliminary plans for each planned unit development must be reviewed for consistency with part 6120.3600 and approved by the commissioner before final local government approval. Subp. 2. Land use district designation. If local governments allow planned unit developments, the land use districts in which they are an allowable conditional use must be identified in their official controls and on a zoning map. Designation of the districts must be based on consideration of the criteria in part 6120.3200 and the following criteria: A. existing recreational use of the surface waters and likely increases in»use associated with planned unit developments; density; B. physical and aesthetic impacts of increased C. suitability of lands for the planned unit development approach; D. level of current development in the area; and lands. E. amounts and types of ownership of undeveloped Expansions to existing conunercial planned unit developments involving up to six dwelling units or sites, unless the density determined under subpart 6, item A is exceeded, may be allowed as permitted uses under standards developed by local units of government. The date of effect of official controls adopted by each local government under this part must be the base date for A-1.37 r.,. i; I. determination of expansions. Expansions exceeding these limits must be processed as conditional uses and meet the standards in this part. Subp. 3. Information requirements. Provisions for submission of adequate information by project proponents must be included in official controls. The provisions must include at least the following: A. a site plan for the project showing property boundaries* surface water features* existing and proposed structures* sewage treatment systems* topographic contours at ten-foot intervals or less* and other facilities; and B. documents that explain how the project is designed and will function. These ordinarily include covenants that require membership in a property owners association* various easements* a concept statement describing the project* floor plans for structures, and various other drawings or plans. Subp. 4. Dwelling unit or site density evaluation. Proposed new or expansions to existing planned unit developments must be evaluated using the following procedures and standards: A. The project parcel must be divided into tiers by locating one or more lines approximately parallel to a line that Identifies the ordinary high water level at the following intervals* proceeding landward: Shoreland Tier Dimensions Unsewered Sewered (feet)(feet) 200 200 267 200 267 267 400 320 300 300 General development lakes - first tier General development lakes - second and additional tiers Recreational development lakes Matural environment lakes All river classes B. The area within each tier is next calculated* excluding all wetlands* bluffs, or land below the ordinary high water level of public waters. This area is then subjected to either the residential (subpart 5) or commercial (subpart 6) planned unit development density evaluation steps to arrive at an allowable number of dwelling units or sites. Subp. 5. Residential planned unit development density evaluation steps and design criteria. The density evaluation steps and design criteria for residential planned unit developments are contained in items A to D. A. The area within each tier is divided by the single residential lot size standard for lakes or* for rivers, the single residential lot width standard times the tier depth A-1.38 ,^r . r . U-'. unless the local unit of government ha- . -cified an alternative minimum lot size for rivers which shall then be used to yield a base density of dwelling units or sites for each tier. Proposed locations and numbers of dwelling units or sites for the residential planned unit development are then compared with these data and map of the evaluation. Local governments may allow some dwelling unit or site density increases for residential planned unit developments above the densities determined in the evaluation if all dimensional standards in part 6120.3300 are met or exceeded. Maximum density increases may only be allowed if all design criteria in subpart S, item B, are also met or exceeded. Increases in dwelling unit or site densities must not exceed the maximums in tne following table. Allowable densities may be transferred from any tier to any other tier further from the shoreland water body or watercourse, but must not be transferred to any other tier closer. Maximum Allowable Dwelling Unit Or Site Density Increases For Residential Planned Unit Developments Density evaluation tiers First Second Third Fourth Fifth Maximum density increase within each tier (percent) 50 100 200 200 200 B. The design criteria are: (1) All residential planned unit developments must contain at least five dwelling units or sites. ' (2) Residential planned unit developments must contain open space meeting all of the following criteria: (a) At least 50 percent of the total project area must be preserved as open space. (b) Dwelling units or sites, road rights-of-way, or land covered by road surfaces, parking areas, or structures, except water-oriented accessory structures or facilities, are developed areas and should not be included in the computation of minimum open space. (c) Open space must include areas with physical characteristics unsuitable for development in their natural state, and areas containing significant historic sites or unplatted cemeteries. (d) Open space may include outdoor recreational facilities for use by owners of the dwelling units or sites, or the public. A (e) The shore impact zone, based on normal A-1.39 & i;V •7: Structure setbacks^ must be included as open space. At least 50 percent of the shore impact zone area of existing developments or at least 70 percent of the shore impact zone area of new developments must be preserved in their natural or existing state. (f) Open space must not include commercial facilities or uses, but may ,Dntain water-oriented accessory structures or facilities. (g) The appearance of open space areas, including topography, vegetation, and allowable uses, must be preserved by use of restrictive deed covenants, permanent easements, public dedication and acceptance, or other equally effective and permanent means. (h) Open space may include subsurface sewage treatment systems if the use of the space is restricted to avoid adverse impacts on the systems. (3) Centralization and design of facilities and structures must be done according to the following standards: (a) Residential planned unit developments must be connected to publicly owned water supply anu sewer systems, if available. On-site water supply and sewage treatment systems must be centralized and designed and installed to meet or exceed applicable standards or rules of the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. On'-site sewage treatment systems must be located on the most suitable areas of the development, and sufficient lawn area free of limiting factors must be provided for a replacement soil treatment system for each sewage system. (b) Dwelling .nits or sites must be clustered into one or more groups and located on suitable areas of the development. They must be designed and located to meet or exceed the following dimensional standards for the relevant shoreland classification; setback from the ordinary high water level, elevation above the surface water features, and maximum height. Setbacks from the ordinary high water level must be increased for developments with density increases. Maximum density increases may only be allowed if structure setbacks from the ordinary high water level are increased to at least 50 percent greater than the minimum setback, or the impact on the waterbody is reduced an equivalent amount through vegetative management, topography, or additional means acceptable to the local unit of government and the setback is at least 25 percent greater than the minimum setback. (c) Shore recreation facilities, including but not limited to swimming areas, docks, and watercraft mooring areas and launching ramps must be centralized and located in areas suitable for them. Evaluation of suitability must include A-1.40 consideration of land slope# water depth, vegetation, soils, depth to groundwater and bedrock, or other relevant factors. The number of spaces provided for continuous beaching, mooring, or docking of watercraft must not exceed one for each allowable dwelling unit or site in the first tier. Launching ramp facilities, including a small dock for loading and unloading equipment, may be provided for use by occupants of dwellinn units or sites located in other tiers. ?-• t ' fi: - ■r L'i‘ fr ?■ i-. ■' 1-- (d) Structures, parking areas, and other facilities must be treated to reduce visibility as viewed from public waters and adjacent shoreiands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks, color, or other means acceptable to the local unit of government, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions. (e) Water-oriented accessory structures and facilities may be allowed if they meet or exceed design standards contained in part 6120.3300, subpart 3, item H, and are centralized. (f) Accessory structures and facilities mav be allowed if they meet or exceed standards in part 6120.3300,* subpart 3, item H, and are centralized. (4) Erosion control and stormwater management for residential planned unit developments must: (a) Be designed, and their construction managed, to minimize the likelihood of serious erosion occurring either during or after construction. This must be accomplished by limiting the amount and length of \me of bare ground* exposure. Temporary ground covers, sediment entrapment facilities, vegetated buffer strips, or other appropriate techniques must be used to minimize erosion impacts on surface water features. Erosion control plans approved by a soil and water conservation district may be required if project size and site physical characteristics warrant. (b) Be designed and constructed to effectively manage reasonably expected quantities and 'qualities of stormwater runoff. C. Administration and maintenance requirements. Before final approval of all residential planned unit developments, local governments must ensure adequate provisions have been developed for preservation and maintenance in perpetuity of open spaces and for the continued existence and functioning of the development as a community. (1) Open space preservation. Deed restrictions, covenants, permanent easements, public dedication and acceptance, or other equally effective and permanent means must be provided to ensure long-term preservation and maintenance of open space. The instruments must include all of the following -f '■ A-1.41 (r ■f 1 It f f. ■ f--fc protections: (a) conunercial uses prohibited; (b) vegetation and topographic alterations other than routine maintenance prohibited; (c) construction of additional buildings or storage of vehicles and other materials prohibited; and (d) uncontrolled beaching prohibited. (2) Development organization and functioning. Unless an equally effective alternative community framework is established^ when applicabler all residential planned unit developments must use an owners association with the following features: (a) Membership must be mandatory for each dwelling unit or site purchaser and any successive purchasers. (b) Each member must pay a pro rata share of the association's expenses, and unpaid assessments can become liens on units or sites. (c) Assessments must be adjustable to accommodate changing conditions. (d) The association must be responsible for Insurance, taxes, and maintenance of all commonly owned property and facilities. 0. Conversions. Local governments may allow existing resorts or other land us6s and facilities to be converted to residential planned unit developments if all of the following standards are met: (1) Proposed conversions must be initially evaluated using the same procedures and standards presented in this part for developments involving all new construction. Inconsistencies between existing features of the development and these standards must be identified. (2) Deficiencies involving water supply and sewage treatment, structure color, impervious coverage, open space, and shore recreation facilities must be corrected as part of the conversion or as specified in the conditional use permit. (3) Shore and bluff impact zone deficiencies must be evaluated and reasonable improvements made as part of the conversion. These Improvements must include, where applicable, the following: (a) removal of extraneous buixdings, docks, A-1.42 r.f k or other facilities that no longer need to be located in shore or bluff impact zones; (b) remedial measures to correct erosion sites and improve vegetative cover and screening of buildings and other facilities as viewed from the water; and (c) if existing dwelling units are located in shore or bluff impact zones, conditions are attached to approvals of conversions that preclude exterior expansions in any dimension or substantial alterations.a i«e conditions must also provide for future relocation of dwelling units, where feasible, to other locations, meeting all setback and elevation requirements when they are rebuilt or replaced. (4) Existing dwelling unit or dwelling site densities that exceed standards in this part may be allowed to continue but must not be allowed to be increased, either at the time of conversion or in the future. Efforts must be made during the conversion to limit impacts of high densities by requiring seasonal use, improving vegetative screening, centralizing shore recreation facilities, installing new sewage treatment systems, or other means. Subp. 6. Commercial planned unit development density evaluation steps and design criteria. The density evaluation steps and design criteria for commercial planned unit developments are contained in items A and B: A. Density evaluation steps: (1) Determine the average inside living area size of'dwelling units or sites within each tier, including both existing and proposed units and sites. Computation of inside living area sizes need ^ot include decks, patios, stoops, steps, garages, or porches and basements, unless they are habitable space. (2) Select the appropriate floor area ratio from the following table: Commercial Planned Unit Development Floor Area Ratios* Public waters classes Sewered gensr-il development lakes; first tier on unsewered general development Second and additional tiers on unsewered general development laxes; recreational A-1.43 Average lakes; urban, agricultural, development lakes; Natural environment unit floor tributary transition and lakes; area (sq.river forested river remote river ft.)segments segments segments 200 .040 .020 ,010 300 .048 .024 .012 400 .056 .028 .01 500 .065 .032 .016 600 .072 .038 .019 700 .082 .042 .021 800 .091 .046 .023 900 .099 .050 .025 1,000 .108 .054 .027 1,100 .116 .058 .029 1,200 .125 .064 .032 1,300 .133 .068 .034 1,400 .142 .072 .036 1,S00 .150 .075 .038 *For average unit floor areas less than shown^ use the floor area ratios listed for 200 square feet. For areas greater than ahown^ use the ratios listed for 1»500 square feet. For recreational camping areasr use the ratios listed at 400 square feet* Manufactured home sites in recreational camping areas shall use a ratio equal to the size of the manufactured home, or if unknown, the ratio listed for 1,000 square feet. (3) Multiply the useable area within each tier by the floor area ratio to yield total floor area for each tier allowed to be used for dwelling units or sites. (4) Divide the area computed in subitem (3) by the average determined^in subitem (1). This yields a base number of dwelling units and sites for each tier. (5) Determine whether the project is eligible for any additional density increases. To be eligible, projects must meet all of the design standards in item a, and exceed one or more of them. The local unit of government may decide how much, if any, increase in density to allow for each tier, but must not exceed the maximum allowable density increases listed in the following table: Maximum Allowable Dwelling Unit Or Site Density Increases For Commercial Planned Unit Developments Tier Maximum density increase within each tier (percent) First Second so 100 A-1.44 Third 200 Fourth 200 Fifth 200 (6) Allowable densities may be transferred from any tier to any other tier further from the shoreland lake or river# but must not be transferred to any other tier closer. B. The design criteria are: (1) Open space. Commercial planned unit developments must contain open space meeting all of the following criteria: (a) At least 50 percent of the total project area must be preserved as open space. (b) Dwelling units or sites# road rights*of*way# or land covered by road surfaces, or parking areas# except water-oriented accessory structures or facilities# are developed areas and should not be included in the computation of open space. (c) Open space must include areas with physical characteristics unsuitable for development in their natural state# and areas containing significant historic sites or unplatted cemeteries. (d) All shore impact zones within commercial planned unit developments must be included as open space# and at least 50 percent of these areas must be preserved in their natural or existing state. (e) Open space may include outdoor recreation facilities for use by guests staying in dwelling units or sites# or the*public. (f) Open space may include subsurface sewage treatment systems if use of the space is restricted to avoid adverse impacts on the systems. (2) Design of structures and facilities must be done according to the following standards: (a) Commercial planned unit developments must be connected to publicly owned water supply and sewer systems# if available. On-site water supply and sewage treatment systems must be designed and installed to meet or exceed applicable rules of the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. On-site sewage treatment systems must be located on the most suitable areas of the development# and sufficient lawn area free of limiting factors must be provided for a replacement soil treatment system for each sewage system. A-1.45 i:-- M; fi r. ^•?- !'! i. r > . I i; Ii-f.'.A,', i4)':v;’>7:. (b) Dwelling units or sites must be located on suitable areas of the development. They must be designed and located to meet or exceed the following dimensional standards for the relevant shoreland classification: setback from the ordinary high water level, elevation above surface water features, and maximum height. Maximum density increases may only be allowed if structure setbacks from the ordinary high water level are increased to at least 50 percent greater than the minimum setback, or the impact on the waterbody is reduced an equivalent amount through vegetative management, topography, or other means acceptable to the local unit of government and the setback is at least 25 percent greater than the minimum setback. (c) Structures, parking areas, and other facilities must be designed and located in a manner that minimizes their visibility from surface water features, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions. The structure, dwelling unit, accessory structure, or parking area must be treated to reduce visibility as viewed from public waters and adjacent shocelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks, color, or other means acceptable to the local unit of government assuming summer, leaf-on conditions. Vegetative and topographic screening must be preserved, if existing, or may be required to be provided. (d) Water-oriented accessory structures and facilities may be located within shore impact zones if they meet or exceed design standards contained in part 6120.3300, subpart 3, item H. a * (e) Shore recreation facilities, including but not limited to swimming areas, docks, and watercraft mooring areas and launching ramps, must be centralized and located in areas suitable for them. Evaluation of suitability must include consideration of land slope, water depth, vegetation, soils, depth to groundwater and bedrock, or other relevant factors. The number of watercraft allowed to be continuously beached, moored, or docked must not exceed one for each allowable dwelling unit or site in the first tier, notwithstanding existing mooring sites in an existing harbor. Launching ramp facilities, including a small dock for loading and unloading equipment, may be provided for use by occupants of dwelling units or sites located in other tiers. (3) Erosion control and stormwater management for commercial planned unit developments must: (a) Be designed, and their construction managed, to minimize the likelihood of serious erosion occurring either during or after construction. This must be accomplished by limiting the amount and length of time of bare ground exposure. Temporary ground covers, sediment entrapment facilities, vegetated buffer strips, or other appropriate A-1.46 -1 . techniques must be used to minimize e*’osion impacts on surface water features. Erosion control plans approved by a soil and water conservation district may be required if project size and site physical characteristics warrant. (b) Be designed and constructed to effectively manage reasonably expected quantities and qualities of stormwater runoff. Impervious surface coverage within any tier must not exceed 25 percent of the tier area^ except 33 percent impervious surface coverage may be allowed in the first tier of general developa.snt lakes with an approved stormwater management plan and consistency with part 6120.3300, subpart 4. NS 8 10S.48S 13 SR 3029 p. !!■ * -mm T I*... . 6120.3900 ADMINISTRATION. Subpart 1. Administration and enforcement. Local governments must provide for the administration and enforcement of their shoreland management controls by establishing permit procedures for building construction, installation of sewage treatment systems, and grading and filling. Subp. 2. [Repealed, 13 SR 3029] Subp. 3. Variances. Variances may only be granted in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, chapters 394 or 462, as applicable. They may not circumvent the general purposes and intent of the ofHcial controls. No variance may be granted that would allow any use that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. Conditions may be imposed in the gtanring of variances to ensure compliance and to protect adjacent properties and the public interest. In considering variance requests, boards of adjustment must also consider whether property owners have reasonable use of the lands without the variances, whether existing sewage treatment systems on the properties need upgrading before additional development is approved, whether the properties are used seasonally or year-round, whether variances are being requested solely on the basis of economic considerations, and the characteristics of development on adjacent properties. Subp. 3a. Conditional uses. In addition to any existing standards local governments may have for reviewing conditional uses, the following standards must be incorporated into local controls and used for reviewing conditional uses located in shoreland areas: A. a thorough evaluation of the topographic, vegetation, and soils conditions on the site to ensure: A-1.47 V.. I U V > H I: E;. (1) prevention of soil erosion or other possible pollution of public waters^ both during and after construction; (2) limiting visibility of structures and other facilities as viewed from public waters; and (3) adequacy of the site for water supply and on-'site sewage treatment; and B. an assessment of the types» uses, and numbers of watercraft that the project will generate in relation to the suitability of public waters to safely accommodate these watercraft. Local governments may impose conditions when granting conditional use permits that specify: increased setbacks from public waters; vegetation allowed to be removed or required to be established; sewage treatment system location, design, or use; location, design, and use requirements for watercraft launching or docking, and for vehicular parking; structure or other facility design, use, and location; phasing of construction; and other conditions considered necessary by the local unit of government. Subp. 4. Nonconformities. A. Local governments must require upgrading or replacement of any existing, on-site sewage treatment system identified as a nonconformity under a program established under part 6120.3400. Systems installed according to all applicable local shoreland management standards adopted under Minnesota Statutes, section 105.485, in effect at the time of installation may be considered as conforming unless they are determined to be falling, except that systems using cesspools, leaching pits, seepage pita, or other deep disposal methods, or systems with less soil treatment area separation above groundwater than required by chapter 7080, shall be considered nonconforming. B. All nonconformities other than on-site sewage treatment systems must be managed according to applicable state statutes and local government official controls. Subp. 4a. Shoreland management by townships. Townships may adopt shoreland management controls under authority of Minnesota Statutes, section 394.33, subdivision 1, if the controls are not inconsistent with or less restrictive than the controls adopted by the county in which the township is located. A. For the purposes of parts 6120.2500 to 6120.3900, shoreland management controls adopted by townships wi ' only be considered to be consistent with county controls if t ey cover the same full range of shoreland management provisions covered by the county controls, contain dimensional standards at least as restrictive as those in the county controls, and do not allow X:.., A-1.48 I R- k # i'- W land uses in particular areas that are not allowed under the county's official controls. B. The township must demonstrate to the county board that their proposed ordinance and administration is at least as restrictive as the county's prior to final adoption by the township. Townships must provide for administration and enforcement of shoreland management controls at least as effective as county implementation. Townships that adopt ade<|uate shoreland controls must follow all of the notification procedures in subpart 6. After adequate shoreland management controls are adopted by a township, property owners must only obtain necessary permits and approvals as required in the township shoreland management controls. Property owners do not have to obtain similar permits or approvals under the county's shoreland controls. Subp. 5. Joint exercise of powers. To facilitate more logical, consistent, and efficient administration of shoreland management controls, local governments are encouraged to enter into joint powers agreements with adjacent or otherwise similarly situated local units of government to jointly administer shoreland management controls pursuant to the procedures and authority of Minnesota Statutes, sections 394.32 and 471.59. Subp. 6. Notification procedures. A. Copies of all notices of any public hearings to consider variances, amendments, or conditional uses under local shoreland management controls must be sent to the commissioner or; the commissioner's designated representative and postmarked at least ten days before the hearings. Notices of hearings to consider proposed plats must include copies of the plats. B. A copy of approved amendments and plats, and final decisions granting variances or conditional uses under local shoreland management controls must be sent to the commissioner or the commissioner's designated representative and postmarked within ten days of final action. C. Townships with shoreland management controls adopted under subpart 4a must also provide these materials to the zoning official of the county. NS s 105.485 13 SR 3029 A-1.49 iVAr •-•T P‘W 5.’ mI" mm- yj. ■ ir •fe" mim r.-?. 4't ,t ■ V- £• pi 189.6 • V# ^ » UfflONS mac FiAH Sborelancl Oon(>letion by 12/92 Flood Plan (Ooopletion by 9/91) Represents an Update to Section 10.55 1. SiisMit request foe ahoreland grant Feb. 91 2. 4. 5. Prepare draft 8hoceland overlay sane together with flood plan iftdate a. ) Staff review b. ) Review with Shardla# Jan 91 Feb 91 Jan 91 Feb 91 3. HKkahopCal on proposed new regulationo with Planning Ooonission andOounoll j^riWune 91 riarch^lay 91 Initial review period by effected public bodies and IomI oovemaents for Aocelsnd regulation (if appropriate) June-August 91 Public hearing and review Planning Oownisalon ODuneil Sept 91-Dec 92 Nov-Feb 92 June 91 July-Aug 91 €• admission to cm for review and approval Feb 92 Aug 91 p"’ 1^'-' r i-HP- t- 1^-lli- CITY. 4rriKim>r £ I P qp ^ Oifio0 Bos Bo^i Min On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka February 13» 1991 M^t^t*‘of%«tut»l Resources Matro itatars 1200 Marnat St. Paul, Mn 55106 Subjactx OHR Shoraland Grant Oaar John,W w In raaponaa to your of Orono is submitting a entity. It is ouranocaland 9ra«t as an xndapan^^^^^ ^sToOO.OO has bean undarstanding that altho g PP omr will pay up to half Si loeetea to the jr.nt for SSSuld' Itl lo.ls exceed IS lir^OoTo-. trVnf'lo? S/i?lVeV’-i.- rout eonsidecation^of this request Is appreciated. k S. Barnhardson Adminstrator CCS SS;.“.lrSill^rt5‘ittorne, Jo«Uea HUK. Otono Adainlstrator MlSSJl P.^SffrSA. Asst. Ilanalng a Roning Adisln. kfv- •mam tmnusnaet anwta BUC-OMfW .mtm •ikm. 13091.9 C TOi FBOM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate DAn February 22, 1991 SUBJBCT: Facilities Workshop Attachment:A. Facilities Memo Dated 2/7/91 B. Outline of Issues Related to Site C. Draft Questionaire for Crystal Bay Neighborhood D. Boarman Proposal Dated 2/8./91 Alternative Design Development ISSUES 1. Present for further Council consideration and comment the issues end factors related to one site for all facilites (common) versus split sites. 2. Present to Council an update on a questionaire for residents of the "Crystal Bay Area* and determination if and if so where that questionaire should be sent. 3. Provide further information on options for storage of certain Public Works facilities on an interim basis. 4. Establish a meeting date and scope of action for upcoming workshop on the matter. IHTEODUCTION - At the Council's February 11, 1991 meeting the following issue on facilities were discussed: 1. The issues related to a common site versus split site for all facilities. 2. Request that a questionaire/survey for the Crystal Bay neighborhood. 3. Discussion as far as a date for a workshop was tabled to the February 28, 1991 Council meeting. OISCaSSION - 1. Common versus split site - Attachment B was a draft summary of theIssues related to the site. To date staff has received no correction or additions. The underlined portions represent changes staff has made since then. 2.Weichborhood questionaire - Attachment C is a proposal iTifor a questionaire to be sent to the neighborhood. The y I- l: .1. questionaire attempts to give background and alternatives that would be helpful to the neighborhood in making an informed decision. The alternative use of the land as a park was a recommendation from the Citizen Committee. (In a conversation with Counc1Imember Callahan he stated although it was his original suggestion 1 ^ cated a desire to reconsider the advisability of i such.) 3. Storage of Pm^ . c V*orks equipment - As mentioned at the January 28th meeting and outlined on 2/11, staff has been exploring what to do with the current "Lumber Shed” and the equipment stored therein. Staff feels that the building may be on the verge of "implosion" on its own and has been researching options related to that. These options are as follows: A. Status Quo - Continue w uh the utilization of the current structure but continue to close off areas that are unsafe. B. Renting of Alternative Space - Staff has been working over tKe last 2 months to determine what space may be available of at least 15,225 square footage and the only rental square footage of significance in the area is in Tonka Bay, near the NSP facility. It is estimated that to rent the sole building there, which would be storage but large enough to allow the operation to work out of that facility on an interim basis, would be about $50,000 a year plus utilities. This facility however, would not equate to the longterm needs and would resuT t in much jockeying of equipment and outdoor storage to make usable together with lacking many of the offices and shops that are felt needed on a longterm basis for the City. C. Tear Down Existing Facility, undertake Outdoor Storage of Current Indoor Storage Materials - Under this optTon the City would fence in the parking lot next to the lumber shed area, ‘jgether with utilizing the fenced in area under the Na/arre water tower for storage of trucks and other equipment outside until a new facility was completed. Once fenced in the City would .*:hen have the current lumber shed removed. D. Interim Repair of Lumber Shed - Staff explored to see H" certain structural reinforcements could be done to the existing facility to lessen the potential for implosion. As noted in Attachment F, the feasibility is non-existent ever, if certain repairs could be done, the code (Building or Zoning) does not allow a dirt floor for a commercial building. I- j!--' I!?: h- vr A; 0, E. Undertake a New Facility - Should the City select a site Tor Public Works and determine its financing approach it could immediately go to construct a building for Public Works and once completed move into that from what ever option was selected for interim storage. F. Ccmstruction of a temporary - For approximately $SS,0d0 the City could construct a pole shed of 7,200 square feet. This would be only a temporary solution but would be approximately equal the cost of rental for 1 year of a larger facility. (As the City's threshold for sprinkling is 5,000 square feet we could get by with this at a cost of about $42,000.) 4. Workshop Meeting Date and Purpose - This is addressed in Attachment A together with the issues of note at that meeting would be: Site Size of facility Cost and financing Roles for Planning Commission and Citizen Committee Additionally related to that would be level of participation Council would desire from Planning Commission and Citizens Committee in that workshop. ALTERNATIVES - Issue #1 - Common versus split site 1. Focus on one common site. 2. Select and focus on split sites. 3. Raise additional issues or ask questions. 4. Table to March 11th. Issue #2 - Questionerie 1. Direct staff to send. 2. Amend and adopt. 3. Limit to Crystal Bay sewer assessment area. 4. Area within a mile. 5. Table pending further schematics for the design in Crystal Bay. U V ^ : r f * V 6. Table for further diiscussion to March 11th. Issue #3 • Interim Space for Public Works 1. Narrow options for further exploration. 2. Select an option for more definitive information. 3. Discuss other options. 4. Table for further discussion to March 11th. Issue #4 - Workshop 1. Set Date. 2. Table for further discussion. h %' is-’'W' fc I !■ ]; ( IP 3. Define scope. 4. Define roles for groups. RBCOMMBWDATIOW » Issue Co—versus split sites - Staff continues to recommend from an operationalr cost and compatibility of land use that a common site be selected. It is our feeling that criteria outline gave the .requirements for the site and that a common site best meets those. Staff however, enccirages Council to identify further issues or information revelant to the decision and recommend tabling until 3/11. #2. Queationaire - It is recommended that Council give staff any comments or amendments but table further consideration until March 11# 1991. #3. Interim storage - It is recommended that Council table until the March lith considering the following scenario as a process. - Early summer - Fence off an area to rear of current site (or at sewer plant or use Navarre water tower site.) - Mid summer - Tear down current lumber shed. - If new permanent Public Works facility can have garage portion occupied by winter# just await that. - If not# construct the temporary facility this summer either here or on sewer plant (or Navarre site.) #4. Wort shop - It is recommended that the Council set a date for thstrmfKliibp and table discussion of agenda and roles for the other groups until March 11th meeting. V . F' 'Vi. ‘a 1 seconded by that Council givePROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, _ staff direction as to the various issues related to facilities. Ayes r Nays_. cc:All Department Heads Jack Boarmanr Boaraan Architects* Inc 222 North 2nd Street Minneapolis* MN 55401 m Lfe' f'1. V r 1991 OROHO CITY HEETIN6 SCHEDULE Adoiited U/13/90 Anonded 1/14/91 Board of Review KEY-nn *?:00 P.M. Council Meeting 2nd & 4th Monday O)7:00 P.M. Planning Commission 3rd Monday O (May Ihrouqh October 1st Monday as an alternate date) /\ Paik Commission 1st Tuesday ^Official Holiday 1991 K-l; <V:- t IIf if’'.. SEmMBER M T W 1 8 m ID isjobi/ 22W24 29 IT ^ 5 6 11 12 13 18 19 20 25 26 27 J 7 14 21 28 OCTOBER -T-W 1 7m f VI nilsn T6 \7 20 22 23 24 27^29 30 31 S M F 4 11 18 25 S 5 12 19 26 LNVdb T-Oay.Wi. NOVEMBER T W T F S APRIL S M T W T F S III7 14 21 28 29 ,3 3 4 5 6 9 10 'll' 13 13 >16 17 IS 19 30 123.34 35 36 37 xRcsASsti AUGUST S M T W T F S • • #•r 1 ^ ' 4 7 I 9 >10 18^ 30 31 33 33 34 3512& 37 38 39 30 31 DECEM8ER S M T W T E 5 I jfll*, !, ft ft UTO 17 18 19 30 31II M 34 >i 36 37 38 29 30 31 I 1f •L •;■:' ¥k: 1^- fr#- t"•?V'r.. fI 'iM..ft-W-i r|’v. •iv A.r^t 13091.9 4llt\Q0^'eur i to*Mayor and City Council FSON: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adninistrato DATB:February 7, 1991 SUBJECT: Facilities Workshop Date Attachment:A. Facilities Memo Dated 1/22/91 (Memo Only) B* Outline of Issues Related to Site C* Staff and Service Background Memo Dated 5/15/90 D. Boarman Proposal Dated 2/8/91 Alternative Design Development E. Space Rental Memo Dated 2/1/91 F. Repair of Lumber Yard Dated 2/5/91 ISSUES 1. Present for Council consideration the issues and factors related to one site for all facilites (common) versus split sites. 2. Present to Council an update on a questionaire for residents of the "Crystal Bay Area”. 3. Address options for storage of certain Public Works facilities on an interim basis. 4. Present cost to have Boarman undertake alternative sketches for design of facilities in the Crystal Bay neighborhood and if Council desires to undertake. 5. Bstablish a meeting date and scope of action for upcoming workshop on the matter. IHTRCDUCTION - At the Council's January 28, 1991 meeting the issue of Facilities was discussed and raised the following issues: 1. The issues related to a common site versus split site for all facilities. 2. Request that a questionaire/survey be done in the Crystal Bay neighborhood. 3. Issues related to the design of City Ball/Police facility for Crystal Bay neighborhood. 4. Discussion as far as a date for a %iorkshop was tabled to the February 11, 1991 Council meeting. DISCUSSION - 1. Common versus split site - Attachment B is a draft summary of the issues related to the site, both ones that are quantifiable together related issues in the areas organizational development, location and compatibility of land uses. It is requested that Council indicate other issues they may think are relevant or questions as to information presented. Jack Boarman is reviewing the draft. 2. Neighborhood questionaire - A questionalre is being draft for Council review. The questionaire will attempt to give background and alternatives that would be helpful to the neighborhood in making an informed decision. If Council desires to undertake alternative design for the Crystal Bay site, such designs would be most helpful to give a perspective on how the building would fit. Storage of Pub lie Works equipment - As mentioned at the January~?8th meeting, staff nas been exploring what to do with the current ’'Lumber Shed” and the equipment stored therein. Staff feels that the building may be on the verge of "implosion ” on its own and has been researching options related to that. These options are as follows: A. Status Quo - Continue with the utilization of the current structure but continue to close off areas that are unsafe. U:' B. Renting of Alternative Space - Staff has been working over the last 2 months to determine what space may be available of at least 15,225 square footage and the only rental square footage of significance in the area is in Tonka Bay, near the NSP facility. It is estimated that to rent the sole building there, which would be storage but large enough to allow the operation to work out of that facility on an interim basis, would be about $50,000 a year plus utilities. This facility however, would not equate to the longterm needs and would result in much jockeying of equipment and outdoor storage to make usable together with lacking many of the offices and shops that are felt needed on a longterm basis for the City. C. Tear Down Existing Facility, Undertake Outdoor Storage of Current Indoor Storage Materials - Under this optTon the City would fence in the parking lot next to the lumber shed area, together with utilizing the fenced in area under the Navarre water tower for storage of trucks and other equipment outside until a new facility was r: I -l IV r f-L- hV r1^-il. i.i- h ¥■ &I eF,‘ k rk completed. Once fenced in 'ne City would then have the cuccent lumber shed removed. D. Interim Repair of Lumber Shed - Staff explored to ”iei Tf~ certain structural reinforcements could be done to the existing facility to lessen the potential for implosion. As noted in Attachment F, the feasibility is non-existent even if certain repairs could be done, the code (Building or Zo. ing) dones not allow a dirt floor for a commercial building. E. Undertake a New Facility - Should the City select a site Tor Public Works and determine its financing approach it could immediately go to construct a building for Public Works and once completed move into that from what ever option was selected for interim storage. F. Construction of a temporary - The staff is attempting to obtaTn an estimate for a temporary structure for a 1-2 year period. It is hoped this would be ready for the 2/2S meeting. 4. Combination Issue »4 Redesign for Crystal Bay NeIgKborhood”^"^ThFs issue was discussed at the meeting on the 2dtfi and issues related to that to come up with an alternate design include as noted in Attachment E. S i ze Shape Quality and texture of building materials Roof line Number of levels In discussions with Boarman he would be willing to do additional schmetics for this site based on discussions by Councilmembers as to what kind of things they found objectionable with "standard design" for this neighborhood for about $3,000. 5. Workshop Meeting Date and Purpose - This is addressed in Attachment A together with the issues of note at that meeting would be: Site Size of facility Cost and financing Roles for Planning Commi«)«M.v7 and Citizen Committee Additionally related to that would be level of participation Council would desire from Planning Commission and citizens Committee in that workshop. ALTERNATIVES - it.,- Si Issue #1 - ConuBon versus split site I. Focus on one common site. 2. Select and focus on split sites. 3. Raise additional issues or ask questions. 4. Table to February 25th. Issue 12 - Questionerie 1. Table pending further draft development. Issue 13 - Interim Space for Public Works 1. Narrow options for further exploration. 2. Select an option for more definitive information. 3. Discuss other options 4. Table for further discussion. Issue #4 - Design for Crystal Bay 1. Give direction for key items. 2. Table for further discussion. 3. Authorize proposal in Attachment C. Issue #5 - workshop 1. Set Date. 2. Table for further discussion. 3. Define scope. 4. Define roles for groups. IDATION - Issue II* rn —nn versus split sites - Staff continues to recommend from an opecatlonaiV cost and compatibility of land use that a common site be selected. It is our feeling that criteria outline gave the requirements for the site and that a common site best meets those. Staff however# encourages Council to identify further issues or information revelant to the decision and recommend tabling until 2/25. #2* Questionaire - It is recommended that this be tabled until 2/25. It is hoped a draft will be sent to Council by 2/15. #3. Interin storage - It is recommended that Council table for further informati<m regarding temporary structures. (It should be remembered that if the Public Works goes ahead of the City Hell facility there may be implications as to cost savings of bidding both at the same time and impact the cost for bonding if the whole thing goes at the same time. It additionally brings into play the question of a referendum on all the facilities or if the Council desires to fund one and have a referendum on the other•) #4. Alternate designs - Once the Council has given the architect feedback, it would be helpful that he go with alternative designs for the neighborhood if a split site is to be pursued or if a questionaire is desired. #5. Workshop - It is recommended that the Council table diseusslOT of a date until the February 25th meeting. t. H"' ■i- I I k I- Fr PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by , that Council give staff direction as to the various issues related to facilities and table to February 25, 1991. Ayes __, Nays __. cct All Department Heads Jack Boarman, Boarman Architects, Inc 222 North 2nd Street Minneapolis, MN 55401 K:,. L - t- I h. f. ‘ ?.. :r |r p, f'r If I *"bI I:i f0S Date: Mayor Peterson & Orono Council Members Mark E. Bernhardsonr City Administrate January 22, 1991 ATTm0>°^^ Sobjects Facilities Workshop ATTACHMENT • A - City Facilities dated 10/30/90 ISSUE - Determine when Council would desire to have a workshop on Cityfacilities. INTRODUCTION - At the Council’s 11/13/90 meeting, it was determined that before further work be done on the facilities that a workshop be held. Subsequent to that, it was felt that this workshop could include all Council members so that it was delayed until an appointment of the fifth Council member and because of vacation plans delayed until the early part of March. Dates for which a workshop could be held are as follows: 5 Tuesday Evening 6 Wednesday Evening 7 Thursday Evening 9 Saturday Morning 13 Wednesday Evening 14 Thursday Evening 16 Saturday Morning It is anticipated that this workshop would undertake the following: A. Review Issues and comments to date; B. Determine future direction; C. Determine role if any ongoing for the Citizen's Committee. It is anticipated that this workshop would be held in a larger facility, such as the Orono High School Cafeteria or the Fresh Water Biological Institute. The basis for the workshop would be the Municipal Facilities Study book that was presented to Council as part of the stategic development. Should Council desire additional inforsMtion apart from what is in there, it is requested that that specific request be given to staff for information development prior to March 1st. Illv p fefi"m Ft ■ lfV<\ L^/«V t*'I R-h-mfefe: rk: p4: ^r Iffx • ;.'■ !:• H'i m:M k: ^ Facilities Workshop January 22» 1991 Page 2 of 2 ALTBRMATIVES - 1.Select a date. 2. Table for further discussion. 3. Take no action. RICOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council set aside a workshop time at either the High School or the FWBI for a review of the issues and appropriate information be sent to the public prior to the kting. PROPOSED MOTlOWt Moved by _ _, seconded by establlsit a facilities workshop on _ _ _ _ _, _, that Council at _ _ _ time, at location and will indicate to staff additional information that they would like available at that meeting prior to March 1st. Ayes _, nays ^/tln cc:Department Heads Jack Boarman, Boarman Architects, Inc. i I p' p; '■ I w: ;V‘ E: iitjasi Capital Costa (Sits Specific) liaad Costs tisss Sals of Property I Crystal Say/Meighborhood QCM/Smft Plant : *'r . •its Dsvslnpssnt •oils Comet ion Natsr/Spriaklar Support •sssr/lltilitiso LasSsosping •trsst/Psrking/Curb-Gutter Diolition/Currsnt Phasing Post Office (800 sf 0 060-70) Joist Dseslopaiant/Bidding •its CITY FACILITIES - CITY OP COMMON SITE ORONO SPLIT SITE C . City Hall/Police D. City Hall/Police B.Old Crystal Bay Crystal Bay Crystal Bay Highway 12 Sewer Plant Neighborhood Neighborhood Public Works -Public Works - Highway 12 OCB Sewer Plant $292,000 $0 $292,000 $0 (34,500)<34,500)0 0 (200,000)0 (200,000)0 160(-415,000)0 75-150,000 15,000 0 162,800-282,800 160,000 325,000 25-50,000 25,000-35,000 25-50,00025-60,000 25,000<t'25,000 25,00090,000 120000 120,000 95,15035,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 0 0 40,000 40,000 0 0 50-60,000 50-60,000 5-10%5-10%0 0 of bldg of bldg savings savings >%/145,000)(5%/145,000) isstsl Kv-I'Otbsr 0(?)30-50,000 30-50,000 : Possible realignment Acquisition of of OCB (100-200,000) Houses Nininua l-$50,000/houae r f i H 3 I; SC ARMANI. A55QC:ATi A ff r ‘ E C * . ^ ^ p *, c V : t ^ - FabnuryS. 1901 Mr.Mvlcltmhvdton ClyafOiono P.O.B0K06 OryMItiy.MN 66389 D m Martc: -N. Thi dMipn work wo»4d inclucto thi fdlw^ K V. C. h Su So. ind putllc mt.wa ipie«s. 2?2£i2 Ifiwao ikiich ihowlr^o how tht diolgn would ft Irto tho nilgh^^ virtSKiwo wMk pwiod itiMyourar woi p«^ T»«oikv»ddpiw«».Mdlleiu«i^^^to thf ow Cly Hrt ^ t ipifino oppofturky to fuitrw Msm mo polifTO w wiw aiocurothlt opportunky to ogoln boOnbiJirtf of Boornm Kfoo^ P1l«w. AAMOditiO of Mr Mnmii.Krooo.PMr.AANoeii k»c. JB:lkmFlo Nmo: pro<oet\oma\b\8Hbe 3rd )ir«ei Minnr«oolit Mmntiotj iSJ-. 222 “0 I • fqual Odoo Mu 't:*^ ‘nrrlo**?* Sir’yCITY FACILITIES - CITY OF ORONO V.- h COMMON ‘'■ ?‘.v.B hockncm CH/PD C PW SPLIT CH/PD D PW (teaoMd Oaogra^ic Cantar of City • OCB a Sowar Plant) Dlatanoat Pros OCS/RS DriTo 2 inilas 2.5 0 0.5 1.5 1 2 2.5 1.5 1 0 0 tAWOt Pzoi OCS/RS Driva All rasidents can roach this site without 90ing thru another cosaiunity. ORtfAmU lAHD USB Conercial Residential/ Urban Natural" Residential Commercial Urban Residential Comnercial K' •City ■all/Pollce>Offlea/Retail *Pnblle *'** ^s-Lt. induatrial« « •/» Sisiilar/Soall 4x5 times than current surrounding 8-12 tines Equal/less 8-12 times 4-5 times :ir'. variaaoaa •oildiag Sathacks None Hone W None (if no or limited expansion) None See C None ’ ParkingI Satbadis • of apaeaa tasdaaaar (ORR-proposed sofalationa - 25%) Nona Outside 1000' None Yes Possible None None See C None K.ne Mostly outside 1000' About 40-50% Hardcover Outside 1000' About 40-50% Hardcover Mostly outside 1000' Ofaratianal Aspectst Capital r- ’■ r*n place it in PH's at leas s.f. cost Lunchroca* one less office PR's Hone Ratween Paeilitias On foot 3-4 miles between sites 4 ■1@iai?CITY FACILITIES - CITY OP ORONO f«|iiel.«a C*n store Adaln/Pollce vehicles In winter without additional s.f. Fueling on site. Remain outside or add garage space to CH/PD ($17,000/stall). Fuel at split site or 2nd fuel system. I Hay require receptionist/secretary at Public Works or always have supervisor present ($30,000/yr). 2nd telephone system for PWs. ik •f iHisting Propertiest f«Mr Plaat Residential Facilities Crystal Bay/Cvrrant City Hall Park or housing (plus post office SasM as A Residential Facilities Facilities Facilities as is) ilHiinilsiiliiir of sitet SR-.,' Extra bldg site plus building expansion < ce/PO/PH More limited than A CB/PD Very limited PH Good CH/PD Very limited PM Good ittat Limited 't: V Udbrary/tost Office) ifc -used in conjunction with library/poet office/echool/other cooMrciel # • tCe None apart from incorporating existing post office Yes See C Possible 'fliHoatablllty* t iMidants Easily described Reasonably Not as easy easy Easy See C Reasonable »-losideata*Easily described Reasonably More difficult easy Persons say go to one site hoping to find the other. 'r r i-f; • r ':r H: I 51590. fimtd^mvrd Citizens Facilities CommitteeTOs nbOM: Mark E. aern'nardsonr City Administrate OAXBs May 15, 1990 SOBJBC?: Staff and Service Background « »«flin«erinq Service Review Dated 4/13/90j^ttaehaents: A. Engineer g ISStJ* - ,to*i<3« ”,.,v“Vo'^T99o!*‘**e c«oons«» SttM t"t%ou'o«in9 =to staffing Issuts include ene A. current and projected numbers of staff. b'. Spae. impacts those have on the proposed layout. •C. cost impacts of those layouts D.' impact of contract services to other communities on City budget. tothodOCTIOW - At ?Ij(,\°,'iated to* the ^current and iowiittee cTlaed ^“**Ji®wuiidinq site to determine what i"P*®t,«”?Ty1ortir"ctrn'nt needs would have on the overall project. PI3CIJ8SX0M - /.......Bettv and ovganltatlonal Grojafeeomunlty ajffi ---------—--------- ,,, h. Based on the 10,000^ Significant number of /ears oeywn other scenarios which may Include any of the followin,: - Hew types of service to Orono residents.- new cYF«a ---------- - Additional services for other, currently sepera e jorisdictions- - Change in zoning which significantly increases the population-popuxa^Awn• are not predictable pitiStlals! It H';iJ j!%».’Vu%^‘uit"l'^d’Vor%^ose potentials now. as i -7 m i .bllitv to acouits anv conti9Uous oc non conticuous land for «pa^«on «iir b. -aeveral^ limited even 10 years from now. i ^roiections - The staff has occasionally over the last iin^MHhrie^wrs Tooked at what factors would govern potential ;?C^E-lSVr"e^Tes following criteria: p% w U 0 Increase in conununity population Shift of function In the following areas: Engineering . Recreational Supervision Assessing snoineeriro - The issue of whether t.he City looks to an in-house -ot „= Y/%”hV^C?t*;"le:a*!n^°'*w tr a°“='oJ;rurtai: JSKr4,VperVo*n"maV‘n.‘ed* s'oi^^^in bouse space to better serve the organisation. n«ereation - Another significant shift may oe the addition of - The 3^”*”^' reoS*tcao*to*c .‘'.'’y* «“d‘tl I^S.nvt?lU!rto”bVtt«*«’rv."the* p'ubUc. A rel/ted issue i« there are few people who provide tnis service and iay bV reqSired to make it an in house function because of a laSc ^/ailable contractors. (Orono is probably one of the iJJf? SlffiJilt cities in the State to assess because of the Sique and vahed tms of housing to a full economic spectrum.) _ , I _ nsr* the oroiected growth is a straight projection for E^t..«”f ?*CM patrol Ifficacs to parallel the population growth. ».ehi4«e works - The growth in actual public works personnel apart •aa than that.! IMPACTS OF PROJgCTIONS The following represent the impacts of staff growth projected over the next ten years. 3 SAaJ.. U' p- CITY HALL f OF PROJECTED ADDITIONS SCO ARE F->j COST Adain Bldg/zoning Finance Rtcraation Engineer Assessing 1 Clerical* 1 Technical 1 Clerical 1 Technical 2 Adnin/Technical 1 Assessing 72 99 104 120 198 99 69lTotal Net Total Gross (35%) 1,064 $85,169 POLICE Orono Contract POBLIC WRKS 3 Officer 1 Clerical* 3 Maintenance personnel . e«rr.ntly h.« « tim.r in th. josition so would not tesu-t in a apace saving. rnuTRACTINC SERVICE - polic. - Th. City cu«.ntly 10% s^*i***>*^**^^^?,®^*^,^AA*S* officers. In addition each of the iJer the nUe bas^^ officers and all coaaunities pay « tolal of o?et $220,000 for the three, •ssociated to ” * of the communities -.j-ten^ance expenses to have officers plus A- able to get by at a cheaper rate around the ?n addition the City of Otono benefitscontracting with Orono. In addition tn y as it would essentially J*“^t^?i^ser?i« to as large a to pto.U. «tIng.o.nt is mutually coASunltiy tb^t it pc®S€iitly fftsla faeilitv as propossd pcovidss SSJtlcUl to .11 “““““iVV- “h. cuy'^h.. 10 oc 20a facility that would be used whetner^^^^ number of officers with the only *^9nifican should be stated that lUk.c .p.o« ‘“•t it not .biSlut.., .nd would certain of the trailer force than with a larger SL'c": ^.^‘VrVltVll“:^£^“^^”•i« 0.«fnl did »ot contract with any of the communities.mmmj ----------------- Animal Control * to*Spt^Vg ptrkr^MinnVtonka Search andaervice on a contract basis to Spring ^ac , control service. SSr“e’ t%^p“.cific^^^/”n\?aU^ a number of hours of patrol i k Luit-.- . ^ <1-I City of Crono would retain a together with J=^rr^ ^us^decrease the number or hours the function such as ^ j working. The contract cities ComiBunity Service $11,000. Again this pay »,400 for a TA th* “"^unities. «. city did is » function because it was having successful service from a private contract «t “.n,.«’.nt that i‘ hfAfe *ha "rgVne^l-ry* t=’o» 'prlvat: «??r“a«orVbe*c'a°us". of'the lack of availability of service or reasonable service quality. __ The C’tv does, on a contract basis,Buildinq Inspections ‘ a sorina Park and provide building V/Ji^^^A/orobably not reduce a Minnetonka Beach. aiii^Lnated they do provide revenue person "°Vo'*=oo%e' building ranging Loulation comparison this would inspector s -- Qooulat ’o'n/coraparison. It should be note- that the building inspectors reviews. The city is but assist in the “^ina and zoning because of the very unique i” ordinances, septic program andstringent and complicatec zoning the unique residentia . a.*ntial remodelings. The department:o««unity together with substantial ^ ^ bdVti b%^:irr7"o‘uV fI„“c\foVVrarA=uAr A In bh. s.prio and zoning areas. COST OF SFACS NOW VERSUS tHE FUTUI^ Accordln, to our rted*\Vo:“fa additional ** „t rf the building addition 5100,000 foe building »">* th« costs would b« 50%were constructed later as a mal 1 addition each year tne lS;;t;;ctro%VcicVsTo"^^ the average over the last 10 years at 3% per year. COMMOH LOCATION FOR FACILITIES con.tr«ctio_n - Fro- tb. thV saSr^ontrL'^or^u'rs SSiiiit'Jd’ ^^thrcity -«I/^„«Vr*uc\ro “n’: ^in^^^lt'ir'A' hookups, having •coomon* expansion space oneacilities, landscaping, plua naving oarcela having to th. .«• sit. M OPP"** “ 5fth twV s“pS?.A slt.s 2or.have expansion space for each, witn two sep« total land would be needed. r i r I'' 1^*'fc'. ^ .^<11 need maior wells to handle this at a cost ofr200'000”or.o». jrtuer.r, 5.P«,» it would double that cost. rt«.ra^^an« - There are selected operational features of having Operations - ^w. ^rtfl•th•r such as havinc coaaon Cityriev gair Police and Public Works together such as having coaaon City Hall, police . bathrooms, lunch space, meeting rooms 1£ locaUd to^ selected records and other etc. Placed in the public works building without any ;o2«%VonV ptob?» at a‘ .uSJtSSiially less footage cost Stl V« a ritv sail structure. The vehicle storage could be than ^2 J *iaie of a Public Works building for city o2?lo. V.hlVles and can be stored in the sally poets.) police . * - citv staff etc. together wita the non ouanti*ab^e Issues of the Integratation of a work force quantiraore . e.'tv hall to discuss common issues and public works. ,:Lt.d on the sa.e sit. it may oersonnel to coordinate certain functions or 0. a, effective and efficient as one on the same site. a.mug-<aiat .: i:; x.vs.s v. =r-Si'r‘s HMiihiie works if they were in three different locations. It is public *M«ks 1 y place so the public can come to fiirf all the pe?”"«el instead of having to 'chase n* "onrth.'«--u “ fy'^o^find various portions of the operation ro«e-union - It is hoped that these do provide some guidance and SiirSe available fo? further questions at your meeting on May 24, 1990. •|l K I-V.,-fe U: i ri'M:'- y' kl. i*-‘ r. 9- Vox Frost Mark E» Bernhardson, City Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Dates February 1» 1991 Subjects Space Rental - Public Works Recently I visited a property that would be suitable as an interim site for Public Works. The building and grounds are located in the City of Tonka Bay and behind NSP on County Road 19, Attached for your information is a proposal from the listing ragardlng that property. The proposal has been verbally adjusted to a one year length of lease# all other items remain the same. It is also our understanding that the use is approved as per the zoning of Tonka Bay. r I % TOMUNSON COMPANYCommeroat/industnai Real Estate Sales and Leasing Wi>aw. MM 5531 61247S>1217 1- 1 - 1991 Hanus Bus property Area > Land Bui 1ding approx. 97,575 sq.ft. Finished shop Granular floor 4,150 sq ft. 11,075 sq.ft. approx. approx. Total sq.ft, approx.15,225 sq.ft. Rental rate; 4,150 sq.ft.Finished shop area approx. 9 $4.00 per sq. ft.per yr. Granular floor area approx. 11,075 sq.ft. 9 $2.75 per sq. ft. per yr. $16,600.00 30,450.00 47,050.00 Per month 3,920 00 Tenant to pay cost of heating, lighting, phone service, water and sewer service. Occupancy > Immediate Length of lease • 2 years. f \ ► r ' M- ^v. 'r- 1^: t: .hx ^TnHiiH^vn h}IM^ TOs John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Lyle Oman# Building Official Date:February 5# 1991 Subject: Repair of Lumber Yard Building/Equipment Shed On February 1» 1991 an inspection was conducted on the lumber yard building to determine what would be required to repaid the leaking roof. .Tt is my opinion that the building is bo* v.pair and if someone was to request a permit to repair a bu in this condition on private property, I would deny the pax. commence hazardous building action. Structural daficittt'wiwi:* and deterioration starts at the roof and continues doum to the foundation. - Roofing is leaking and is past its life expectancy. - Roof sheathing is rotced. - Rafters are overspan and rotted. — Beams are overspan and rotted and many are spliced together at mid-span instead of being a solid member between bearing points. - Posts are rotted, undersized and are *).c> longer plvunb. - Foundation is crumbling and bearing points are unstable. - The whole building is leaning toward Brown Road. It i. my recommendation that all equipment and materials should b removed as soon as possible and the building be secured until it can be removed. 22291.2 TO:Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Froai:John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Date!February 22, 1991 Subjects Temporary Equipment Cold Storage Attached are very preliminary estimates for temporary structures for the Public Works Department on our site. i-' Building Size 60x120 7,200 s.f. €.00 per s.f. constructed $43,200 Bituminous Pad 4" thick 176 ton 9 26.10 per ton placed Electrical 4,600 5,000 Site Preparation (lump sum)2,000 $54,800 Does not include razing of existing equipment shed. Does not include interim housing. t CITY MClLltlES - C2TT OF OFOKO COHMOM SXTt SPLIT SITE C. City Hall/Polic« D. City Hall/Pollce k. Bighvay 12 B. Old Crystal Bay Sawar Plant Crystal Bay Halghborhood Crystal Bay Neighborhood Public Viorka - Highway 12 Public works - OCB Sawar Plant F' CipitBl Costa (Bits Bpacific) Land CoatB Lass Bsla of Propsrtyi Crystal Ssy/lteighborhood OCS/Sawsr Flast •oils Oorrsetioo Wstsr/Spriaklsr Support •swsr/Otilitiss Lsadsospisf Strsst/farkiag/Curb-Guttar »litioo/Corrsiit VliasiBf SiSdliK CliMts ^oat Os fieaCBOO sf I 160-70) a isooM esrrast laaall •oist SoTslopMAt/Biddiag •its •Mtal Otiisr $292,000 $0 $292,000 $0 (34,500)(34,500)0 0 (200,000)0 (200,000)0 160(-41S,000)15,000 75-150,000 15,000 0 162,600-262,600 162,600 205,000 25,000 25-50,000 35,000 240^000 60,000 60,0^^60,000 60,000 90,000 120000 i20,000 95,150 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 0 0 40,000 40,000 slayad)51-145,000 81-145,000 0 0 50-60,000 50-60,000 55 5-101 0 0 Of bldg savings (51/145,000) 0(7) of bldg savings (51/145,000) 35-50,000 30-50,000 tom 427,500 Possible raallgnsiant Bcquisltlofi of of OCB (100-200,000) Bouses Hlnipuai l-$50,000/house -75,000 406,300 Possible reallgnaent 100-200,000 Coason Sits 145,000 282,500-537,500 145,000 263,300-626,100 704,B00-949,800 670,100-860,100 1,000,000 d l/- p % i-. iS. n;-' L^::’ i'A a:i f: CITY FJ^CILITIBS - CITY OF ORONO COMMON SPLIT ABC D (lUqhway 12) I8«w«r PUnU CH/FO ^N CB/FO PM fCryttAl Bay) Highway 12 (Cryatal BayMSawar Plant) ▼•biClBB Can atora Atfain/Pollca ▼ahieiaa in wintar without addlttonal §•£• fuallnq on aita. Faaain outtlda Fuai at apllt ait# (waited awploya# t!«•) or 2nd fual ayato# parkin# at a alnl]raqutra rec#pt toniat/a#cratary at PuM c Work! or alwaya havi- aup#rvlaor praaant (f30,000/yr). 2nd talopliona ayata# for PWa. Om mi Matinf Fropartiaai If Public Norka Dlractor aovaa to thia facility n#ad addn c^.nfaranca apaca/aitq/aaoiD> Plant Facllltlaa Cryatal iny/CnFrant City nail Baiidaatlal SaiM aa a Fealdential Fad lit iaa Fad litiaa tBpaadahility of Bitot Park or hooainq (plua poat offica aa ta) Nora llnltad than A Raaldantlal Fad litiaa Batra bid# aita plua boildin# oapanaion of Joint it to fof Otbor Parpoaoat CB/ro/pw (bt# lota) CH/FD Vary llaltad CB/FO Vary llnltad FV Good FN Ck>od Llnltad Saa C ILibrniy/Poot ofCico) Foaalbl# - HAIL bl tability*! idanta Could bo uaod in eoolaaetioa with librar*j/poat of f1co/achool/othar coaoMrcialt ate. Bono apart fron incorporatln# aaiatia# poat offica llnltad Baaily dnaoribad Raaaooably aaay Saa C !?!■life y - Vte,,- :v ■ Baaily doforlbad Baaaonably aaay Not aa aaay Nora difflculT Raaaonabla Baay Paraona mmy #o to ona aita hoping to find tba other. CITY MCILXTIES - CITY Of 0»OHO t I- • ? • Ik *i^yK' COMHON SPLIT A B C D LOCBTIOM (Highway 12) (Sewer Plant) CH/PO PW CB/PD P« (Cryatil Bay) Highway 12 (Cryatal Bay)(S«wer Plant I (AaauMd C«c9raphlc Cantar of City - OCB a Sowar Plant) D'atOBcat fro« •Cantor" 2 milas 0 1.5 2 1.5 TTM OCB/NS Driva 2.5 0.5 I 2.5 TImi Prom OCB/NS Driva All raaldanta can reach thla site without going thru another conaiunity • GONPATXBLB land USB yyp^t CouiarclaX Pasldantfal/ Urban Commercial Urban Commercial Natural" Baaidential Residential •City Ball/Bollca-OffIca/Batail •Public Norks-Lt. Industrial •ficala^/llaaa Similat/Small 4ii5 times 8-12 tlmaa Equal/lesa 8-12 times 4-5 tlmaa —-- - - --- - -*-than current surrounding Varlancaa ™—---— -— - --— At current zoning - yes Building Setbacks None None (If no Nona Sea C Nona or limited expansion) (requires street closing) Psrklngi Setbaclia None Nona None See C None • of spacae Nona Nona Yes Bardcoaar (DNB-proposed Outside 1000* Noetly Poseible Outside About Noiitly rafulstione - 25%) outside 1000* 40-50% outside 1000* About Hardcover 1000* 40-501 Operational Aspectat Hardcover Capital Storage can place It in PW*a at laaa a.f. coat Booma Lunchrocor one lass Nons office PN*a plus maatinq, training space % Trips Batweon Pscllltlas On foot 3-4 miles between sites . 1 Dear Crystal Bay Resident, As you are aware, the City has been exploring new facilities and is considering the possibility of a joint City Hall/Police building on the property owned by the City in this neighborhood. The City is also considering relocating it to Highway 12 just east of the Orono schools. City Hall/Police - This is a facility that will be between 15-20,000 square feet, (approximately 8-12 times most houses in the neighborhood). City Hall will have business traffic generally between 8-5 weekdays and for meetings up to several nights a month. The police portion will have both police traffic (emergency and non-emergency) 24 hours per day. People will be processed throughout a 24 hour day/7 days per week. It possibly would cost $180-500,000 more to utilize the Crystal Bay site in conjunction with a Public Works building at another location. The enclosed attachment show a potential footprint. This illustrates both the closing off of streets and locations of parking lots. Post Office - If the City Hall/Police facility is located outside the Crystal Bay neighborhood, the current Post Office building would stay. If the City Hall/Police was to be located here, space for a Post Office would be included within the new facility at an additional cost of $50-60,000. If the City facilities are relocated, the could still maintain its postal address at the Crystal Bay Post Office. Use of Existing Land - Discussions have entertained that if City Hall moves from the Crystal Bay neighborhood, the City could use the vacant land as a park except for the Post Office. (If desired, the current Council Chambers could be retained for historical purposes, if a group would like.) As an alternative a portion could be sold for 2-3 residential lots . Pub 1 ic Works - Regardless of what the City did, the Public Wortcs facility would not be located in the Crystal Bay neighborhood. Expansion - In the future should the City be required to expand the facility, it may need to purchase abutting residential properties. QUBSTIONAIRE Choose only one option per household. Own Rent 1. For tbo property currently owned by the City In Crystal Bay: (Select one) A. ) For the City Hall and Police Department, I desire it be built on the expanded and existing Crystal Bay site. B. ) It is my preference the City’s building, except the Post Office (and possibly the Council Chambers), be removed and the area be made a park. C. ) I desire all buildings be removed and all three parcels be combined and made a park. D. ) The City Buildings be removed and the property apart from the current park and Post Office be sold for housing. a. ) Single Family b. ) Duplex 2. If the City Hall is relocated I desire the: (Select one) A. ) Post office to remain and City maintain its postal box at Crystal Bay. B. ) Post Office remain but City Hall can use a different postal address C. ) Remove Post Office and receive delivery from Wayzata at a mail box at the curb. PLBH8B RRUUI BY r -3 immfejur^ February 8.1991 FE3 1 2 r; i. Ti' i. Mr. Mark Bamhardson CityofOrono P.O. 8ok66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 RE: OrcMM) Munlelpai Canter Exlstlng City Hall SIta Schamatics OaarMark: As par your request, we can prepare a revised schematic plan for the existing City Hail site for an additional fee of $2,800. This fee represents $2,000 to prepare the design work and $800 for maatings and community reviews. The design work would include the following: A. Site plan providing the property size and building location. B. R oot plans ttustrating the buiding feytHit for City na . Police and pubKc rr^ing spaces. C. An exterior imago skatch showing how the design vsou H ‘'t into - neig^oorhood. This work would represent, not a hreJ design for the site, but an aiustration of how a design can be unlquoiy prepared for the City Hafl site. It would include one revision. The work would be done within a two week period after your approval of our proposal. This work would provide a specific iiiustraticn of how ihe Cfty rid’ needs could be uniquely oppiied to tSie old City Hall site as a specific opportunity to further assess the potential of this site. On bi^ of Boatman, Kroos. Pflster, & Associates. Inc.,! appreciate this opportunity to again be a BoannaaAlA Boannaii, Kroos, Pflster, A Associates, Inc. JB:lkm Pie Name: pro|eet\om2\b\2-Jb6 222 North 2nd Sirooi .MInneapoll* .Minneioia SS401 6t2-JJ9-37S2 6I2-JJ9>62!2 Equal Opporfurtivy Employer 'wr ♦ wU tISSIONCITY OP ORONOSPECIAL NEBTIH6 OF THE PLAHNIMG OWORK SESSIONFEBRUARY 27, 1991? 5:30 P.M.1275 BROUN ROAD SOUTH - COUNCIL CHAMBERS m ,1'fe,». ATTENDANCESESSION - 1. Adopt list of Policies & Goals - amend, additions. 2. Review of safety improvements for Highway 12 scheduled for 1993 - Gary Rylander, Transportation Engineer of Bonestroo, Anderlik & Rosene. 3. Metropolitan Development Guide/Policy Plan - standards pertinent for this review. 4. Recommendation for location of upgraded Highway 12. 5* Recommendation for design of upgraded road - Gary Rylander: A) number of lanes, B) type and number of accesses, C) speed determination. 6. Recommendation for minimizing impact on City of Long Lake (if upgraded Highway involves existing Long Lake). 7* Concurrent with upgrade of Highway 12, recommendation for upgrade of other east/west arteries. a. other issues to be addressed by Planning Commission. 9. Approval of minutes of February 20, 1991 public information meeting. 10. Select Members of Commission responsible for present'.ng final recommendation to Council (March 11th or March 25th Council meetings). ADJOl Toi Planning Commission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson 22191.3 Froas Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building 4 Zoning Administrator Dates February 21 r 1991 Subject:Highway 12 Study - Review of Policy/Goals & Issues to be Addressed by Planning Commission The following are policies/goals suggested by the four meoibers in attendance at the work session meeting of the Planning Comalssion on February 6, 1991: 1. Overall goals and polices of the 1980 Community Management Plan are still appropriate and should be restated for these discussions. 2. The designation and/or new installation and/or upgrading of a corridor through the City will not result in the rezoning to commercial or Industrial of abutting lands nor the expansion of existing commercial or industrial zones. No changes in current zoning shall be considered. 3. The City shall support the views of its residents but final determinations must be a comprehensive response to immediate and future transportation needs. 4. The upgrade of Highway 12 is necessary within the Orono/Long Lake area because of safety factors. 5, To encourage all levels of communication between the Councils, Planning Commissions(?) and citizens’ groups of the cities of Long Lake and Orono. To encourage a forum for the exchange of ideas and concerns for the purpose of developing a mutual plan/agreement between both cities. 6. Adopt the following from a staff memo prepared for Council entitled "Initial list/potential goals for Orono", as follows: A) effectively and safely handle traffic (not via a freeway); B) establish corridor to plan around; C) minimize time length for property owners caused by uncertainty as to highway location; D) develop corridor as close to present as possible; E) limit residential impacts; F) protect the natural environment. jji. m Highway 12 Study February 21» 1991 Page 2 of 3 Members will be able to amend or add others at your work session on February 27th. Work Sheet for Discussion of Issues: 1. Location of highway? 2. Depending on locationr type of road to be installed; A) lanes • number B) through congested area of Long Lake: Options: 1. Controlled lanes (3 lane highway, 2 lanes used during peak hours, one way) 2. West lane one way going west on existing corridor and a separate corridor installed south of Burlington railroad for one way east traffic. 3. Elevated or depressed roadway. 3. Access points: A) limited access, access at each existing crossroad, B) elevated or grade. 4. If upgrade of existing Highway 12 corridor is proposed, what methods or means shall be employed by the City of Orono to minimize impact on incorporated City of Long Lake? A) Immediate or future consolidation. B) *Oe~annexation” of lands to Long Lake to compensate for loss of lands. C) Monitary payments to offset tax base loses. D) Others. 5. Recommendation for upgrade of other east/west arteries to cover future needs based on traffic forecasts (not available for these considerations): A) B) C) D) B) Highway 55 - State County Road 6 - County County Road II * County County Road 24 - County Others. '£ If 'h f I- SA‘. fe-' Highway 12 Study February 21r 1991 Page 3 of 3 Members are asked to review the enclosed agenda for the work session and to get back to the Zoning staff if you wish other items to be included or proposed items to be removed from the agenda. / -• FROM: DATS: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator February 20, 1991 SUBJECT: Police Chief Selection Attachment: A. Police Chief Selection Memo Dated 2/6/91 ISSUE - 1. Determination by Council as to process desired for Police Chief selection. 2. Determine if executive search firm is to be used and if so adoption of a Request For Proposal to be used to determine the cost of such. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's February 11, 1991 Council meeting they tabled the issue of Police Chief selection until February 25, 1991 Council meeting. Attachment A outlines issues related to the alternatives for an in house process and one for use of an executive search firm. Following that meeting input was received from Council Attachment B represents a proposed process for seeking Request For Proposal. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the Request For Proposal based on the process. 2. Amend and adopt. 3. Take no action. 4. Table to March 11, 1991. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that once Council has made any changes that they desire that the Request For Proposal be transmitted and delay any further decisions regarding the process until receipt of the Request For Proposals from any executive search firms interested in further pursuing it. PROPOSED NOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, that after any amendments Council direct staff to transmit a Request For Proposal to executive search firms that may be interested and have experience in the local area in Police chief selection. Ayes , Nays . 2691,3 1; TOx FROMx % DATE: Mayor and City Council < ‘ ’Marie E. Bernhardson, City Administrator February 6, 1991 m \ SOBJECT: Police Chief Selection Attachment: A. Draft Request for Proposal B. Police Chief Selection Memo 1/22/91 ISSUE 1. Determination by Council as to process desired for Police Chief selection. 2. Determine if executive search firm is to possibly be used and If BOt adoption of a request for proposal to be used to determine cost of such service. INTRODUCTION - At the Council’s January 28, 1991 meeting Council set Monday, February 4, 1991 as a response date for input to the level of involvement Council desired in the process. The chart In Attachment A based in part on those two responses. DISCUSSION - Issue 11 - Selection Process - Attachment A represents two charts one that is solely an inhouse process and the second using an executive search firm to a substantial degree. A final process may represent a modification of the two and could be decided once the request for proposalj^ are submitted. Issue #2 - Executive Search Firm - Use of an executive search firm can assist the City in the following issues: Provide expertise in defining the position and selection criteria. Provide active recruitment services for the position. Serve as a "neutral ” outside party in identifying for the new Police Chief areas for organisational development . Allow staff time to be dedicated to other priority issues. Serve as a neutral party in judging applications against selection criteria and reducing Council and staff involvement time in initial reviews of upwards to possibly 75 - 100 applications. As noted on the attached request for proposal, should the responses to this request for proposal come back at a price that Council does not deem appropriate# Council can reconsider whether to: A. Alter level of services to be provided or B. Choose to do in house. As for cost and who is to pay for it# it would be staff's recommendation that it would be solely borne by the City of Orono separate from the Police budget. Even if included in the Police budget as a basic item# the City of Orono would bear 70% of it. The portion of the non-budgeted amount for 1991 would be an anticipated savings for a Police Chief starting at a compensation level lower than the retiring Chief of which Orono would realize 70% of those savings. ALTERNATIVES Issue #1 - Determination of a selection process - 1. Approve a process. 2. Amend and approve. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Table for further input. 5. Take no action. Issue #2 - Use of an executive search firm. 1. Approve and transmit for request for proposal to determine cost. 2. Amend and transmit. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Choose not to undertake an executive search firm. RECOMMENDATICT “ As of February 7th input had been given from two of the counciImembers. As such# given the significance of this process that the item be tabled until February 25# 1991. It is recommended that once reviewed by Council they adopt a process to act as a guideline for selection subject to review once the response to the request for proposal are received. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _# seconded by _# Council table for final discussion on Febraury 25, 1991. Ayes _# Nays _. :44 cj n \ua /j\? Lnj u u i Attachment: REQUEST FOR SERVICE POLICE CHIEF SELECTION EXECUTIVE SEARCH FIRM A. Service Options B. Police Chief Compensation C. Excerpt Personnel Rules D. Excerpt Police Department Manual INTRODUCTION - The City of Orono is seeking proposals from executive search firms who have experience in the area of Police Chief/Department Head selection for municipalities, particularily in the Metropolitan area. The City is in receipt of a resignation from its 16 year Police Chief Melvin Kilbo which is to be effective on June 30, 1991. This early notice given by Chief Kilbo allows the City to undertake a selection process and have an individual selected by Chief Kilbo's retirement. ORGANIZATIONAL SUMMARY - The Police Department of the City of Orono is composed of 15 1/2 sworn officers together with 1 full time secretary, 2 part time secretaries and 2 part time Community Service Officers. Among the sworn personnel are as follows: ' 1 Chief 3 Lieutenants - have administrative/patrol/investigative responsibilities 11 1/2 Patrol Officers - patrol/investigative duties 5 - base contract 2 1/2 - specifically assigned to Long Lake 4 - equivalents specifically assigned to Spring Park The Chief of Police, while formally appointed by the Orono City Council, is a department head that reports directly to the City Administrator. The Police Chief in addition to being the Police Department head also works on contractural and service coordination arrangements with the four fire departments that provide service on a contract basis to the City of Orono. The City in addition coordinates advance life support provided by North Memorial Hospital an<% provides on a contract basis, animal control services through the City's CSO system to Long Lake, Minnetonka Beach and Spring Park. k ' . The current structure was a result of a transition which began in 1987 and completed in 1990 changing from a four tier to a three tier structure. The Patrol officers are represented by Law Enforcement Labor Services with the supervisors in 1990 becoming a bargaining unit also represented by a different business agent with Law Enforcement Labor Services. CONTRACT SERVICE - As noted the City of Orono (population 7300) does provide police service on a contract basis to the Cities of: Long Lake - 1,900 Spring Park - 1,500 Minnetonka Beach - 600 The contract service arrangement splits costs between a base contract for which a formula proportions the cost among the various cities together with allowing the communities of Spring Park and Long Lake the ability to select a higher level of service and coverage by specifically paying for additional officers. The 2 1/2 additional officers provides approximately 60% 'normal patrol time to the City of Long Lake and the four officer equivalents (done by three officers) specifically assigned and portions oT 3 other officers partly assigned about 95% patrol time in the City of Spring Park. The chief of Police is primarily responsible for preparing budget and communicating with the contract cities related to these items with assistance from the City Administrator. The City Administrator and also Police Chief are involved in labor negotiations with the two bargaining units. Expected * Possible Process/Service - Because of the unique nature of the contract service provided by the City the scope of services will include involvement of representatives from the contract cities during the process. The anticipated general process is outlined in Attachment A. Optional services and pricing for that can also be noted by the person providing a response. RECRUITMENT Position Description » Current Postion Description - This will represent a description of the job as it currently exists. Applicant Characteristics - The executive search firm would identify characteristics for applicants together with screening criteria for both initial and final screening. Compensation - Compensation for the position for 1991 is as outlined in Attachment B. Areas For Organizational Development - The consultant will spend time with various constituencies including supervisors^ patrol officers^ contract cities# Orono staff members and Council in developing review of the current position description together with identifying areas for future organizational development and customer service. “ Announcement - It will be the responsibility of the firm to place ads in at least the following publications: (If deadlines are not a problem) League ot Minnesota Cities Magazine/or Legilative Bulletin Minnesota Police Magazine Minneapolis Star/Tribune Active Recruitment - It is additionally to be the responsibility to actively recruit qualified candidates in the Metropolitan area and State of Minnesota together with other qualified applicants the firm is aware of within a reasonable distance within 200 miles of the Twin cities that may lie in other states. APPLICANT SCREENING Initial Criteria - It is to be the responsibility of the executive search firm# based on applicant criteria# to narrow the field to an initial 10 to 15. These will I r. r then be reviewed by a composite of Council, contract cities and staff. Secondary « Based on that, the consultant will assist the above listed panel in reducing the number of applicants in the range of 3 to 5 for final selection. FINAL SELECTION - Background Screening - The firm will conduct the necessary background screening including; meeting qualifications and necessary Bureau of Criminal Apprehension screening for police officers prior to final interviews. Please separately price the cost of a psychological screening. Interv iew Process - Questions based on selection criteria and prior experience; develop a questionaire and scoring for the final interview panel together with providing the background information on the individual. Position Offer - As an optional service the executive search firm can provide negotiated services for the process. CRITERIA FOR SELECTION » In addition to the general familiarity in selection of department heads the following represent criteria considered during the review process for proposals: A. Experience in Police Chief selection. Familarity in selection in the Metropolitan area B. Alternatives to proposal. C. Cost of services D. Type of process proposed together with level of involvement E. Any experience in similar situations where the Department Head is involved with providing contractural services to other entities. I* t 2591.2 ^ w '-i U CITY OF ORONO INITIAL COMPENSATION OUTLINE CHIEF OF POLICE SALARY Present range per 1991 Compensation Plan 21.761 - 25.061 (45,262 - 53,250.08) In addition the Chief receives up to a 5% incentive based on cities with whom contract police services are provided, broken down as follows: 2% » Long Lake 2% - Spring Park 1% •• Minnetonka Beach This raises the maximum range to (47,525.10 - 55,912} RELATED BENEFITS The City provides for single coveraga of: Health Life Insurance ($_____) It will pay up to $231.00/month in 1991 for family coverage plus single life insurance on the employee. FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PLAN The City does offer a flexible benefit plan under IRS Section 125 which includes as pre tax Day Care, Medical Benefits Plan and Health Premiums as outlined in the plan. VACATION This will be a function of negotiation with the successful candidate. SICK LEAVE This is 1 day/month. A maximum of 960 hours is an allowed accrual with anything over that going into a catastrophic sick leave bank of up to 320 hours. The successful candidate will be given a credit of 320 hours sick leave. Credit for 1/3 of sick leave after 3 years will only be for the amounts of sick leave over that initial 320 hours. I HOLIDAYS The City has 10 scheduled and 1 floating holidays. VEHICLE The City provides an unmarked, emergency equipped unit for 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. !i ■ • A 'f fticcui D - Develop OZ - Development Interview R - Review 1 - Interview SOJCnOH PROCSS Level of Involveinent COJICIL CCflTRACT CITIES STATT Roaition Oeacri^lon current Poaltion ONeriptlon Rev lew Review Oevelon Aiiplicant Chacaetariatica Review Develop OoApanaation Review Develop Seraenifig Critarla Review Review Develop Araaa te Orgmiitational Review Oevelop mx3ss wrncirr OUTSIDE casuLTwr E3CEC SEAim (If Any> ^tiv* HtCiiiitMnt Dew lop/Submi t Llmi teH Elicit flcran I initi Ana (Jlntlcipate 75*100 Applications) Basta on tnitUi CriUcU 9er«in to 10*15 >5 lor rinal Represcntative(s) on scre<?nlng panel Representatives on screening panel City Administrator/ 1 Department Head Possible I I^Ii<^ Sipeevisor Participate and I Patrol Offioer final atloction 0-5) baeitgcoiM aersanina tnttcvlaif Pcootaa - Quaatlona Tntarvlev 3-5 (f!ayba Oouncil 3i±ioo —ittse) 1 l^presentatlve from the 3 Oamiiinities on rinal Panel City Administrator Participate in ^Inal Panel PecomMndatlon to Council Staff direct Background Develop questions and Sooring f * Sming (If Any) Baiaetion Poaltion Offar/ mgotlatlon (If WBsdsd) Trviaiticn (If ibiyi Review Offer to Suocesaful Candidate Participate aa Ooordlnator (0) Offer (O) m T. r • U I ] ; . J D - Dmlop DX - DtvalofBint IntwiaM ft - Reviaif Z - intaeviaw mjacncM Level of Invoi^etnent OOUHCIL CDtrmCT CITTES STATT EXEC SCARCll {If Any) MMltlon OMOtlMlon Ovrant ftoaiuon Oaacription Rav itw Rev iew Review Develop (0)'Assist Devciqp (0) iteview Afplicant Charactariatica Raviai#Pcview Develop 10) Oaftptnaation Review Review Develop (0) Scraanifig Critarla Review Review Review Develop (0) 'Assist Araaa te OrganisaticMl OaaalopBWit Review Review Develop (0) ^vtew ftocruitaafit AmMwaMit Submi t ACtIva fiacruitnant * ^Jertske as jgrotjil to ADplIeant ScraanlM (Antieioata 7S»LOO AnDlicational Baaad on Initial Ccitacia Setaan too 10-15 Revia# Screaning Screen Saoondacy ftaoosMnd 1-5 for Pinal « Repo!$aantative(a} on screening panel Representatives on screening panel City Aitoiiniatrator/ 1 Departaant iiead Possibly 1 Pblice Sigierviaor and 1 Patrol Officer Assist Panel Oixstions and Sooring riB^ Jiiwtlan 0>SI Tfewgrewd Soraaninf Qanduct Background Screening tntarvlaw Pcooaaa - Quaationa tntanriaw 3-5 (fiaytoa Oouncil S^tesaaittae) 1 teprea«ntati>w frooi the 3 OoMSiltiee on Pinal Panel City idainistrator Participata in Pinal Panel Recowamdation to Council Develop questicsui and Sooring - Sooring (tf My> Salaction ftoaition Offar/ ingotiation (Xf Naadad) Review Offer to Successful Candidate Participate as Coordinator (0) Off«f (01 Trmltl4 Uf %iy) O - ftopc«Mnts teviots that will ba Listed ss Optional in Raquaat foe Profxaaal Tot Mt Mayor Peterson & Orono Council Member Mark E, Bernhardson, City Administrato' January 22, 1991 Subject: Police Chief Selection ATTACHMENT - A - Police Chief Selection Memo dated 12/21/90 ISSUE - Presentation to the Council of information related to a police chief selection. INTRODUCTION - The Council at its January 14, 1991 meeting was presented with Attachment A and requested to outline the level of involvement they would like by various parties. At that meeting, it was indicated that a request for proposal could be put together with options regarding level of involvement of an outside consultant once the input from Council was received. DISCUSSION - Subsequent to that meeting, the following local venders of police recruitment services were identified: Sathe and Associates Public Management Consultants Labor Relations Associates Once prepared, a request for proposal would be a consolidation of the ideas for level of involvement of the various parties in the selection process. The purpose of the of proposal will be to determine how much cost is involved and given the options, allow the Council to select what level of involvement they would like. A selection would not only be based on price, but also on the service and expertise provided by the individuals. There is no requirement that Council undertake a "low bid" approach should they chose to do otherwise. At the last meeting, there was also discussion regarding identifying areas for organizational development. It is anticipated that the issue identification and applicant criteria could be done to determine areas for this. As such, an outside firm could serve a dual role for the City in a positive vein. ■1 '■ ■ Police Chief Selection January 22, 1991 Page 2 of 2 When the reguest for proposal is approved, it is antipated that the firms would be solicited during the February meeting time frame and is to be presented to the Council at a meeting in March. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the information 2. Take no action. 3.Table. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended the Council table discussion until February 11, 1991. PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by , seconded by table discussion until February 11, 1991. Ayes that Council nays _ _. MEB/tln cc:Melvin Kilbo, Police Chief City of Spring Park City of Minnetonka Beach City of Long Lake % .r ^ ^ ^ -t r* 's. / r/l TO; FBOM: DATS: *!ayor and City Council ?!ark E, Bernhardson, City Administrator' \ December 21, 1990 SDBJECT: Selection Process - Police Chief Attachment: A. Notice of Retirement - 12/6/9C B, Selection Process ISSUE • 1. Present for Council consideration the generalities for process selection* 2. Determine general process Council would desire for selection o£ a new police chief. 3, Level of Participation - Determine level of participation at various steps in process. 4. Staffing - Determine extent of outside resources to be used in process selection. INTRODUCTION - With the pending retirement of Chief K.ilbo it woul3"be appropriate to determine the process by wrich his successor will be selected. DISCUSSION - Elements for consideration in the process are as follows: Determination of the process In house Use of an external consultant Position inventory Position description Applicant characteristics Compensation Screening criteria Recruitment Job marketing Advertisement only Expected candidate iderttifIcatlon Extent of applicant search Metro area State wide Regional National Applicant screening Final selection Transition In the general process there needs to be consideration of level of participation by the following: Council Contract Cities Staff Executive search firnj, if any It is anticipated that an executive search firm would at most cost between $15,000 and $18,000. The cost would be less depending on areas in which used, level of active recruitment and extent of geographical search. This is not an amount that has been budgeted for currently but could be utilized from the city's fund balance. ALTERNATIVES Issue 12. General Process - 1. Direct that process presented be used. 2. Amend and adopt. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Direct further research. Issue #3 - Level of participation 1. Indicate participation level. 2. Request that that be done by staff/consultant, if any in further process development 3. Table for further discussion. Issue #4 - Staffing for process 1. Do entirely in house. 2. Employ an executive search firm. 3. A combination. RJ8COKMBNDATION “ Given the length of the items undertaken, the significant impact and assistance from Orono plus the contract cities and current state of the police department it would be helpful to engage a person/firm from the outside to do the bulk of the work* If this is acceptable staff would solicit request for proposal from search Tirms who have done police chief employments in the Twin Cities area specifying that this request u ■ —m I'aai I - ■ I a. ■ 'll k ■ y for proposal b6 brought to Council at its January 23, 1991 Council meeting. It would be helpful if CounciImembers could indicate where they feel involvement of the various groups would be appropriate. It is requested that these be returned by Friday, January 18, 1991. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by Council direct staff to solicit requests for proposal for consideration at the Council January 28, 1991 Council meeting for search firms who have done police chief employments in the Twin Cities area specifying areas of the various groups and their involvement. Ayes , Nays r—- I /IrrAQi^/^eur M TOs FCOM: OJklB: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adrainistratoi \'K ■\ V ' fj December 6, 199C SUBJECT: Notice of Retirement Attachment: A. Notice of Retirement - Mel Kilbo 11/30/90 ISSUE - Acceptance of a notice of resignation of Chief Mel Kilbo effective June 30, 1991. INTRODUCTION - As noted in Attachment A, Chief Kilbo has indicated he intends to retire at the end of June. While such advance notice is not required, his courtesy of this early notice will allow the City to undertake the selection process in a timely enough manner to possibly select a successor by his retirement date. Chief Kilbo's many years of service to the City of Orono and to police work in the Metropolitan area will be recognized as the date of retirement draws closer. Options for a selection process will be presented to the Council in January. Depending on the nature of the process selected it nay take months to complete. a PROPOSED MOTICK - Moved by»^, seconded by , the Orono City Council accepts the retirement notice of Chief Melvin Kilbo, as an enployee in good standing, effective June 30, 1991 and directs staff to prepare the recognition jf his many years of hardwotk ^d dedication to police work as his retirement approaches. Ayes WaysL J. ce: Mayors of Contract Cities Department Heads A i* j/f k 1 'ot/W r.\ '-4: * / if rji ri ‘ '• r '.r=r> Intsro'f-f ic3 rtafflo DEC 6 1990 Dare:Novemoer 30, 1990 To*Mark Bernharoson, Ciry Aofflinisrracor From:Melvin Kilbo. Chiet at Police Res Retirement As csr^sin psraonal plans and goals ars coniing to cosplsticjn, I am advising you I intend to retire as Chiet o-f ths Qrono Police Department e-f-fective June 30, 1991. On June 30, 1991, I will have 32 years, 9 months oi eunieipel service, which will include IS years, 6 months as Chi»f o-f Police in Qrono, As you had reguested some time ago, this si:« months notice • •/ Mill allow the selection process tor the new Chiet to be well on the way to completion. I fe. ■ ; ^ I mrv...W I f-- I. i-> 121990.1 /rTT/Ki/fMevr 0 01 It I D«v«lov Otvclopnent Interview Review Interview SSLeCTlOR PROCESS Level of Involvement roeltlow Deecrlptlen Curceni Poeltlon Description Applicant Characteristics Coepensatlon Setaenlnp Criteria Raerultawnt Aimounceaent Active Recrultaent Aopllcant Screening initial Ub lB-15) Criteria Secondary (to 5-7) final Selection (3-5) Sachsrouna ScreenIns Interview Ptocesa • Questions - Scorlns (If Any) Selection Position Offer/ MsQOtlatlon (It Needed) Transition (If Any) COUNCIL CONTRACT CITIES STArr BXBC SBARCa (it Any) 5 ft 'i^ I J I TO: mOM: DATS: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator February 11, 1991 SUBJECT: 1991 Legislative Policy Attachment: A. 1991 Draft Legislative Policy ISSUE - Determine if Council wants to adopt policies for the balance of the legislative session. INTRODUCTION - Annually the Council has adopted a Legislative Policy as direction for staff during the Legislative session. Attachment A represents staff's proposal for that for 1991 session. ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept. 2. Amend and accept. 3. Table. 4. Take no action. yCOMMENDATION “ It is recommended that after changes Council desires to make regarding the Legislative Policy that it be adopted for 1991 as in the past staff, if adopted, will transmit this to its Legislators. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, Seconded by _, Council adopts a Legislative Policy for 1991. Ayes _, Nays _. r T] /j\ f; 'r j J L u u u 1991tMasutrm rxjcdb Dtaft 01/22/91 uwm. or ocw uBMT stmi pajCY/ODtt<Ens snTus - UM> UBS 1.Mw]uat« aootsa «tisu ( the City is pyposwl to sddltlansl OMC COM Aipcopriste use stickers/ Cass to pay lake use costs I£M3UE FOLIOr nm Touci 0 Indicates Priority No policy No policy ■'V it'w 2. Solid IMto Pcoaoto i||>copriato racycling 22*6% recycling by Orono to Halt Uit of ImlflUe aooHunlty during 1990. I LUKr-2 (A) SmpgottB ^Effective planning •Altemativea to landfill 5% (SCORE) tax back to Gonimxiity *CoRp/Incantatlvea for OaBun i t ies/Ind i viduala and recyclable packaging *Clean-if> haxardoM waates *Condannatian an/arda/^llutod land *S^p|)ort to iaplement Federal Si^rfund Ooneonity right to know provifiiona *Deal with potential antitrust *0(:|X3se Ocapensatidi of haulers 'wing enacted 1-1 (B) ftBonund s leaving current nuniclpial authority in plaota Also su|iports organized garbage ooUection as a nuiicipal option. Oppcases any ncfensation to haulers not getting oontractSs tooDurages wste strem reducticsi by reductiaip resuB and recycling. F r>15 Draft 01/22/91 1991urasumvB rui wm. or aanmmtr stm MUCy/OQIMBfrS sixns UAGOE POLICY »t1 PCLICY 0 Indicates Prlcxity 3. Aimutloo ChMM Um back to caquirlng both ■mieipallklaa to ooncur In cban9e In Hatropolltan areas Lum'-12 (C) In part teoDMends review of 198S law aid either 9lve a veto power to affected cities or repeal. II-K Requests review of 1985 law dtange peraittlnq property owner Initiated annesatlon. Modify to allow only under followlnq criteria. *0cniad reasonable use of property ^Significant barriers to separating froa cucrmt csMunJ^^y Discuss process and criteria to be revie««eda i;;’ 4. Lnd Uia MM has rewped bill to ths point It cepcesMts an tapcoviMnt over current enabling act Cdc .* ■aiicipalitlaa. S. HMlaodn rtetaotlfln Ocono would like to see wetlands In a eanncr aiailar to what It has dens owsc ths last ssversl years. LUSF'U (B) Opposes any changes restricting cities current flexit^lity III-O Major change not needed isiless sore eapllclt aithacity given to cities and addresses interfsoes with the Metro land Planning act. LUEEr-4 (B) IV-H iMstn Mitar Mgt. *Biipand types of wetlands given Although not Rseific bo protaction wstlante, it addresses 'Adequate notice to govt inlts specific changes to the and property owners of restocstioi 1990 Metropolitan of use Surface Nstsr Mgt Act. 'State develop inifocn standsids *Hater Mgt. Org. take lead to inbagrata Into exist aurfaos water uaa planning 'Ccapenaatioi for property owners and local govts for loss of tax base ‘ I -u t. j J Draft 01/22/91 1191 uExajmvi Rijcis umi or oovBiMMr simb UBOB Fdjcy/aairaRS sums LEAGUE POLICY AMI POLICY 0 Indicates Priority 1. (Ocono loat all in 1990. My i||iar«ntly "celoae* f3,000 for 1991.) State facing $200 sdllioi shortfall for 1989-91 biennieuB. Possibly $1.2 billion for 1991--93 st^tantial resoval of USA/HACA for cities. Governor proposing revanf* of systea. 2. laonl Oneerrint Aids tasnd fcrnula i "nseds" finded are driven by put e^puditures the not (See above) 1. iBvy Llalts El ini nabs as Ttuth in Tuatlon now in place. At least Cor oousnities that receive no LGA or HAO. City still 8»i)ject to Levy Lialts Mhich are si^ipose to be eiiainated in 1993 out there is no penalty for exceeding them. 4, ItiiMi in Itaetlon Hake notices nore realistic to property tas payers u bo actual dollar RS-l (A) ^ , *LGA should reinain an essential oaqponent of property tax system «tGA should reflect need •Earmark a % of State receipts for local property tax relief •Property tax relief increase at least at inflation rate •Relief to c/I, rental, hlvalue not jeopardize TIP Sections lA-ID kddress several changes, (See above)I-C Continue OMmitment to local governnent increasing funding <si fair/equitable beeia* tiegislature ei^lore creative means to address unique local problems* RS*3 Eliminate levy limits lA Allow levy limits to eiqpire payable 1993 as current legislstion seta forth. RS-4 (B) •With Ttuth In TBxaticn eliminate levy limits •Paroal specific notices should be required as quickly as possible •Allow ammding levy •Apply cxi to levy not entire budget •Eliminate newipepec ids if property specific notioea sent •Fully fund ooets by state •Wotioa should soourstely reflect (iianges ;■ ■' ■< ' ‘ ■ ; V. j T3 y IMl LKISUmVI KU- Draft 0V22/91 V- wm, or QOVBHwr sms ZSSOB RUCr/OQ STKTUS LE3W3IE PCUCY A»»1 POLICY 0 Indicates Priority tjmaHL Oontinuad S. OBUisrabU NDctV My Sviity Mot l«t *MMfitial aaployws* bindins acbitratlon driv« mwacd pay rasults of othar ai|>layan with no amp M>rth oontrol on *«ssantials* Otanga in OoaKiasionec of Dept of Mployaa Relations aay change Legislative thrust plus rules of lnten*^*i*^ i<^ • GLP-2 (B) Oppc nglng law until 12/31/91 if 30 specific principals to b« adopted. S. tbs Incceasnt Preserve oicrent authority for developeent 06-1 (A) No further change in current legislation that dlninlsh cities ability but should add le^y authority for it. 90-26 (II-G) (A) Iigprove bo sake workable. Mjustsanta for oonp worth be outside levy limit. •Not prohibit oontracting *No changes until current deadline 12/31/91 lapses *Job analysis based duties not gender *Don't lUde local flexibility bo implenentation VI-B Supports League of Minnetoat Cities policy. I !' - 7. •e Pcoptfty tta imtltutioni ghould p«y tteir *fair shara* of all mnioipal ooata. Allow local unita to decide needed reserve • PS-2 (A) All State and regional units should reimburse Cities for polios, fire end street serviGee. ID/D-3 as League P5-5 (B) Legislature should not VI-B Suiporta League attei^t to control city reserves, poeiticn. ; -V S; M, F) I?Wi\ ? sL« 4J Ij Draft 01/22/91 lf91 LasisumvB poucos ura. or ocMSiMifr stkxe n WUCT/OOrfflENTS STATUS I2AGUE POLICY AW POLICY 0 Indicates Priority 1. Qmm PapuUtion Finl anpcopciate %iays to oontcol population in 2» GBomfl md SurfiOi Pcovidt ificantivas bo have local ooHMnitiea develop appropriate agt. plana. 3. Zodivlduai MUe tt» 1989 Leglalaturt CMDved the authority of local juriedicticn to leeue eell ptraite unless deligated by State^ a Oounty mtd County .ib the local juriedicticn. Desire to reinstate local authority as see previously peraitted. T9* J9C»P iriOi/W»ICM. !• ■IfhMsy nndifig of sales tax on aotor vthioles plus aotor vehicle eaeise tea be used solely for transportaticn purposes Develop otter finding MCteniM to provide for City prohibited feeding 7/88. No policy No policy City%teinlstrator on Hem Oounty Conservetion District Groun^tir Policy Advisory Oonittee. Also on State Mill Heed Protect icai Oonnittec headed by Board of Health. LUEET-IO (B) Establish incentives for local governi^t. (See Wetlands pg VIS of this doGunent.) Morking on issue through Well Head protection issue. No policy NO policy Governor proposing that $52 aillion KVE7 ncnies be used. LUBET«3 (A) sipporta M/PT and notor vehicle sales tax dedication to transportation. Restore bikeMsys grant progran. *MSA to QDHKiiities under 5000 ^ocal option toll ^Continue Bridge Bonding Prograa *Does not oppoBB add cn sales tax-Mstro area for transportation V--B Stellar V-N Indicates need for Metropolitan Transit Pind with oonbinaticn of V-O Sets forth criteria for Metropolitan Tax principles *Sipport altsmetive/innovative transportation prograa 7^1 P) (T\ -M i:n J 1 Z.' LJ LU -I J Draft 01/22/91 1991uaautfivB KuciES UW& or oowB MB ir simb nsm POUOf/OCWBMIS sums LEAGUE POUOr A»1 POLICY U Indicates Priority a. BlglMiy Jurlsdlctloi •Miile the City oould probably do a aoce effective ■eintenenoe job« no turnbacks ahoold occur without appcopcieta capiul aid operetlona/beintananae funding. Metro Fund - Oanees use of fiscal dlsw ikies to fund Metro Highway pools LUEET-8 (A) Sqpports realignment of roads oased on functional cl^l83ification - opposes any turnbacks without appropriate funding opposes longer truck tractor/trailer oonbination. V-E Similar to Leagues V-F (D) Given State/Cty ability to declassify an) turnback, Legislature shLAuld either a. ) Allow nuniclpality to refuse or b. ) Rave additional 9. Ikifinetruotm Fund/ Altocnati XnfEaetrueture fUrilng Qiv«i repl memiiit ooeu of inirestructure are beanidng diffloult ho ipeclaUy ■ becMM of "benefit* principel sivport preeervation of nilTlevy outside limits to find such repleceiyit as an option. , DS-7 (D) ProoDtes adoption of legislation to allow establisi^ nient of Municipal Servioe Districts to finanoB special services plus capital projects on a basis other than special assessment "bepefit.* Vl-fl Slpports League policy i!' Li: Draft 01/22/91 1991 LBSiaAnVB POUCXB3 vauct/oamns STfms LE^GUB POLICY A^9t POLICY 0 Indicates Priority 1. Meral Deficit DtClcit/Bel CMertali# anpcopriatc ■eemires tlixough iptfvlifig reductiona and if iMdedf tax increaaea that do not nagativaly impact tha ooano^f in order to bring ttm budget deficit under control. It ia siticipated that deficit oontrol uiU atrangthen the eocmey for the I990*a and reducing the ii^act of an impending reoeaaicn. No significant progress No policy No policry Daymlop and iaiplaaent a atrategy to reduce the trade deficit without resorting to protectionist trade legielation In order to ii^rove the O.S. Honthly balance of payiaenta generally lower still a concern No policy No policy Strengthen finding for prevention and an for meant at local level in additicn to national efforts. 4. Cbble tv Negulation IqpcoviMnt In current unregulated eonopoly aituation FL-1 S4^pocts full funding of drug abuse act and federal assistance to the local level. FL-6 ^Supports telephone dating cable syateea ^Assure rural areas other technologies disproved lease No policy as thru as etc. 'fr ■ r fTi n R L ' 1 L-. t Draft 01/22/91 UCXaAITVB R1JCIB5 COMIY VtUCtAXMOttS mats LEAGUE POLICY POLICY 0 Indicates Priority I ft- 4 1-/ S' I . ^ y-r I, mm ikwiiliig B^lore Csssibility of an latagcsbad ooaenicatians •yetSB Cor all local 9owt. sntities in Hstco area. 2. Rail Transit pcogrm flMnoad !ipipcineipaUy out of t»ars oDHuni tiaa/prapartias diractly banafittad and transit funding rsthac ttian tlia ganarsl Ownty pcoparty tax baas. Cltisan's toa gua tapoct rairnairita tto Build" of >01 PMRS 1. tack Jieviiaition Llalt aoquiaitioi bo lands that ara batbac bald as bo a significant pifalic t Oxxity seeking outside sssistanoe to develop systen specif ice t ions* Metro QDuncil has included it in their 1991 work progree. H/^H/A Regional Transit Board de^loping phasing and finencing reoomendatian. N/A V-M Give Metro approval authority. Should hawe a^pie parking. State Si^reae Oourt found in favor of Hennepin Parks. N/A N/A rr* l L' L ”J i ' I j Draft 01/22/91 IMl LMB HUMBTONRA CONSOVKriON DI^MCT Rucy/Qataaos simus laaoE POLICY WM FQUCY 0 Indicates Prlocity IMS 1. !om (XMEBMunoN msincr toviUllae UfS as an affaetiws 90wminQ body in ocnjunctlonon tl» wttb ■nletpallti the IMS. that of a plai. UGD places in abeyance foe 90 days. 21191. TO: FSOH: DATS: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson# City Administrat February 11» 1991 \hll \ SUBJECT: 1991 Strategic Plan Attachment: A. Strategic Issue Development Memo Dated 1/2/91 ISSUE - Determination by Council of a strategic plan for 1991. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's December 3, 1990 budget meeting it was <3etermined that the strategic planning for 1991 be delayed until the full Council is available. DISCUSSION - Attachment A represents a draft outline for the various issues for 1991 based on a review of the issues with various Councilmembers. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Adopt. 2. Amend and adopt. 3. Table until March 11, 1991. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the plan being presented at this meeting be tabled for Council's further consideration at the March 11, 1991 meeting after any comments have been made at this meeting including presenting any changes in priorities, timelines or issues listed. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by __, seconded by __, that Council after having made comments and expressed ideas related to the proposal table it until March 11, 1991. Ayes _, Nays _. cc: All Department Heads p' u- i- h' 1>'r i ■I. I wi miktMtc itttrt f»nrtu>»i«pt l«fi ewtwic II H»reli §9f>fw^9 tumt ftlttltf A »l uk« wm • I. M iftaMit CI m|«A m tiMi 9t l»f t« uw»PUm fO 4«f tp PorlipM^ pltP l»y ripPMlPf Le<P) OevtP Copprll ruMic KpPtiPf - P^ tKorplpM 11 rpp|«« pnt9$UC» • tplivltalPii •# ■ I MMlrlpPl 4«rl«4UtiMi 4iP€wmtmm »/H »l IlfhMaf U fm •c Im4«1« §tmmimim •mlP^ rli rv^lM rc rp«pM«p4pt Ipp ll»itl»t f*f mt\tppp 91 cttf fpcimup » CPavppftfv* rvrpivp ttpfffr for PptfepiMV tp t«plp« pffppfppa Ipc H pA pIp tP to tovtlpfiptfl ri riMMitPf •pIpp/ Ipptlppp tP topltoptp 9ipcpppp« ftpppiptppntp to CPPPell iPplOPPPt proptop rtiwttf t frppppt toiltoP Oooolop 4lroctlop )/I5 tovorro ppPlIo toorlPo II K'ilppili ftpff vitito to 9tPoi4p«f ttoff 4vofto/ordlpppco tovlov fpf fC/Coppctl iltf Vtpppfpvtoiii Prooeot ptepiop for ptoptlop Or4tpopc#/oppfi4pont rP^H^ tooriPf Ilf PPyl ti tttoPt Uftoipf HItoltf C froPOPt eptlopp totorploo PIroctipp »»»|pp poMle/prf POtP IPPPPO Doiorpin# f otor# Ptroetlop tf eito S/ll ftopopt Ipppp to Ceopcil for Pttoetipp HI MtoP ftoliP fppllltipp 1/4 rc forlop 4irprtlpp FtoooPt to coooc!1 rc tocompopPpt1OP •H ftMM MV topltpr rroftpoo of ppfffktoffiippP iPtoroPt Ilf ppottlop tooplpp pctoPolol •l.9lUiUM UftoPf 19 DpopIpp petoPoJp/locatIpp of ootor toopt/pppor Iptorrortor PopopJoPt pp 4ppplP9toPt/roiPip4 loppop n MlM i -r ^ 19to fipppcUl ms to«f0t roppft prpllPlPPfy FrOPOPt IPtI to rll rrppopt ma-9002 eppltPl 1999 Troto U 99P9llto toptito Mart 1999 '<-K 22091.1 TO* FBOM: OAXX: Mayor and City Council Nark E. Bernhardson, City Adninistrato February 21, 1991 Of J9$j SUBJECT: Municipal Board Process ISSUE * Bringing Council up to date regarding Municipal Board ■eetings. INTRODUCTION <- The Municipal Board has scheduled discussions for February 14th and 21st between representatives of the two cities to deternine if there was grounds for settlement. As a result of these aeetings Council will discuss the issue in closed session during the City Attorney report. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, Council accept the information regarding the Municipal Board process. Ayes , Nays I :i391.4 TO: FROM: DATS: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator February 13, 1991 SUBJBCTt Amendment to LOGIS Joint and Cooperative Agreement Attachment:A. LOGIS Memo - Amendment to LOGIS Joint and Cooperative Agreement Dated 1/30/91 B« Amendment No. 1 to Local Government Information Systems Joint and Cooperative Agreement C. Resolution Relating to Local Government (LOGIS): Approving an Amendment to the Joint and Cooperative Agreement ISSUE - Determine if Council desires to adopt an amendment to the joint powers agreement it has with LOGIS. INTRODUCTION - The City of Orono has been a joint member and partner in LOGIS since 1980. LOGIS is a joint powers arrangement with 26 cities which provides computer hardware and software services to these members. It has the following programs that it offers: Fixed Assets * Police Information Deputy Registrar (Motor Vehicle Licenses) * Financial Control Geographic information * Permit and Inspection Park and Recreation Liquor Inventory Control * Payroll Property Data Special Assessments * Utility Billing Vehicle Maintenance (Cities pay for the modules they use) * Indicates modules Orono uses. LOGIS has proven for these cities to be a cost effective alternative to either other outside vendors or having a stand alone inhouse computer operation. Cities on the LOGIS system range from Orono as the smallest up to Brooklyn Park as its largest with many cities in the 20, 30 and 40,000 population range. Cities on the LOGIS system either; A.) have their own inhouse computer, called distributed sites, but do not need inhouse software support because LOGIS provides that centrally or B.) have terminals linked to the programs run on LOGIS's main frame computers. The LOGIS operation is located in Brooklyn Center• I , \ OISCUSSION - The proposed amendment requires that each city notify LOGIS ^fAhey are going to withdraw from this system prior to June 15 bt the year preceding withdrawal. The current agreenent requires notification by October 1st. The reason for th# change is that LOGIS establishes a preliminary budget on June 1st and finalizes it in July for the following year. The problem with the October deadline is that should a city decide to pull out, particularly a significant one, it can increase charges to tha other cites who may be well through the process of establishing their budget. For a city who is looking to withdraw they would generally need to be underway with the decision to go with a new system prior to June 15th if they were going to be on line for the next year. In order for this change to be effective it requires adoption by all the member cities. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt. 2. Reject. 3. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that Council approve the Mei^ment to the Joint Powers Aqrcement and adopt the resolution as proposed. that the OronoPROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _ City Council adopts Resolution #__ relating to Local Government Information System (LOGIS): Approving Amendment No. 1 to the LOGIS Joint Cooperative Agreement changing the date by which cities are required to notify LOGIS of their withdrawal from the system. Ayes__, Nays __. cc: Thomas Ruehn, Finance Director r t f i = *■_ MEMORANDUIVi l_J DATE January 30, 1991 TO; FROM: LOGIS Board of Directors (= hMike Garris SUBJECT: Amendment to LOGIS Joint and Cooperative Agreement On January 17, 1991 the LOGiS Board of Directors passed a resolution recommending an amendment to the LOGIS Joint and Cooperative Agreement. The final step in the process is to have each city approve and adopt this amendment. I have included with this memo three copies each of the proposed amendment to the Joint Powers Agreement and the resolution for submission to your city council. Upon approval, please return two signed copies each of the Resolution and Amendment to my office. I am requesting that all cities adopt this amendment by June 1, 1991. If you have any questions or need additional information, please give me a call. MG:pq Enclosures: drri^ff^exjro AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT The parties to this Amendment No. 1 (Amendment) are governmental units of the State of Minnesota. This Amendment amends certain provisions of the Joint and Cooperative Agreement (Agreement), effective May 1, 1972 which created Local Government Information Systems (LOGIS) and under which LOGIS operates. The Agreement and the Amendment are made and entered into pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59. Section 1. Article IX, Section 2 of the Agreement is amended in its entirety to read as follows: "Section 2. The annual budget of LOGIS must be adopted in the following manner: (a)annually prior to June 1 the Board will supply each member with a proposed preliminary budget; annually prior to the annual meeting of the Board in July the Board will supply each member with a proposed budget adjusted for withdrawal notifications received pursuant to Article XII; (c) the annual budget must be adopted at the annual meeting of the Board in July. Promptly after adoption of the budget, the Board must mail copies of the budget to the chief administrative officer of each member. Upon adoption of the budget each member is obligated to LOGIS for the budgeted revenues and cost sharing charges fixed by the Poard for the ensuing fiscal year in accordance with this Article." Sec. 2. Article XII is amended by adding a new Section 2 to read as follows: 'Section 2. A member who has not given notice of withdrawal on or before June 15 of a given year is obligated for the budgeted revenues and the cost sharing charges fixed by the Board for the ensuing fiscal year in accordance with Article IX." Sec. 3. This Amendment is effective on the date that identical Amendments and resolutions authorizing their execution have been filed in the office of the Executive Director of LOGIS. ■U'1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF th«» undersigned governmental unit has caused this Amendment to be executed on its behalf by its duly authorized of^’icers 9^ of 1991. CIT Y OF Its Mayor Its Filed in the office of the Executive Director of LOGIS this ____________, 1991. day of Executive Director a RBSOLOTIOH RBLATING TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM (LOGIS): APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO TOE JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BE IT RESOLVED by the City of Orono as follows: Section 1. Background: Findings. 1.01. The City is a regular me.nber in good standing of Local Government Information Systems (LOGIS). The City is a party to the joint and cooperative agreement (Agreement) under which LOGIS was formed and operates. The Agreement has been entered into by the City and the other members pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59{Act). 1.02. The Board of Directors of LOGIS have recommended that certain changes to the Agreement be made. Those changes are embodied in the proposed amendment to the Agreement (Amendment). A form of the proposed -imendment has been reviewed by this Council. The form of the proposed Amendment is on file with the City Clerk. 1.03. Under the Act the Amendment must be approved by ■'ular members of LOGIS to be effective.all 1.04. It is found and determined that it is necessary and desireable for the orderly and efficient operation of LOGIS and the City that the Amendment be adopted. Sec. 2. Approvals: Authorization. 2.01. The form of the Amendment is approved. 2.02. The Mayor and the City Administrator are authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Amendment on behalf of the City. The Clerk authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of this .Resolution and the executed Amendment to the Ex.. *tive Director of LOGIS. Adopted »■ the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at a rev ar meeting held February 25, 1991. Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: Dorotny m. naiiin, city Clerk V TO: FSOH: DATS: 21391.7 C Mayor and City Council ^ Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat(^^ February 13# 1991 ClTY r SUBJECT: Request for Funding Planning Board - West Eennepin Human Services Attachment:A. West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board Memo Dated 2/11/91 B. 1991 Budget Excerpt - pg 11 ISSUE - Determination as to whether the Council desires to fund the amount requested by this organization for 1991. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's December 18, 1990 budget meeting it was determined that all non-profit non-governmental agencies who had requested funding would need to make subsequent requests for this funding. Attachment A represents the request for West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board. The amount requested is within the amount budgeted and is available from the budget in the 1991 budget. Attachment B outlines the comparison with 19v? for this organization. ALTERNATIVES 1. Authorize payment 2. Amend and authorize. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Determine not to authorize this payment. RECOMMy^RATION - It is recommended that the Council authorize payment of for the calendar year 1991. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by _, that Council authorize the payment of $1»6?1^.00 as outlined in Attachment A, as the request is within the amount budgeted for 1991. Ayes » Nays /Ir7^‘igpr // 41N tMDiM ovamw Muth, ft. loiib porii, m 9tO-5SS3 DATE: TO: FROM: FEB I 3 1991 FEBRUARY 11,1991 CITY OF ORONO BOX«6 CRYSTAL BAY, MN 55323 ATTN: DOROTHY HALLIN, CITY CLERK WEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING BOARD 4100 VERNON AVENUE SOUTH ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 INVOICE 1991 CONTRIBUTION TO WEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING BOARD $ 1,600.00 THANK YOU! ■> ^ itto cm or otoNo01 ifMML rUND vl2*OOJICT OltCOirTtON \ ' i; lornoN 02t DIVISION** euDoei uomksiieet -by objectDIV 21 HUMAN SENVICCS AS OF 1-20-00 rAQC 1011 ACTUAt 1010 ACTUAL 1900 APPROP V-T-0 06-30-00 1990 EST ACTUAL 1991 DEPT REQUEST 1091 HGR RECOMMD 1091 COUNCIL ADOPTED iOSOS 104S4 11200 4202 11260 I 13910 I I I lOSOS 104S4 11260 4292 11260 I 1394C 1 I I IOSOS 104S4 11260 420<;11260 I 13910 I I I I. s \ » » I ••iy .i i • 'I til •f . a ■■' M 'r! 'i, If■ - Uenn Husan Service Plannimj Board Senior Connunity Services •Neetonka Senior Center t I ‘ j ■ *i • LL-*0~N Area Senior Center If. Henn Pioneer Assn 11 •! * I I . . ■ i» |- I» If. Suburban Mediation Center League of Mn llunan Rights • U: % i'i I' f x: < t 1! ' * r • I ifj. jiji : . f I If ^ ' I ! ? i • J • . !iI I • il . J di iMIllAL rUND ■DV 21 HUMAN SERVICES rt f-' i- ' C« * I t.-A, 1440 16 20 4600 40 30 4170 4 280 0 2000 500 500 500 700 50 50 11,260= a s: s = =13,9BO— ^ t. zz zz sz 21191.8 / TO: Mayor and City Council FBOM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato / DATS: February 11# .i91 SOBJBCT: Policy Board Material Preparation C/yy ISSUE - Present to Council the proposal for presenting materials to the Council. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's special meeting of January^7# 1991 it was requested that staff review its process for presentation of meeting materials to Council so that the agenda packet Is delivered earlier than the current ■Thursday/Friday timeframe. DISCUSSION - Staff has reviewed its entire process ^d it can revamp its process so that the agenda items can be presented to Council by Wednesday night prior to the Council VoiliVot ti Council. ALTERNATIVES » 1. Accept the information. 2. Indicate any changes-desired. 3. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that Council accept the Information anT allow staff to work under the schedule to see its feasibility. At that time staff will explore if this move up is a benefit to Council or if further move up is amenable. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by __# seconded by # Council accept the information regarding policy board material preparation. Ayes , Nays cc: Department Reads F k- W- S'} f ■“ '}r h I /■J !'■ ■ ii- ■ms TOi Proa: Date: Subject: Mark E. Bernhardsoiir City Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director February 15, 1991 West Hennepin Recycling Commission Joint Powers Agreement In 1986, Orono, Greenfield, Independence, Long Lake, Loretto, Maple Plain and Minnetonka Beach formed the West Hennepin Recycling Commission. As a member of the Commission, the City of Crono has been able to participate and achieve the goals for recycling at the lowest possible cost. Attached for review and approval is the Joint Powers Agreement for 1991. ReeoaaeAdatioA - To approve the West Hennepin Recycling Commission Joint Powers Agreement for 1991. IrroposAd MotioA - Moved by ___, seconded by ___, to approve the West Hennepin Recycling Commission Joint Powers agreement for 1991. Ayes ___, nays Tos Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate! Recommending approval. The $2,134.00 set forth in the agreement is within the $2,500.00 budgeted for this item. ‘I •y . 'C ' r ''* V* JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT » THIS AGREEMENT made by and among the Cities of Greenfield, independence. Long Lake. Loretto. Maple Plain. Medina and Orono (hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Participants") is effective on the day and year provided herein. 1. PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY. This Agreement is entered into under the authority of Minnesota Statutes section 471.59. The Participants have determined that it is to their mutual advantage to form a single joint powers entity that shall establish and operate within the present and future boundaries of the Participants a program for recycling acceptable materials. Under the proposed recycling program (the "Program”), residents will be encouraged to deposit recyclables at central collection facilities established and operated under this Agreement. The central collection facilities will be supplemented by a mobile collection unit that will travel on a periodic basis between several satellite locations. The collected recyclable materials will be hauled to commercial recycling centers where they will be sold. Cities may also offer curbside recycling to residents. 2. COMMISSION. There is hereby created the West Hennepin Recycling Commission (the "Coinmission'*) consisting of seven commissioners. a. Appointment and Term. The governing body of each Participant shall, by a majority vote, arpoint a person, who may or mav not be an elected official of the Participant's, to serve as a commissioner. Appointments shall be for a two year period unless the respective governing body makes the appointment for a lesser period. Commissioners shall serve until their successors are appointeu and qualified. Vacancies shall be filled for the unexpired term by the appropriate governing body. A vacancy occurs upon the death or resignation of a commissioner. b. Compensation. Commissioners shall serve without compensation by the Commission. Reimbursement of expenses for each commissioner shall be governed by state statutes and the charter, ordinances, and policies of the Participant that commissioner represents. c. officers. The Commission shall choose one of its oiembers as a chairperson. The chairperson shall be appointed by commission action at the first meeting of the year. The coordinator shall act as secretary-treasurer. The chairperson shall preside at all meetings of the Commission. The secretary- treasurer shall keep a complete record of each meeting and of all proceedings and business 'f the Coinmission and shall keep an accurate accounting of all receipts and disbursements of the Coiisnission. The chairperson and secretary-treasurer shall sign all contracts authorlxed by and in the name of the Commission. r-fi d. Meetings. The Coiranission shall meet at such times and places as it shall deem appropriate but at least once every twelve months. All meetings shall be open to the public. e. Voting Reguirements. All actions of the Commission shall require a simple majority of the commissioners present and voting. A majority of the commissioners shall constitute a quorum. 3. POWERS. The Commission shall establish and oversee the operation of the Program. The Commission shall have the authority to: (a) enter into contracts in accordance with Minnesota statutes section 471.345, subd. 5, as may be necessary to accomplish its purpose; (b) hire, on an independent contractor basis, such persons as are necessary to operate the Program, including, but not limited to a Program Coordinator; (c) lease a site for a central collection facility; and id) apply for and administer grant monies as necessary to fund the Program. In no event shall the Commission incur obligations in excess of its funding as provide'’ In paragraph 4. FUNDING. Funding for the operation fo the Program shall come from grant monies, Hennepin County, funds from any sale of recyclable materials, and city contributions. The cities agree to the following formula for funding in 1990: $163.00 plus $ .75 per household Greenfield. . . . . . . . . . .$ 523.00 Independence. . . . . . . . . . 8 35.00 Long LaKe. . . . . . . . . . . . 736.75 Loretto. . . . . . . 269.50 Maple Plain. . . . . . . . . . 653.50 Medina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 892.00 Orono. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,134.00 Each Participant shall contribute 10% of its share by January 30, 1991, thereafter up to 22.5% will be contributed quarterly as needed. Each Participant agrees to contribute to the Commission any funds It receives from any source for projects or programs Involving recyclable materials. In addition, the Participants may, but are not obligated to contribute additional funds to the Commission for the operation of the Program. -2- V- Each Participant shall provide funds for any rurbside program for that city in excess of the money available from Hennepin County. 5. PUBLIC EDUCATION. The Participants agree to assist in the distribution of recycling-related information. The distribution of such information shall be distributed via municipal newsletters, water bill enclosures, general media news releases, and other mutually agreeable communication methods. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. The effective date of this Ageee.ment shall be the date upon which the last of the seven Participants has caused this Agreement to be executed pursuant to an authorizing resolution of its governing body. 7. TERM. This Agreement shall continue in effect until December 31, 1990, unless extended, renetjed, or terminated by the Participants pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 3 below. 8. MODIFICATION. This Agreement may be extended, renewed, terminated or amended by agreement of all the Participants as authorized by resolution of each Participant's governing body. 9. WITHDRAWAL. A Participant may withdraw prior to the expiration of the term of this Agreement or any subsequent extensions thereof by giving 90 days' notice in the form of a resolution of its governing body, served by certified mail on the secretary-treasurer of the Commission. Service shall be deemed to have been made on the date of mailing. Any grant monies or other funds received by the withdrawing Participant or the Commission, either prior to cr after the effective date of withdrawal, that are attribu:able to the Participant’s participation in the Program prior to its withdrawal, shall be paid to and remain the property of the Commission. 10. DISTRIBUTION UPON TERMINATIOR. Upon expiration of or termination of this Agreement, any assets remaining after the payment of outstanding obi.gat ions shall be distributed to the Participants in proportion to their monetary contributions calculated over the life cf the Agreement. 11. LIABILITY AND WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE. It is understood and agreed that ,u.>;c liability insurance and workers’ compensation iasuranc^. wMl be provided r native to the activities of the Commission and its waste recycling collection. It is anticipated that the Cities of Medina, Greenfield and Independence will arrange for this coverage and that, in the event either city incurs any cost as a result of such coverage, the Commission will reimburse said City for such cost. :■* i- -3- 12. ADDITIONAL PARTICIPANTS. The number of Participants may be increased during the term of this Agreement by amendment, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 3 above; provided that any new Participant shall also cause the Agreement as amended to be etecuted, pursuant to authorizing resolution of its governing bod! . 13. EXECUTIVL COMMITTEE. The Commission is empowered to appoint £xecutive Committee consisting ot three commissioners and the Coordinator. The Executive Committee shall meet at least one time per month and shall have the authority to conduct day-to-day business of the Commission, but shall not have authority to: (a) approve contracts or expenditures in excess of $1,000: (b' approve the budget; (c) establish annual contribution requirements (d) create recycling regulations; or (e) set recycling policies or procedures. The Coordinator shall keep the Commission regularly informed of the activities cf the Executive Committee by distribution of written minutes to each city clerk and each city's commissirner following each Executive Committee meeting. The Commission shall appoint t.^e Executive Ccnwittee members annually. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Cities of Greenfield, Independence. Long Lake, Loretto, MapTe Plain, Hedi'a and Orono have, pursuant to authorizing resolution hereto atta hed, caused this Agreement to be duly executed. -4- CITY OF GREENFIELD By.Its Mayor Its Clerk Date CITY OF INOEPEt Its Mayor Its Clerk Date CITY OF LONG LAKE Its i«yor Tcs Clerk Date f t CITY OF LORETTO t- its Mayor Its Clerk Date CITY OF :-'APLE PLAIN tjy Its '•‘dyer Its ClerK Date CITY OF nECINA By ______ Its Mayor Its Cler< Date CITY OF ORONO Its Mayor Its Clerk Date f-. i rot Mark E. Barnhardson, City Administrator Datas Sobjactz John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director ^ ffry t ¥r. February 20, 1991 Of Jfsj Public Hearing Community Development Block Grant YearTPrll For the past several years the City of Orono has received funds from HUD through Hennepin County called Community Development Block Grant Funds. Foi the past few years the City of Orono has received approximately $20,000''$25,000. The monies must be used for low to moderate income persons or families. A requirement for receiving the funds is to conduct a public hearing to receive input from the public as to the allocation of the funds. For 1990 the City of Orono allocated the monies to the following; Rehabilitation of Private Property $18,158 Interfaith Outreach 1,000 Nestonka Community Action 1,000 Hestonka Intervention 1,000 $21,158 For the public hearina proposed list of the projf' •* tice it is necessary to publish a KeeoBBesdation To public hearing for Year X' and to tentatively allocat> Rehabilitation of Priva Interfaith Outreach Westonka Community Action Hestonka Intervention ' H 25, 1991, 7:00 p.m., for the • .winmunity Development Block Grant ds as follows: $23,175 1,000 1,000 1,000 erty $26,175 Proposed Notion Moved 2nd to approve March 25, 1991# 7t00 p.m., as the public hearing for Year XVII of the Community Development Block Grant and to tentatively allocate the funds as follows t Rehabilitation of Private Property $23,175 loterfaith Outreach 1,000 Hestonka Comeunity Action 1,000 Hestonka Intervention 1,000 $26,175 Tot Mayor Peterson 6 Orono Council Members Frost Nark R. Bernhardson, City Administrate Forwarded recommending approval. b’. TO:Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat 22091.3 ■s 4$r\ DATS February 19, 1991 SUBJECT: 1991 Wayzata Fire Contract Addendum Attachment: A. City of wayzata Letter Dated 2^91 ISSUE - Determine whether Council desires to ratify the addendum ^or the 1991 fire contract with the City of Wayzata. IHTRODOCTIOW - The amount set AttacHiient A is slightly below Wayzata fire contract for 1991. forth for the contract in the $7,020 budgeted for the PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by __, seconded by __, the Council adopt the addendum to the 1991 Wayzata fire contract. Ayes _, Nays iit.1 All P’' f-' i' it yf CITY OF WAYZATA NH* me F sTRhh T \V\>/MV \t|\\ PHOM: i'.Vi>:34 Ol GitniM P. C Qntfin Di f«bniary t, I99i Chl«f N. H. Kllbo Orono Pollea Dapartmant 445 Willow Driva Long Laka, MH 55356 Daar Chiaf Kllbo: Aa Faguasbad« anclosad is a rebilling for the fire contract Wavss^*- Also enclosed are codIi * "" "vitb Waysata. Also enclosed are copies of the amended Udiiblt ■. PlMse have all copies executed by Orono and returned to us. Two fully executed copies will be returned to you for your files once they have been executed by Wayzata. Ihank you. Assistant Knee. ♦ . ^* 'T* ' EXHIBIT B TH£ CITY OF WAYZATA and the CITY OF ORONO do hereby agree to the terse indicated in paragraph 2. This Exhibit B shall be executed each year of service extension. In consideration of tern, paragraph 2, the parties agree as follows: 1.The terns of said agreement shall expire at one minute after nidnight, December 31, 19 91 unless further extended prior to that date by nutual agreement. 2.Orono shall pay to Wayzata the sun of $ 6,491 for fire protection rendered during this period,^yment of which may be made on a quarterly basis. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _• CITY OF WAYZATA CITY OF ORONO Mayor Mayor And And City Manager City Administrator I ¥ & i ^ Q 1 1 «. .. — X • X Ji ( TOi ::ayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adninistrat -x Cfyy — ^7 ^ OATBt February 22, 1991 :1H 1 I Canine Program Attachment: A. Kilbo Memo Dated 2/21/91 B. Canine Memo Dated 2/4/91 ISSUE - Present Council information related to: 1. Future of Baron. 2. Cost of retraining. INTRODUCTION - In response to questions raised by CounciImembers at the 2/il/91 meeting Attachment A was prepared. DISCUSSION - Issue #1 “ Given interest to make a home for Baron, the City is confident a home will be found and will insure such happens if replaced. Issue #2 - The estimate at this juncture is between 0>4 days. Nltll overtime this is up to $500 if all overtime must be made. Absent further concerns staff will go ahead with the replacement. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, the Council accept the Information and direction that staff has taken regarding the canine program. Ayes _, Nays _ cc: Chief Kilbo Officer Fischenich ■' ■ w 'iK€irr A *• f •• ♦ • ra •*c5**’'r Date: f-eoruarv 21. i/vi To:Marr Dernhardscn , Cif.- Ac.r.i: .-sir nt or From: flel *'iib — ^i Re;O-fficer rxscnenic.n ana Canine t-roaram - uoaate 1 have checl'ed with Minneapolis Canine Oepartmenc and nave been assured cnac Barcn will ae ei tner ^epL dy ciie Minneapolis Police Depar tir.ent and trained .'urtner in their training program to be issued to another handler at a -future date, or “ji 11 be gi'/en to someone as e: a ov?‘"d don or as a personal campanion. -/ie nave r^ao several oeopie approach the Departmer.c as to keoDir.j Z.aron ir jt .d possible. One person inquiring is Gfiicer Riri- ' arni<T and another is Jan Ftyan, worthing with Scouts, ana uses to nave shepherds before. I have assured them we will teen in touch with them if Minneapolis needs to find a pi a-;:-? ft;" t-.i-r-' to live out the rest ot his davs. .a • In checking witn Officer ;-iachenicn s scneouie ana lOOKing at the proposed 13 weak training time, we i*'Ouia oe in a position where we would ha.'^e to ce-'er a echeduie two davs each week of the 10 davs he would go -for trainina. Trii however, is a question that would have to be more specifically answered at the time as Dan power shift, that is working from Tom to able to be adjusted so that he would not Fi«ohenirh is on a 3am. chat mioht be have to be covered by overtime for four days. At this time, it is hard to out, but certainly if he is I would certainly feel rhat time whether we wished to oo tell how the new dog might work unable to be trained drug work, we could make a decision at that throLiQh the process of training another dog, or just continue on with iiim as a craul.er and an aid to our enforcement effort. I did recommend that we continue with the program. Dan Fischenich was just at a “Blue and Bold" dinner with 350 young cniioren in attendance. They were overwhelmed bv the dog and Dan's appearance and I do feel it is a very strong public relations value, as well as beinq an assist to our Department in our law enforcement efforts. I am enclosing a copy of an article in "Changing Times" magazine that indicates a shepherd can run as much as T1500 or more, and that the training can run up to ^3000. I think we have a good value in the present training program as we had Dan and the dog and his training for ^(1400 plus Dan's time. Also, the article indicates thdt our ballpark figures on food and lodging are in line with nationwide standards. ■ f, •i.i.-i.A..-. and they don't jump up and lick you in the£>ce. MlmwM. A custom-carpeted soaich- ing post for $100 on be a bvpin corn- par^ with replacing fomitufe and car pet a cat desttoyed. The cost of declawing: $75 to $150. Also, many people ve aBetgic to cats. Some cats shed like cnsy ^ thus breal^ owners ’ hearts. There are more than 51 million dogs in theU.S„ juoqring, panting and graer- ally doing their best to get attention. inUW Cam. \bu can get them for noth ing at a ahehec A sh^-quality Ger man shepherd can coat $1,500 or more, but $150 to HOO is more typicaL Nad and isdghigi Figure on $25 to $40 a iBODth fv dog plus howev er much you cwa to vend OB the water bowl, food bowl and toys. A few choice itenn: chew tan^ in the image odyour favorite politician (about $10); orthopedic dog beds ($25 to $50); and Beagle Chipo, a “lowfu gourmet dog gie idbble'* ($5 for six ounces). KbisHnegf awd ■aeuiy Hm. YouTl spend $75 to $250 during the first year for shots and deworming. Tb have your male dog neutered, expect to spend about $100 to $150. Byou don ’t want m iMihe and dip your own dog. profes- tiOlM IgTlCgi CnlfgP irouDO #JU 10 $40. They charge $7 to $10 for a flea bath and CS to $30 for a trn. The other sure cost is for training. Anekht ttating OB basic commands and break ing your dog of bad habits should cost bmween $30 and $7Si. Or you can go iriwie hog. Matthew Margolia, whose Monterey hck, CaL, company trains 1,000 to 1,500dogs a year; dnoes $l,185forathiee-weck‘hMictiain- faig” stay at his hsnneL It can cost $3,000 and up to timn a German shep herd to be a guanl dog. Dogs ate MemBy and compan- I. "Bvervene I know aqw their pawed on a ooueh.” says Lisa SpoenetoIChicai» who bought her ahoarvalitydohnatiania 1988, *nrou gat your dothes daaned more often, yoB begr more shoes, you run the SB from a hMt of geneti- MBt$2,00( ns of my *Butbow dysplasia in one of my lysltegolis. VANGUARD VSIARFUND: ^ IRA INVESTING MADE SIMPLE ^ Stocks, bonds, money market funds, Ginnie Maes.. .what's best for your IRA? When you invest in \^n8uard STAR Rind, you get <s//>oasr types of securities in one balan^ fund. Vhnguaid designed specifically for IRAs, Keoghs and other retirement plans. Its objective: maximum total return—cqntal growth plus income —through balanced investing. You make your investment; \^guazd diversifies it for you. SXut Hind is that simple. Minimum initial invest ment: $50<X commissionlree. Call f-800>662>SHIP any hour; any day for a free Vanguard bifonnatlon Kh r,“I lalbrtBaiioa Kii ctmuiniflga SIAR ppo gptctug with morecompltfinfar- ration on advisory feet, disihbiitioQ chargee and ocher expenses. I will read it carefully btfofw I invest or send money Td also like information oa* □Keogh/Penaioo(70) □SEP’IRA(08) Vanguard IRA InlormattoQ Kit RQLBoxZaOO \kUey Forge. Pennsyfvanial94K2 Name thMuk V •' 1* cxai-oso •aToa Uh ■ I . . I ■ I nnvEAPPBiiiaiVIILIIS r MF 9m «This Fund seeks high current income from both foreign and domestic govern ment bonds, wherever the highest returns are found. It follows a conservative strate$w designee to reduce the vedai risks of international investing, including currency risks. Of course, yield and share price will vary. $2,5(X) minimum ($1,(XX) for IRAs). No sales ch^o. T. Isvf Met. 100 L Pratt St. Baloaore, MD2120Z Scad me a pt otpcctui for chg Global Cofcmmcnt Bond Food with nbore coffipkw mforration. lAcludtfif managimnit fret and oebtr ebargn aad cJtpcntet. I will lead it caiefuUy before I meegt or lead moocT- I j FEme" A^dim acM'nn titr/Suu/2^ limst WithConfidetici TRoweRke 41 i MARCH uei ac COST OF PETS ■r- I i-'I [ i. —wra HDO DOMirT H Up throu^ most magazines for cat or dog owners and you're apt to spot ads for any number of question- aMr and sometimes cruel—products. TUke it from Guy of the and an expert on animal quadceiy: Don't bite. ^ OUnaaemid fbt ooUmx They've been tested at government md umversity lahe, aaye and the residts aie always the same: There is no evidence th— iMiif devices hive any effect against insects." In fact, the most effec tive vennm destroyer is a vacuum cleanec ^ *XMwUtr* dhf cotton. These deliver shocks triggered by a microphone ciffitr to the appradmate frequency of your dog’s bark or to the move- mentof the anhnars vocal cords. Either type is a problem. "BaKkhig is behavior for greeting, warning and pain. ” Hodge says. "Nooofiar on the can diatinguish between appropriate and chron ic bathing.'* coOan have also burned and even kiUed do^, Hofhie notes- And the vlw* ”gn*>* can be set off by radio transmissions, air- enfk. TV a«i^ and even alamming doors. h CTmingnmiirf ihrfmiiir jtnm These use a shock coUar to confine an animal to a certain bounty umalfr a backyard. The shock is triggered by a buried ladipiigndt__________ _ when the dog approaches. The binaat pnblein is thst it doesn't k^ other animals frinn coming onflOTWinit*^^ ***** yifwir p»t. Th^ mistake pet owners niake is in ddmiv tha ■««««”> is as secure as if it were behind a fence. Besides, a dog aiihinisexor food often accepts the shock as a fur price for its pleasure, then gala ahoched when it tries to come home. fr^gnsffr dMem These are supimeed to make your dog receptive to your connnaada. (te kwhs like a tunaig fork that you shake in your dog's face, liodn thihkn the technelogy is a sham and the price—up to $175—an out- i^^'Anllad up copy ofChsm^ThMi would work just as weU,’"- ________________The generally don't cover any her^tary or genetic t**"***^* preventable such as distempa or injuries when •on'ronal anwinil irtiirh is udien most miuriss occuc The policies are rela tively mngalatod. Hodge sqra. when your animal reaches 9 to 10 yean of unnin of ■ tmoo or coltar medaBion. "Rnt of aU. a thief is unlikely to take the thne to eemch dmi^ the coet to tee whedier a dog has a tattoo before he tmm off with it.** nm Hodge. **And if diete's a medallion, the thief can solve thtpraUimisi^ by removing die coOat:*' <0 cn you deqr proper medied tr to eonmone you love?" '♦m -t realfr ate pigs. only mnillK Adult poC-beOieda usually ww^fromdOtolOOpoimda. Figurcon$25 toMalCa8l.1btt1l need to bring home a SSOayearfor gnedanmmtof the other iond of bacon examinations to huHMme.\bu cm easily pay more andtickvac- dwilSOOfaramalepigaiidmocethan dnatioos. gnmuL Cherry Last m Manbtttan, dunl^" says Itak, who breetta and sella pot-bel- DaveSchonm Sodi^lHri a smaUbladt male with four professor of vei nt white legs last summer: The selling price: $5,000. Sued and iadginf. Pigs don't pig out You can feed them a cup of pig pellets for about 5 cents a day. pi medicine at Kansas State University. "Most of them wUl live 12 to 15 years.” NUnwset. Face it: You're going to be in for a few pig jokes. .And ^'t think your pot-bellied is an appreciating asset. Says Law, who has an interest in seeing prices suy high: Over time. I think the cost is going to come do\«i. I wouldn't be surprised to see prices fall to the $^ to $400 nmge.” Aftar-PurchoM Surprise. Pot-bellieds are very dodle until they get hungry'. T^en they’ll spring, if “spring” is an appropriate word for a pig. into action. One day. Law’s own pet pig. Rambo (would we kid you?), hadn't been fed. No problem. The enterprising porker got into the kitchen cupboard and man aged to get the cover off a container of cooking oil. “I do not. under any cir cumstances, buy groceries and leave Che pig in the car with them.” says Law. HOMU Okay, they're not "house pets." but more than one million people own one. InUWCMt. You can gooff the charts here. Efot a safe, broken. 5-year-old thoroughbred riding horse costs $2.(XK) to 33,000. Seed and iedpinp. Boarding a horse costs from $5 to £20 a dayi including feed and stable-cleaning. VUtariflaiy and laat^ Sum. Routine medical care should indude deworming ($15 to $23; deworming products cost from $8 to $12) and vaednations (about $10 each). “A huge variety of illnesses can strike horses," says Dn Kent Sulli van. a resident in equine surgery at the University of California at Davis. "They're suscepa'ble to respiratory illnesses." And of course there's the sac lie ($500 to $700). saddle pads (about $25). tnidles ($100) and basic pooming sup plies ($25). Mmaa. They’re beautiful. They're intelligenL They’re one of the few pets t^ cm be ritl^n for exercise and entertainment minuiM. It’s true. They might as well eat money. aiinr Pindinie SurpriM. The costs to le rider jodlipurs or jeans ($30 );boou($SOto$200 sad up) iig helmet (about ISO). Then re's $350 a month for training, 0 to $90 every six weeks for iboeing and an average of $500 to $6W every weekend if you travel to a riding show . i KlPUNCiS’S PiXSONjU. HNiUia M 'M r> 1 1 1 !IJ \\h J J r.. J ^ . J J Jl Jj 1—1___ Apr.-;,, ?•' r'/r“ ->r ^ ; J . c j ^ j RETHINKING THE UHERICAN DREAM 1.1^-- * *1 ' #• t 1 i • i»- :'r '( ^ vvi f" 5 *^r ^■i •. S(r\t'tj ruder uni I I'erri Kulim.ui u' ()l.inmiiu lu ilr^ ^umefhln}^ untie.if'l ut only, .1 ten )e irs i^u 1 )ie\ re luukini; ur i tiuiise I ti.U . usi >. /ess (ti.in ! In \ 1 .111 tllurtl f n t *n C T ^'I ^ z CG T CO 16 onr #90 OiiC'JC.J9 990S5 11210-9 **»**♦ N VI 01^ C s^ k • 1 "1 d ♦ ♦ # p fS.- I I r FINANCING FIDO Bringing up Bowser can cost a bundle. But hey, this is your best friend. spend bmiorns of doOan a year baying mil- Uoas of pels. But tke check you n^ emt to a pet du>p or breeder marks the mere begitming of what you might spend on Ike ttso-minged. dr ugged or tmd^nmsd creature that will soon be sharing your home. Here's a guide to die roakne—eind occasionally esolie expenrn you can expect wd getbils are tremendous* Ijrcny to breed—which maJces them IMlcbttpu InMIal Cost. If you can’t find a neighbor desperate to introduce your child to the joys of ^ ownership, you can get moat mkoes of geitila or hamsters for leas dun $10. Peed end lidplii^ Really, how much can a person spend on such a tiny crea ture? A basic metal cage is less than $20,altbou^thoac with wheels and ladders can coat ISO or more. The little cuties eat only dboot a 09 of food per day and a twofound bag of dry food ($2tol3).witbsoniefrtntandvegeu- hies thrown in. win last a couple d weeks. ping $27ayear—mayte. PfoMs. ThM dfanmuthre critters tend to live only two to five years when raised at home, whidiniaiches the at tention and adoration span of the aver age young pet ownec MlnueM.Tl^‘re dealing with a gesta tion poiod of about 16 days for a ham ster and four wedcs for a gerbiL So if m become the proud owner of a fomalc that has not been restricted to the company of other females in recent wndn, von run the risk ^ ofsoonnvingfDoror five little pets on your r.j LK -* T u They may look great in the pet store, but don’t count on hours of fun watching them play—they're basically noctunud. MRM Some are so small and common they look as if they should be sold by the handful. Exotic ones prized for their plumage can cost hundreds of dollars. Initial C m*. Prices for common birds, such as finches and parakeets, start at less than $20. A hand-raised mynah can cost $200 to $300. and an imported macaw between $500 and $1,200. Food and Udfing. Figure on about $100 for a roomy cage, says Elise ^ Donato, of San Jose, who paid about that much for a cage for Ihiman and Jean, her zebra finches. You’ll need a nest ($5), a water dish ($2 to $4). a cut- tlebone for beak sharpening ($1) and birdseed ($2 a month). Fbod for large birds costs $10 to $25 a month. sounds like a microchip wake-up call: Det-del-dec-det-del-dtt-DEE. Talking birds make passable com panions. They can imitate just about anything—telephones, doorbells, word processor keyboards, even a rhythmi cally creaking rocking chaic MkHMM. You may spend thousands of dollars, but your homeowners or rent ers insurance policy won’t hdp you if disaster strilms. Most standard policies do not cover injuries to or theft of pets. birds will cost you at least $25 to $75 for annual visits to the veterinarian. They should also have their wings clipi^ once or twice a year: Some breeders will do that frM; pet stores and veterinarians charge mxn $2 to $7. Mums . Small birds are inexpensive and live five to ten years—an attractive purchase-price-to-life-span ratio. Also, you may be able toget rid of your alarm clock. The song of the zebra findi stressed out It’s such a problem that Birds USA magazine offm these cures: Give them window views, lake them for drives, bathe them, talk to them, vary their meals. “Make a new meal each night by offering something a little different such as pizza, spa ghetti. omelets, fresh fruits, and casseroles.’’ suggests the magazine. nsN They’re ideal for people whose build ing managers frown on having pets. inMM C mT. Aquarium “Uvesto^” costs won’t si^ your budget less than $10 for guppies tetris, for exam ple; less than $5 for a medley of other common fish. Even exotic apedes can be reasonable: $10 to $20 for sea urchins. $15 to $50 for sea hones. Or you can spend as much as $500 on a purple tang from the Red Sea. Had and ladling. A fishbowl costs makk i»t ep r- I’ V. Maipintoai DiMOMr a gnnd of eacwtad. iltneMiwaj tSSyMraaN to ttw baatt H \VVMl ’.A i f- inSdaya. Oahu. Maui and Kona in 9 days. I S \ I AM VMiingion and Colonial Citiss. Now England/ Oaapi/ Cod. 91019 days. ( V\ \l) \ NowloundMnd. - w MandeSaapofis, Quobsc/Qaipd. Now England/ MonItsM. Ibronio, TiolSdays. foin tnocuuwtn MaugMour r Hm«e r 09M fissf vZGtnadt tourbfoohufss. or cal or mail Ms coupon 10 ISIS St Andrews Orlva, Lawrsnes. Kwtsaa 66047. 80IV25542 MdMwanTB S.':. , >4--._______________________ COST OF PETS » less than SIO—if you sdek to one fish. A saltwater task can yourself; a vet will charge you about the same pnee as run from S200 to $1,000. For for a dog ba^. the centerpiece of your li\'ing ^ *• Office \*isits to the vet rooni. Jack Van Furche. owner of FOdfioUy Pets, in Pacific I^sades. CaL. custom-desi^s saltwater ecosys terns complete with coral reefs, crabs, lobsters, snails and fish, at prices rang ing from $300 for an eigbt-gallon^tys- tem suitable for a table top to $25,000 for a 400-gallon tank. For a large tank, you'll also need cleaning tools ($30 to $100) or a pro fessional cleaning every few weeks ($25 to $70 per visit). ¥iHriwfy ond ieowly Nm. Usually the first time you know a fish is sick is when you find it floating. Cost: $0. PluMt. Are they quiet! .\nd they don't shed, destroy the furniture, run away or root through the trash. hUiiMst. They're beau^ but who knows what a fish is thinking? AHi Purdwiie SutpriM. “Everyone tends to overfeed fish." says Jan MdQuade. owner of Wee Pals Pet Cen- tec in Fort Smith. .\rk. "Excess food will just rot at the bottom of the tank and kiU the fish.'* Snakes are for people who have trouble maintatning a ttely routine —who for get to turn off the li^ts or pay the bills ... or feed the pets. Your sundard- issue boa constrictor needs feeding only once every few weeks. MiW CttL Common garter snakes cost less than $20. .A small boa costs around $S0. More-mature snakes, like a five-foot Cokunbian red-tailed boa, may sell for $200 to SSOO. Pas^ and Udglng. Snakes have pecu liar eating habits. Garter snakn eat worms or fiah. Boas eat only live or freshly killed prey soyoull have to buy or raiac mice or even larger ani- m^ which can cost an extra $S to $10 a month. A boa owned by Craig Bar rett, of San Diego, eventually reached eight feet in length and ate a grown chicken every few weeks. "But they weren’t huge duckens," Barrett says. ‘Onty three poimds or la' Ybu also might need t that the snake can curl up with ($10 to $M) and —for sunfasths--foU-q)ecirum lightt($12to$40). Miartnowrid isunfPses. Bdieveit or not, some snakes beauty care. Ilieir akin should be oiled every so often with gtycerine. You can do it average $20: of course, further treatment, additional medication or surgerv (yes. surgery) is extra. PlusM. "Snakes are probably the easiest pets to take care of." says B^- rett. who has owned se\*eral. including Stuart, a boa constnetor. Snakes also do well in small spaces. MIhums. There's no delicate way to put this, but Barrett's mother. Mwon. tries: "When a srake, uh. voids, um. it smells like pure 'urmonia. or worse." Affee-PurcIwM iwrpriM. Snakes are escape artists. An inch-thick one can slither underneath a closed door. On the loose, a hungry snake can do a lot to control an unexpected boom in your hamster population (see the pre\ious page). They're also remarkably adept at finding warm, comfortable alternative li\*ing quarters. A repairman summoned to e> amine a clothes dryer found what looked like some old rags clogging the vent. 'Vhen the rags moved, the ashm- fiiced ivi«irman realized he was Io(4dng at the neighbor’s missing eight-foot boa constnetor. CATS More than 57 million cats are curled up in homes nationwide. InMal CmI. Cats (and dogs) come in three gndes. Pets are garden variety cats. A breeder is usually a very fine at with one very small flaw. A show cat is one you can take to contests, says Mordecai Siegal. editor of Tkt ConuU Book of Cats (Villard Books: $24.95). You can get a perfectly sweet house cat at your local animal shelter for free. Pet stores seO kittens from less than $20 for a house cat to $500 for a legistoed Himalayan or Persian. At the extreme, a show-quality Japanese bobtail or other rare cat can cost more than $1,000. Nod and lodging. Figure on $7 to $16 a month for food and another few dol lars a mornh for cat litter Litter boxea cost leaa than $10. shots and vaodnei win act you bock as much aa $200 the fine year, then $2S to $75 annually, paying or n costs about $50. Prafeaaioaal costs $15 to pDoming aoftandpleas* ^ anttolookat. ^ I ^ _ ■ji! r trI k § h ■ ^-f *4=f'fktl’t.' 2491.i.3 TO: FBOM: OMS: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat oiS / February 4, 1991 80BJ1CT: Canine Program ^^l;achttentt A. Canine Program Memo Dated 1/31/ 91 ISSUE • Update Council regarding stratus of the canine program* INTRODUCTION - As noted in Attachment A despite the cannot go back for training.) As a result the City does have a inSnxtftS ’ib. city ^uld b. -tl..* *>y Fisehenich becoming familiar with a new dog. A* dollars are concerned there should not be an additional cost. While there would be no guarantee that a new dog would be ameanable to drug training it would obviously give another possibility of getting another dog that could be If a new dog was brought on board Baron would be retired and pladed in a suitable hone. (Either the original owner or sold to a security firm.) RECOMMBNDATIM - This isQ-iv fckfa tFae. Unless Council has objections# start win go ahead with a new dog with Officer Fisehenich training him in the Sn* (It .bo»ld b. not.d that 0.n ap.nt only J day. out of the two week program with Baron in drug training.) PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _» the CouncU. information and direction that staff has taken regarding the canine program* Ayes Nays cc: Chief KilboOfficer Fisehenich U-‘ % i i f • ■ V ^r'J' 41*: $i:-. L.^.. Minr.eeuol i s Canine did indirats thev will train another dog ^or this Deoartrtient. commencina on March 18th, -for 1 _< weeKs. At the end ot this 13 week training, Qf-ficsr Fischenich will train with the dog for a period or 5-10 davs to become acquainted with each other to be a -team". This time oeriod begin* June 17. 1991. The training takes place Monoav through Friday. There will be no charge to this Department for this training, except for the time spenr bv □fncer Fischenich at this school. No cover shitts will be needea to cover his snift. The next drug course xs not scnedulsa until earlv lv92. I have learned it is not unusual -for a dog to "wash out" in Ijeconing a police canine. Mound Police Deoartment is now cn their third dog, and there were at least five officers from 's class that hav^ had to change dogs. Officer Fischenich is very interested in continuing the canine program, with Baron or other dog. and he has full Department suopnrt. I do recommend we continue this program and take advantage of the offer of a new canine. Mm. ii?" 22091.2 Pl.. / TO: FBOH: 0MB: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator February 20, 1991 SOBJBCT: Administrator's Information PUBLIC/PRIVATE ROADS - As a result of the article noted in Attachisent A the city has received four or five calls from individuals re9arding private roads* It was indicated to persons representing a couple of the homeowners associations that they may desire to submit letters regarding their opinions on private roads. Should the City receive any such letters they will be forwarded to Council. COMMOMITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM - As noted in Xftaclu5tntTrTli«*”5ounty^ reviewed the"projects funded by CDBG over the past 11 years of its existence. Of specific note was monies used from CDBG to defray the cost of qualifying individuals for sewer assessments and sewer connections. PROSBCDTIOH/COURT FINES - The total for prosecutions for the City of Orono for 1990 totaled approximately $100,000 with court fines at $97,000. The cost of prosecution is approximately $60,000 lower than budgeted with revenues being about $18,000 below projections. LAKE MIN17ET0NKA LEVELS/MINBEHAHA CREEK WATE^HED DISTRICT - The following represents height or the lake for the following datesi Run out height of Dam - 928.6 Ordinary high water mark - 929.4 (Last reached 2/86) 02/18/87 - 928.35 02/17/88 - 927.94 02/15/89 - 926.11 02/14/90 - 925.44 02/14/90 - 925.42 (low) 02/18/91 - 926.64 BOSINESS CARDS - As noted in Attachment C, : hn is working on business cards for CounciImembers and would like to have you return Attachment C with the information you would desire on those business cards. IPEWTiriCATlOH CARDS - Chief Kilbo is requesting that Attachment D be returned wifh the information for Counci Imembers ie. identification cards. He has the cards and photos ready to go but for the Information. nggsuamm RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS - See Attachment E. WIRE TRAH8FBRS - See Attachment F. ft'- Iv- Iw>^- 'f: l I '-'■ *■ |r ■ i •r V-'kik pl ii Ki^'i rtrs. j., . if#'^ %■> fr feii; IP.: m€- !''?'■ *fi:^ fep. #.:■P |2^ 1^- k m ^ m- W:^X- /=rrACUf /! /T /^ r 1 1 1991 .< 'T > • • It ■i f,:. -------- to-fe-fe-‘ pf'- w" tev ffi- Is-km Bf Tot Hark E. Bernhardson fkeat John R. Gerhardson, Oatci February 13, 1991 Subjects Community Development Block Grant Progrsun Attached for review is a summary report of the Community Development Block Grant program recapping events since its beginning in 1975. Information in the report as to the amounts of money and the project designation is somewhat general although it does show the benefits to Orono. More specific information regarding a project is available on request. . s. aAiagliftrV A I •- * m- IE -vr -K, J \ \-y lElE O'*'!. ii.N'• . ii'V > \ EE- ?'A'Hi- |;>fc: tt'i. lE"' ^}--few., feE' ’'- '■ is?'* '■ HENNfflN OFFICE OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Development Planning Unit 822 South Thiid Street, Suite 310 Minneapolis, MN 55415 (612)348^18 rabraaty 7, mi \$0i. Tb« accoivaiiyiiit report suaBerlses the first fifteen peers of the Qrben Renaepin County Connualty Developnent Block Grent Progrsa. It treeee the history of the progran and highlights the objectives and the degree to which they were realized* Much has been aeconplished through the cooperation and efforts of ■any people. 1 Vj« . ' -r , HENNEPIN COUNTY on equal oppoduniiy emptoyer AC. aJV mi . -. -v^ •■■•'•-y •■ .-•> .* ■ -• ^-vA>» •:- f‘ <• <->OC^.n;:-;<«w VX^Xyii liM PiM mrn0mm ^ii si»i ?#^- A 5 The Urban Hennepin Count} Community Development Block Grant Program The First Fifteen Tears ..y : : ’ iiy : '••. • *, • .S '••• %y • '*• •-•.* • • V.-i.'•’>'•••«•.:: ^ • •• «'■. ’ •> ■ y-^^-<- •• jf- • --■^>t W^.ivy. --'-.-^/ <J;*-:v;;-vit'/ •>■•<•• ■• . •-• . .■-. . . . --< . • ■ •■••V-*..*’ •(» •■>» • • 't. , :• •■ '.. ;!iv >^-.;. ■..<:. yy, .V %‘A^w v<-X' i'"* -><^ w ■ r- 0^U'* Nl*lisL , 1*..-. 1 • H f- % k*'»t • !K. * *i. < L>P^.V-UH-. ■“■ - ; I MV ip:-. ' i.‘ 'p- •k y:^ ¥ ?.V yy rfc1-E' Introduction Bockground The Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program The First 1 5 Years Hennepin County has participated in the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program since Year I. 1 975. With the completion of the 1 5th year of this county-municipal partnership, it is appropriate to briefly step back and assess the objectives and accomplishments of the Urban Hennepin County program. The CDBG program was created by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development was charged with its administration. The act changed the mode of federal assistance for community development activities from a categorical, project-by-project basis, to a block grant. It also provided that smaller cities in metropolitan areas could Join with their county and create an association that would be assured annual funding. It Is as an urban county that Hennepin became an entitlement recipient of CDBG funds. Urban Hennepin County was created and is maintained through the execution of a joint cooperation agreement between Hennepin County and each community desiring to be part of the program. Through this association, nearly $48 million has been expended since 1 975 on more than 1.500 activities. {See Fig. 5) After passage of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1 974. Hennepin County and interested cities studied the provision for the creation of "urban counties" as a mechanism to qualify for federal community development funding. Urban counties were included in the act as eligible for funding for a rather wide range of projects, with apparent local flexibility in their selection and implementation. In order to qualify as an urban county. Hennepin had to demonstrate that It possessed sufficient housing and community development authority to be an effective participant. This authority was obtained from tocal communities wishing to participate in the program through execution of a joint powers agreement. M'v pag0l i mMy-mmy\. _____________________________________________^ prrr^- 'ik' I Ir-;' ■h:' i •'' '■ U, ;', I '•■ •■ 'I" i M'i-F r'.v' fF m. ■ *if' l.'X''- r.;,. , I f::ri^v-'.- H- <;■' Early in 1975. agreements were signed by Hennepin and 22 communities whose aggregate population exceeded the qualifying threshold of 200,000. This action initiated the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program for the first year and provided the basis for participation In each year that followed. Through the first 15 years, the program has grown to comprise 45 communities including Hennepin County. The combined population of the communities constituting Urban Hennepin County for Year XV exceeds 500,000. The annual entitlement peaked in year VI11980) at $4,379,000. A special appropriation of $ 1,05 1,000 from the Jobs Bill of 1983 boosted the year IX grant to $4,803,000, but the added funds were programmed separately from the annual entitlement. The least amount, $738,000. was received the first year. The entitlement has leveled off at approximately $2,600,000 since Year XII11986). Figure I {see page 3) traces the award of the annual grant by community. The annual allocation of funds made available to communities is determined by a formula based on population, condition of housing and level of poverty, which is contained in the joint cooperation agreement. t ' *^'* ** ^ > ^ S -T- ** - <Q C ncuuii ANNUAL eNTTTI.eMKNT tY COMMI/NITY At I Ol'ATION UMAN MENNKTINCOUNTY CMG moOilAM, YLAfI I XV (imxf) OOMMUNTTY L/1975 MOOia.YN CENTER •AOOKLYN PAIUC CUAMPIJN CHANHASSIsN OOMCNUN CBYSTAL OAVrON IMWNAVEN OOlWVALLiYaimmmn oamiYimo HANOVEJI HAStAN HOfWNS MuimNcs S 74.107 10.096 10.096 19410 72404 MU 42404 I a/1976 154.932 54.3U) 20.156 177474 15.642 20.156 59.919 ISI409 17471 97.123 5.096 L0WY1D 1.052 2.MI 111ill19479 19.433 MIMIA 16457 MMNROMLA MWNRDNKABSAOl 76410 159.049 MMmim 19499 MOUND M.ISI 31.769rnmnan52.162 109.190 OOOHO 11.991 osuo 24.115 9LVM0U1M 12.741 69.107 MCHRBJD 99.955 209.114 ■OMMDALt MCXPOODmMmmm 19.121 91.142 fr.ANTHONY 25455 IT.KMiAauS IT.lDIffirAltE 4.72S mOftIMOOD 11.191 27410 MUNOrAtE 4419 10.493 TGNEADAY 5499 11441 WAYZATA MOOOLAND 9441 17471 MNNIfW COUNTY 16.900 122.716 m/1977 IV/J97I V/1979 VI/19H0 VII/I9II VIll/lOKi IX.M9H3 xyi‘#M X119N5 X11/19M6 XIU/1997 XlV/1911 XV/1919 TOTAL 323.4S3 346(729 329.145 292.356 1 32 5 .'5 24 1.592 240.240 203 986 2(M.692 194400 2112.316 12.902.904 233.7UI 261.IM 279 996 297.334 309.163 270.619 395 374 352.219 354.365 3(M.552 305.591 293.731 305.531 4.215.915 56.792 39.690 64.131 69.112 7(J.99U 61.0 32 4/ '<11 37.^65 39.177 33422 33434 33.354 34.611 673,640 43.919 41 9 32 39 U9)111.512 32.r*6 33.(811 32.197 33.4H8 3 33.070 14471 34.140 36./U>39.017 37.199 33434 39 1)1 37.765 3 7.689 32.253 32.365 31.096 32446 411,760 292.749 299.942 309443 129.012 303.126 239412 202.906 142.759 140.736 111499 119.003 1: M61 117.394 2.999.426 25.792 23.110 27.433 29.163 VM9 26.137 33.390 29.730 30.020 23410 25.591 . ■« .611 25.601 372.000 14497 11.960 36.330 19.017 37,394 30.931 24 949 19.017 19.019 16.161 16.216 15.674 16403 37Oj099 65471 66.990 71.919 76.431 71 Ort)93423 13.055 9^.631 72450 64.733 64,954 64.153 67.445 1.000.219 249497 247.306 269.394 M3.136 279.313 233.732 214.049 169443 167.(813 1409 71 141.431 133.761 139411 2.193415 a:»5 2I.)I9 30,769 32.712 31.239 26.492 20459 16.974 16.664 14.034 14.012 11.476 14.011 3l 3,746 144462 139433 149,767 159.221 147.43)126.099 115,109 96412 93479 71.922 72467 61432 71.067 1467.223 13443 15.940 16.947 16.147 15.090 12,116 9474 9.313 1.032 1.060 7492 7,197 142.751 5411 4.996 5.361 5.912 5 745 ! 130 J.337 3 'jC 3.74 7 3443 3.234 3467 3493 60.146 1469 3,116 3.707 3.941 7.206 64*1 7.727 6.375 3496 5.414 5464 5472 70.124 15465 14.999 16.311 17.341 19 16.U‘#6 16.169 14 463 14.2.7 12.191 12433 11.914 12493 192.321 113493 93444 95.170 91431 94.906 490.151 21499 311.391 32.119 32 135 29.1^-16 !(■*#17.945 1 7.856 13.061 15.113 .4.567 14.943 263.061 1430 9.049 9.526 9065 6.431 40.301 1469 3,916 3.707 3.941 3 993 3453 3 674 1.9 75 1.934 I.M«1.614 1445 1.607 39.476 61J77 66.614 71447 76.064 19005 93.164 106 667 95.619 99.961 17462 17.161 15.114 •9447 1.159.331 11423 U490 11.121 11.924 1)6)3 11.737 11.779 9.303 9.092 6.9(>6 6.990 6,727 6.997 127.072 11.163 12.6)2 11.696 10.060 3437 1.175 1.125 1467 1473 1417 1475 59,490 27.162 26.646 21445 30447 30 090 26.157 20.996 16.0 70 16,150 13.140 13.111 13471 13.103 293422 261.194 261.194 291.369 299.130 295.931 239466 196.490 145.970 146.713 124.931 125464 120.171 125.713 2.157.409 7.411 7417 7.715 9477 1.569 7,712 1.641 1.071 1.017 913 111 776 •07 53.923 11099 11.642 34.103 36439 54.190 30.191 31.027 23.939 23.151 20476 20.343 19.491 20475 376.997 99.443 99.929 97.1 103437 103.755 19400 92.922 76.970 76411 64.957 65.171 62.013 64407 1.137.360 179.994 175.971 »2l 2(l04t«190.193 160.963 193.9«76 1 37.670 136477 113451 115.751 I'3940r7 113.901 2.167.646 55.699 34.4ii4 39.941 62.664 6i.L'2 51.979 37.442 29.123 27.994 23.125 23.906 23,053 23,976 5674M7 19.713 19.414 42.632 43413 43.042 37459 21425 22.766 22416 11.614 11.741 17.740 11.453 4llJi9 1I14M 121.016 129.749 117,919 135.066 125.417 170,926 142.759 149.055 129496 129.737 121.706 133.154 1J49.‘»16 139.142 129.076 352.174 374.405 354.950 299423 291,001 209.450 206.939 174400 174.194 165474 171.901 3,743.406 133.990 129.141 139497 147.792 139.645 119.716 104.971 79.013 77.917 65416 65.110 62475 64.179 1.450.994 13.925 12.743 19.2U1 22.7(i6 22.926 19494 19.359 11.622 19.370 I6I.II3 9.603 9.437 10.390 11.036 10.225 9.719 6.714 I.U35 1.013 6.916 6 940 6.671 6.946 109.712 41.976 42.199 43i27 49.092 64.271 52413 46.54A1 34.919 34.061 26415 26.605 25415 26.401 519A6I 7491 7.494 9.136 9.672 9.277 6.707 7.727 9.3(73 •497 7.111 7.204 6.956 7435 104.719 392.943 407.114 393 299 322.026 324.133 25 3 644 251.661 213.001 213.727 203.442 211.613 9.116.592 44.994 44.132 47.431 50.447 41 300 42453 29.576 23.XQ 23.310 20160 20429 19.102 20495 175.112 16.463 17.209 19433 19.706 17.121 16.096 13.805 11417 11.430 9412 9.615 9.1U 9451 195456 19493 19.041 19.641 20999 19.600 13.761 9.4(72 6,160 6400 3462 5471 5.074 5471 169.617 29415 29499 11.140 33.106 3L622 26437 23486 20.356 20.017 16.921 16.171 16.092 16.731 9H.12I 4.449 4.730 4.392 3.719 5,025 4.295 4.066 3.402 3.413 3477 3.409 64426 271450 309.4<«)41I.90U 437.900 432JMK1 372.64W 375.2(41 302 .MU 310.100 264.(19)264.900 253.900 264.100 4.130.016 1415400 3.064.000 4.119.000 4479.000 44a.ouo 3.726^030 3.752.0UU 2.911.UUO 1.101.000 2.640.UUU L649.U00 2439.000 2.641.000 113.191.0»OAA» TOTAL STliXXB 1.752.000 Figure 2 ANNUAL (JRANT AND NUMBER OF COMMUNITY PARTK IPANTS URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDB(; PR0(;RAM, YEARS 1-XV (I975-X9) DOLU\R VOl.t'NIEOF Figure 2 graphically portrays the trend in annual entitlements and the number of cooperating communities. Since 1989, all communities eligible to participate in the program have done so Bloomington and Minneapolis have not participated because they qualify as direct entitlement communities on the basis of population. Overview of overall objectives of the program — as established in the act — are Achievements ■ develop and maintain viable urban communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment and expanded economic opportunities, principally for low and moderate income persons, • aid in the prevention or elimination of slums and blight: • meet other communipy development needs having a particular urgency. paga 4 r To satisfy the national objectives in a manner consistent with local priorities, the Urban Hennepin County program is directed toward the use of funds for housing rehabilitation, public facilities, neighborhood revitalization, assisted housing, removal of architectural barriers and public services in 1 ’t.-nnepin County CDBG Program has demonstrated that a grc ^ rather diverse communities can effectively cooperate to ma.''irnize assistance provided by the federal government and accomplish common objectives. Each year the Urban County plans, programs and executes numerous activities to achieve program objectives. This process requires the participation and cooperation of 44 local governments m Hennepin County and their citizens. A major requirement of the program is that ihe funds expended principally benefit low and moderate income persons (those in households whose incomes are less than 80 percent of the area median Figure 3 PERCENT EXPENDITURE BY BENEFIT C\TE(;ORY URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDB<; PROCRA.VI, YEARS 1-XV (1975*891 Figure 3 illustrates that low and moderate income persons have substantially benefited from Urban Hennepin '^.ourty expenditures page 5 14^ i'llUi'MUUPUiP' Figure 4 EXPENDITURE BY MAJOR ACTIMTY URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDB(; PROtJRAM. YEARS I-XV (I975-S9I 28.5% HOUSING REHABILITA nos S13.645.8X7 4.2 % PUBLIC SERVICES $2,026,436 18.0% PUBLIC FACILITIE.S S8.634.469 12.2 % ASSISTED HOI SINC S5.825.'26 REMOVAL OF ARCHITECTl RA1 BARRIERS $:.5'8.<'T4 17: '■} NEIGMBORIUKU) REV|TAUZ.\noN sx.: 14.7 -r PLA.NNIN( i, ADMINIS T'R ATK )N S7,024.:fs: Figure 4 summarizes the type and magnitude of activities undertaken through Year XV of the program. Housing Rohabilifotion Nearly $ 1 4 million has been spent on rehabilitating smglc-family homes owned and occupied by low and moderate income families This represents over 28 percent of expenditures and translates into service to about 2,500 households Public Facilifios Nearly $9 million, or 1 8 percent of expenditures, was used to improve existing public facilities or assist in the development of new ones Targeted primarily to areas and groups of low and moderate income persons with special needs, the follo'.vmg projects are examples of public facility activities: • restoration and improvement of Commons Park. Excelsior page 6 remodeling, weatherization and kitchen facilities. Seniors Center, Richfield ccnstructicn of Senior Center. Davtcn j improvements to Home Free, a shelter for victims of domestic abuse, Plymouth assistance in the construction of the Crystal Bay sewer system, Orono Neighborhood Seventeen percent of program expenditures have been directed to Revitalization niaintain. preserve and improve local neighborhooos Principally used in low and moderate income areas. $8.2 million was spent to make infrastructure improvements and renevy redevelopment areas. Examples of such projects include • business area revitalization. Mound ■ Bass Lake Road commercial area redevelopment. Crystal ■ purchase, removal and redevelopment of substandard housing sites, Robbindale • Valley Square redevelopment. Golden Valley Assisted Housing Expenditures approaching $6 million, more than 12 percent, supported the development of new housing affordable to lovz and moderate income households. This helped n providing 82 units specifically for the handicapped, 187 units of farr ily housing and 869 units for the elderly. Both owner and rental housing was provided. Examples of assisted housing supported by the Urban County program include: • Winnetka West, handicapped housing. New Hope • The Sheridan, handicapped housing, Richfield • Cunningham, handicapped housing. Robbinsdale • Oak Glen, family housing. Edina p^g« 7 Hickory Ridge, family housirg. Maple Grove Cedar Hills, family hoiiSing, Minnetonka Woodhaven. elderly housing. Edina Calvary, elderly housing. Golden Valley Pleasant Place, elderly housing, Rogers Walker on Kenzie. elderly housing. St. Anthony Removal of Architectural Barriers Over $2.5 million was used to remove architectural barriers that restricted the mobility and accessibility of elderly or handicapped persons to public buildings, facilities, and public and private housing Among the projects of this type are: Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District Community Center, Brooklyn Center city buildings. Edina elevator. Hennepin County Government Center curb cuts, sidewalk ramps. Csseo Public Sorvicos up to 15 percent of the Urban Countys annual grant can be used for public services More than $2 million was provided 'or this activity in support of government and nonprofit agency efforts to serve some of the needs of the elderly, handicapped and low and moderate income persons Public services principally have aided the following projects: Household and Outdoor Maintenance for the Elderly (H O M E ) page 8 Looking Ahead senior transporrarion services senior center programs and counseling child day care summer youth employment Figure 5 (next page) summarizes the expenditures of each community for each basic type of program activity. The 16th year of the program is continuing from the base established in the first 15 years Forty-four communities are participating and share the $2,552,000 grant for 1990 at essentially the same rate as in recen: years As we move into the next three-year period of the program, the City O' Plymouth will not be a participant Plymouth has chosen to join Bloomington and Minneapolis in receiving a grant directly from HUD. This option was available because Plymouth gained metropolitan city status by attaining a population in excess of 50,000. Although Brooklyn Park has had the same opportunity since 1988, that city has elected to remain a part of the Urban Hennepin County program. In the future, other communities may be faced with the same option, which could further alter the number of participants and the annual grant amount. Annual CDBG funding is determined by appropriations made by the federal government. Funding has stabilized during the last five years, leading to expectations that it will continue essentially unchanged. Like ail national programs, however, the CDBG program is sensitive to evolving domestic priorities and budgetary constraints As in the past, we will monitor events and program changes and continue to maximize the effective use of available resources in addressing the housing and community development needs of our area. pag» 9 Flturc 5 ACTIVITY EXPENDITURKS BY COMMUNITY URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY Cl)»(; PKOliKAM. YEARS l-XV (I17S H9. ■n<5 c 3 I AssisTi;n liOUSINO handicap ACCI-SS Ni ic.im<)Kiia)i) Kl V||A1IMIK)N PlIHI 1C I AI M llll.s I’UIU |(* SI kvici- BROOKLYN CHN’IliR S 0 BROOKLYN PARK 33.8B9 CIUMPI.IN 0 aUNIIASSEN 0 CX3RC0RAN 0 CRYSTAL 4SS.797 DAYTON 0 DEEPtUVHN 0 EDEN PRAIRIE 433.15$ KOINA 75K.458 EXCELSIOR 307.429 GOLDEN VAliJ^Y 614.977 GREENFIELD 0 GREENWOOD 0 lUNOVER 1.856 IIASSAN 4.081 HENNEPIN COUNTY 0 HOPKINS 0 INDEPENDENa- 4.490 tONGLAKE 0 tORETIO 0 MAPLEGROVE 0 MAPLEPLAIN 52.526 FCncINEUKI: 0 MEDINA 0 MINNETONKA 147.4c MINNETONKA BEACH 0 MINNE1RISTA 0 K»UND 127.551 NEWHOH-: 472.072 ORONO 0 OSSL(> 0 PI.YMOUTII 607.142 RlLTIi'll'J.D 989.044 ROBBINSDAiJi 455.807 ROCKFORD 4 000 HOGERS 37.898 SIIOREWOOO 0 SPRING PARK 0 ST. AlfniONY 65.302 ST. BONIF'ACIUS 0 ST. lOUIS PARK 50.000 TONKABAY 0 WAYZATA 0 WOOUJ^ND 0 I9*».42‘» 60.|9‘> 0 7.500 12.16'J I2K.170 (I 15.251 0 585.751 0 0 0 0 0 0 625 255 0 II 0 I) vS.025 2.819 3. (K)0 0 156.750 26.722 9.812 17.209 102,'XM I8.IMKI 61.538 0 82.286 U 0 M.776 4. HI1 75 2.265 137.933 12.932 35.858 0 1.07H.002 2.70‘l.357 107.4 40 120.130 I 5.696 736.(K)l 10.316 5.000 I 2.666 4.375 365.932 0 3.536 11.162 10.165 0 0 0 2.781 2.97m 262.087 615 0 7.662 2(K).660 16,448 0 180.372 857.830 10.520 236.681 129.156 75.(>(*0 489,(MJ7 71.862 0 103.964 0 20.160 0 326.129 4,2(MI 27.321 7.844 GRAND TUTAI S5.622.943 2.538.674 50.167 800.146 175.699 0 212.041 450.142 I 5:.HS0 91.IV.6 298.1(17 5M.29I 126.5 56 2H.4.S8 8.541 .’6 152 85, >21 10,000 219.10.6 187.414 92.708 747 1» H4 186.870 42.208 0 200.544 354 637 7.948 5.901 448.209 396.147 185.161 2»H.45<i 1 7 ho« 1.1 15.486 183.651 79.682 148 973 hO.%0 HI 27 162.456 113.111 394.085 41.217 76.728 II InsliMiN MoaM mi ,fmM ihcnfan. um I m m con,,**, *,0. ibt i.>ul 0 181.305 1 19.(K)1 0 0 86.000 42.918 2,920 82.245 I 19.940 19.194 77.797 0 1.7()7 0 0 179,788 13.700 O 0 0 47.258 0 0 5,451 27.0(81 0 i5.(H)8 98.468 98.410 0 0 121.1 ;i 2H.144 1 58.772 U 0 81,458 14.197 17,015 0 l(M).(KMJ 0 10.142 0 2.026,436 in l*iKure I II ANN INI;/ ADMINISIKAI10N 97.697 117.221 163,885 64.021 I45.IM 102.981 73.974 28.61HI 48.675 82.005 53.707 32.342 58.212 92 17.962 82.935 4.026.577 I9.INK1 87,669 28.649 U).4(>6 72,072 16.412 1.575 24.615 160.585 8.800 93.716 127.737 180.906 43.919 88.444 220.359 187.479 15 3.750 12.076 22.440 40.705 40.017 52.690 3.IKI0 143.726 24.165 102.445 11.501 7.227 045 IK MIS INI i KMI.VII 1.274.234 426.947 323.735 59.711 8I.W1 1.1116.65 I 98.212 108.229 116.334 402.081 47.771 228.808 .30.207 I) 1.941 17 ■’ 'S 6383166 270.707 50.78 3 I) I) 47.553 22.353 14.167 42.853 1.932.787 0 138.685 293.997 453.327 289.641 25.255 816,614 1.447.481 126.217 I) 0 205.836 5 1.2 14 146.945 5.18 X) 2.016.928 13.019 51.041) 15.271) 1 3.645.887 $ 2.699.529 4.390.061 889.762 251.362 467,081 3.065.942 379.955 256.184 98 3.7)6 2.5M.197 559.2.32 1.553.144 %.982 31.687 120.142 124.606 5.7 38.772 4 ‘8).851 235,650 12.179 46,578 910.865 116.933 18.742 281.147 2.979,888 59.918 283,122 1.291.543 2,561.596 547.241 650.375 1.914.141 4.182,636 1.849.522 167,620 209.311 522.6'W 151.436 484.663 123.376 3.188.801 97.573 305.736 36.615 $47,925,716 ■ . Urban Hennepin County Participating Communities: Peter McLaughlin, 1st District PorKty Johnson. 2nd District John Keefe, 3rd District John E. Derus, Chairman. 4th District Tad Jude, 5th District Judy Makowske. 6th District MOfk Andrew, 7th District Dale Ackmann. County Administrator 2303 Hennepin County Government Center Minneapolis. MN 55487 Non-Participants l6l r^ .Z.' » »• • ^ ^ M TT?ta0evr C. TOs Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Date:February 21, 1991 Subject: Mayor & Council Business Cards Information Attached is a standard Orono business card. It would be very K«»i^fal if the Mayor and each Council Member would fill out the Information request sheet attached. The minimum order is 500. Please print the information. LYLE OMAN Building OWiciai CITY of ORO aVO (612) 473-7357Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Henneoin County Tax Information - 348-3011 MBt POSITIOVs ADOKBSSs City Yes Rome Yes Business nuraOHBs City Home Yes Yes Yes Business Yes r \vniwa 1/1/90 CITY or OFOWO SUMHAFT or RECEIPTS» DXSBDRSSKBHTS AND BAlANCEfi rOR TEE TNELVE HOimiS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1990 ENDING 12/31/90 fOED INVESTMENT BALANCE OUIN BALANCE 1/1/90 RECEIPTS TOTAL BODGET (C) 1990 TRANSr IN INVEST SOLD DISBUR TOTAL BUDGET (C) 1990 I OF BUDGET TFANSP OUT INVEST PURCR CA8B BALANCE 12/31/90 INVEST BALANCE iwml flEBs NfBiN OBtlBT BiOf CBN Ovtlp NNB St AIN COBB Inn •9 •0 B2 •9 IbM B9 MBtor ON UstBC COBB B9 llBtBr DBbt 99 IE ON Cobb B9 ir DBbt 99 telf Cbbebo On fooiBd lav Traat Pan9 910,744 143.469 0 260.672 2.196.39B 3.519 636.903 1.605.551 542.039 471.927 145.120 156.9B9 499.193 120.920 592.014 3,056.179 27,379 0 25,020 206.392 615 92.700 141.191 79,074 126.119 26,131 93,061 96,714 265.192 0 0 790.690 0 0 159.1991.137 7.914.999 (7,914.399) 719,004 2,924,010 20,300 63,560 30,000 79,500 117,650 14,000 90,700 36,250 166,900 479,040 1)5,600 U) 19.775 58,700 30,000 766,986 251,727 694,162 221,277 2,935.516 1,453 0 122,927 190,606 5,507 22,492 256.266 164,473 116.266 40.407 105,412 129,231 260,321 92,784 91 609,977 92,256 89 127,491 2,924,nin 680 106,100 164,310 115,960 40,360 105,400 130.860 188,210 392,050 100.41 86,700 115.9% 19,775 1,468,476 (<S) 100.11 100.3% 100.1% 100.0% 146.9% 155.6% 465,676 (d) 103,110 (A) 123.6% 062,462 169,395 0 221,465 2.212,172 (1,253) 717,336 0 456.640 461,780 130.064 144.638 0 105.691 694.202 251.636 762.777 601,906 221,186 31,845 27,343.546 719,004 27,309,292 (7,060,145) 7,660,149 L 7.9I4.399 261,096 5.903.070 TOfALB LBT IB 9.514.024 9B.5B9 7,829,037 ran) BSMART * 19901 BEVEBUB BUDGET 4,157,790 2.062.627 27,343,546 6,014,651 4,271.050 2,062,627 27,309,292 1S4,569 7,000,145 3,912,375 2,638,361 16,136,696 5,266,155 6,365,690 2,636,361 )6,539,271 261,096 7,914,399 I OP BUDGET tUM 1.881.775 1,804,480 98.6% UtMiaa. • tenlta 158,551 118,500 115.2% iMatfav. aaToaw 155,511 154,700 S7.6% Ckfa far terr 780,454 721,450 105.1% tlMa 108,251 115,500 93.7% lat. m t»VMt. tm. 9r Otter r«tea 195,724 195,000 19,775 0 100.41 otter 38,392 12,400 292.6% 4 9DTBL BNVBNUi 2.974,303 2,924.010 (81 101.7% TOTAL 1990 CA8B A INVESTMENT TO 12/11/90 $0,064,714 note (a) Golf op«rAtln9 budRAt doBA not includo ABounto for purchAAoi for roAAU or aaIab tAi colloctBd/rBBlttAd. ThB EBccipts bud9«t pt^.^Acta groAA profit • not total rocAlpta. NOTE (b) GAnAFAl fund rAvanuAA rAcordod will not oqual rocAiptA collActed duA to recclvAblAA blllAd In othAr Accounting pAriods and non*rtvcnuA racAlpta. NOTE (c) Budgat AiK>untA IncludA acbedulAd tranafArs, do not incloda fund balance uaea or addltiona. MOTE (dl Th* CoMBtructlofi 89 and Sawar/Natar tend 89 trancfar. out cr* raallocatlena to raflact tha cloaa out of thoa* fund, to th. r..p.ctl«. Mtar and 8a«ar Oiwratln, tenda. although a. aeparata part, of thoaa faads. 12690.1(81) CITY OF ORONO INVESTMENT TRANSACTIONS - ELECTRONIC WIRE TRANSFERS JANUARY 26, 1991 TO FEBRUARY 22, 1991 DATE 01/31/91 01/31/91 02/12/91 02/13/91 02/19/91 TRANSFER FOR Proceeds from Repurchase Agreement and Commercial Paper Matured, Net of CcMimercial Paper Purchased Purchased Commercial Paper Interest Received on Fed Nat'l Mortgage Assn Deb Proceeds from Commercial Paper Matured Net of Commercial Paper Purchased Proceeds from Certificate of Deposit Matured FROM Marquette Bank 1st Bank Lakes Pru-Bache Da in Bosworth Pain Webber 1st Bank La t Dain Bosworth 1st Bank Lakes 1 St Bank Lakes 1st Bank Lakes AMOUNT $ 299,250.61 (299,256.83) 8,700.00 200,208.33 95,000.00 r!?***Bn ?0k meetihg op 3R COUNCIL February 25, 1991 ^ «799J WG Annual Home Occupation License: Maryanne Ebert Priority Associates 1680 North Farm Road V ‘ Application Date:cxrr OP OROHO P.o. Box 66, 1335 So Brown Rd AHOTM^HOME OCCUPATION LICENSE Initial^Review^Fee 50.00 Date License Approved: Date License Expires: Annual Review Fee $30.00 MAMEa ADDRESSf a ^ A /E.U- V n s PHONE: r-rr^-ftll.^ I Uj<A-CITY: i i • •j— Ho* of Employees within operation:I Pr^ide^list of names of employees on back of this application Type of Business to be Operated: - - -FEB_ 8 a;>:i T.4*—any rewoked if saiy wiolstion occurs* City stafx shell^heve five (51 busiaees days la which to investigate and asks a reConend^ion .“.‘dVto OB the soeoad and fourth Monday of each aontu.. OROHO NOHICXPAL CODE RB60LATI0NS OH HOKE OCCOPATIOHS rrry rc rfofjgj PDRSOAHT TO SECTIOW 10*20, SOBDIVISIOH 4 (C) vACi U'rliT Prohibited Borne occupation Practices* oi SH SO^ It is unlawful for any business operating as a horns occttp^«t±^, .. ^ m _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _.... ^ ^ ^ A M M ^« — . • « • ^ .1 ^ V J -\00 1*engage in operation without proper licenses C^Ol m Tli::' 2* 3* All persons engaged in the business must reside in the dwelling. Vt.' vv/ f 4 NO ,coaaercial signs permitted other than signs permitted in the residential sene* 4. 8* Ho excessive stock in trade may be stored on the premises* Over the counter retail sales is not allowed. Batranee to the home occupation must be gained from within the structure* fha undersigned hereby agrees to the conditions quoted above from the Orono MoaXcipal Code and any additional conditions the City stay require. •ignature of Applicant: /Date: ^ f BOR CZTT U8S ORHTs After review of application, staff recosusends the following: Approval of License _ _ Denial of License ilgnature of foning official: •ignature of Fire Inspector 2:^m.Datet If “ 9/ |; ^ ITYof ORONO t-0»l UlUCK t»0* Crystal Bay, Miaecaota 55323 BUILDING 4 ZONING - 473-735T assessing SEPTIC SYSTEM INSTALLERS LICENSE pAP.PLICATION- ... ■ ll! r • a • All Questiions must be answered. Licsnse fss, bond, csr^xf'xcHte of insurance, and evidence of MPCA Certification or Horae Sewage Xreatraent Workshop attendance raust accorapany this application. All applications are subject to a ten (10) day approva|^BRrio$. IS 1. Business or trade narae 2. 3. 4. Business address Business phone Residence phone Name of applicant or company representat^ive holding MPCA 5.Type of certification held; _ _ ^^ite evaluator _ _System designer \y Installer Pumper T7fi> Certificate No ./so*? fi.-'W-V 2.*^i 93 6. 7. 8. Is this a Provisional Certificate? If no Certificate is held, provide evidence of attendance at one of the On-Site Sewage Treatment Workshops held immediately prior to the current construction season. Have you ever held a Septic System Installer license in Orono before? Moat recent year Have you ever had a license revoked? iJ<^ When? Where? xuY pf cmFimE arm Do you do Municipal Sewer hook-ups? Yes 10^ bo you pump out septic tanks? Yes_ Mo ntisooito UH m Ti iw 25^7^ 25J» »:i45io cooi m me d2m.T.SUBMITTALS REQUIRED: 1. $25.00 license application fee. KZI 2. $2000.00 license and permit bond naming City of Orono obligee. The State Plumbers Bond will not be accepted.*^ dtL, 3. ^10-50-100,000 minimum Certificate of Insurance .415^ e)\c 4. Copy of current MPCA Certificate or evidence of attendence at On-Site Sewage Treatment Wor)cshop held immediately prior to current construction season. LICENSES WILL NOT BE PROCESSED UNTIL ALL ITEMS ARE SUBMITTED. List persons other than applicant who are authorized^ by apply for permits under your license * The undersigned hereby makes application to the City of Orono, Minnesota, for license to install and repair septic systems, and/or pump out septic tanks, subject to the laws of the State of Minnesota and the Ordinagfbp of the CjLty of Orono. Date Applicants Signature infba of the ^ty of UrJ^ \Li4X- Staff rseomsMndatio Reason for denial: City Council Action Oats Date license mailed Denial D«t. Approved Denied UTof ORONO - - --- _ CryMtk Btiy. Minnuf S5323 BUILOINC A ZasINC - 473-735T assessing SEPTIC SYSTEM INSTALLERS license application All qu..tions aust H^meiewage All applications are subject to a ten (lO) o y P. pp r c / . 1. Business or trade name \'_ 2. Business address ^ •4. ^^^siness phone ^'Zo ' ^ ^Residence phone .. y.f “j "g 5. Installer Pumper Certificate No.^212. 6. 7. 8 Type of certification held: —^ Site evaluator System designer Is this a Provisional Certificate? - - p^ior to the current construction season. Have you ever held a Septic System Installer license in Orono before? Most recent year / /. Have you ever had a license revoked? When? - - - - - Where? _ _ _ . DO you do Municipal Sewer hook-ups? ^es_j^ No10< DO you pump out septic tanks? SUBMITTALS REQUIRED* Yes Fli^AaCB OFFICE 1-l'T *\ 01 i Obligee" *The State Plumbers Bond will 0^ 3. $10-50-100,000 minimum Certificate of ----------- Coov of current MPCA Certificate or evidence of attendance On-Site Sewage Treatment workshop held immediately prior to current construction season.^^ 3»- LICENSES WILL NOT BE PROCESSED UNTIL ALL ITEMS ARE SUBMITTED. List persons other than applicant who^e au^rixed^ •PPly 5orpermits under your license The undersigned hereby makes application to the . Minnesota, lawse^waeems. and/or pump out septic tanks, subject Qf State of Minnesota and the Ordinances of the City o OSOttO* '11.. 3 /Cf / Applicany SignattxreDate _ Staff reeoaBsndatioi EeaaoB for denial* . City Ceuaeil Action Date lieeaee mailed »proval (enial Pate Lpprove< CiiYof ORON CryMal Buy, Muuiwota S5383 SEPTIC SYSTEM INSTALLERS LICENSE APPLICATION I - r :xTt ifl IMLY building a zoning - 473*7357 assessing 1. 2. 3. 4. e W • Business or trade name ^ Srhs—E~X^C(lL*^ Business address 1 Set, fUrnirc^ i 07 n \r-LCard’*t^ Business phone Residence phone A Name of applicant or company rt^ 2s,3ntative holding MPCA ' J4a^ X InstallerType of certification held: _ _ Site evaluator _ _System designer Pumoer Certificate No 3^^ 6. 7. 8. Is this a Provisional Certificate? "?Se"oi-irte ' T?«:^nt"wo1*sh=pr'h:J ^ "i^dLJ^Xy prior to the current construction season. Have you ever held a Septic System Installer license in Orono before? Most recent year / / 70, Have you ever had a license revoked? AACL When? _ Where? _ _ _ Do you do Municipal Sewer hook-ups? Yes , No No wa » I ui* w»\ ICf” Do you pump out septic tanks? Yes SUBMITTALS REQUIRED: obligee. The State Plumbers Bond will not be accS(0tWr^..^^^^ ✓ 3. $10-50-100,000 minimum Certificate of Insurance. SiW/w.'" — 4. Copy of current MPCA Certificate or evidence of attendance v^/xx. at On-Site Sewage Treatment Workshop held iamiediately r.. prior to current construction season. LICENSES 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 16f)aa^ The undersigned hereby makes application to the City of Orono, Minnesota, for license to install and repair septic systems, and/or pusv out septic tanks^ subject to the lavs, of the State of Minnesota and the Ordinances of the City of Orono. . * Date 2^1^ f/ Applicants Signature Staff recoaswndation (^proval^JES^O®***^*^ Reason for denial: " Date City Council Action Date Date license nailed _ _ Approved Denied CITYof ORON J Port Offiot Bo* 66»CryoUl Bay, Minnoooia 5S383*Mumdp«l Offlcrt On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka administration -473-T3SI FAX-47M9I0 lumxaiTioH 9/ Ocono Municipal Code Section 5.24 I* Blase of Applicant __ Nailing Address Rr < ra n /■ £1 t 'i MuCity/State/Zip Code _ Phone Nuaber V 7 • t 7 %m Sales Location: Rase tLy /5 Street Address Hailing Address Phone Nuaber *f 7J? <T' U1 fj/f l*LJ jtc:29/ 3* Principal business carried on at this location (PcLfL 4. Method of Sales: Over Counter Other li lieeehv aahe anplloation for license to sell cigarettes at retail at the Llwee location subject to the lavs of the State of **^*'"®*®^*.^^ Itsdinanoes of the city of Orono during the following quarterly periods: reb-Har-Apr Nay-June-July T.Trwata VRBS Aug-Sept-Oci 1lov*0ee<-Jan Expiration date of license, Jan. 31, each year. Annual license fee la $20.00. Rhere applicable, as in the case of seasonal sales, this nay be pro rated by quarters, at $5.00 per quarter. (alia xaaittanoe payable to: CZTT OR OMNO Signatttse of applicant bated % ikAj^ p CITYofORONO Po«t Offiet Box 66*CrysUi Boy, Mionooou S5323*M«midpol OfBMO On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka administration - 473-735S FAX -47M5I0 'I .■ '■* p'- >■ ■ 'd I ^r m r.' I I f f' AFFLICHTIOH foe IilCBNSE TO SELL C16AEBTTBS AT RETAIL Ocono Municipal Code Section 5.24 1. Mane of Applicant Mi Mailing Address NiO- f E9 Vi ^19^ Q-i ~ ner Clty/State/Zip Code M lnO SS 3S I ‘>c W*/ ■- t ' UNlU Phone Number M9iq1 f j. »*•’•wC v/r “ ' T ‘A «avvNaf • ■ 'V .i 2. Sales Location: Name G 1 Bay erwice • Tr-* M — V W * iLA»\ a tmV 9 WV • f”» * i* f*» f Cri"! f 7f y • •» •*; w .v^/ A a/ Street Address 33^g Klor 'W Nailing Address 33S8____Wor^K S^ViQ T6.___0,ri!i^.2i Phone Number 101^3______ . ------ 3* Principal business carried on at this location r^r 4. Method of Sales: Over Counter Other 2 hereby make application for license to sell cigarettes at retail at the above location subject to the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of Orono during the following quarterly periods: X Peb-Mar-Apr X May-June-July _ Aug-Sept-Oct yC Nov-Dec-Jan LICENSE FEES Sxpiration date of license# Jan* 31# each year. Annual license fee is $20.00. Where applicable# as in the case of seasonal sales# this may be pro rated by quarters# at $5.00 per quarter. Hike remittance payable to: CITT OF <pOM> Signature of applicant Dated APPLICATION PARADES and SPECIAL EVENTS CITY of ORONO, MINNESOTA 55322 ff3 3 m 2/11/91 Application Nunber H^ins L. Cramer Designers & Builders 5500 Lincoln Driven Suite ICO. Edina. ?»1 55_416.. - - ian of Parade or Event 2109 Sugar Woods Drive. Qrnnn. MN 1.4 Keme o£ Pereon* and/or Organizations Handling the Event Lawrence Cramer ibmie « 935-8482 (office) 377-8755 (home) Oat# of Event 4/7~4/2i , 19.22;^Hours of Event M-F 1-8. Sat/Sun« 1*6 Mason or Purpose The sprlna Preview r-rr, .;r /j<;nyo Vi m ■ ry V# t aaa ----------------- 1 Xaaurance Coverage gommerff ■> a 1 r.iahilify t' a lyaount ^_jj|j^00Qf OQO aoi TOP- 02/14/ Oeavany Capy of Xnaurance Certificates to be submittea witn tnis Appxica^xon. Srono harwleee from all liabilities that mw^Ifpe from the Parade or Special Event approved of this permit, reet $25.oo Sighat\ire( of Applicant PM Paid: lates _. 19 aiedk Mi \ Eaitiale fRECOMMENDED: Yes Public Safety Director Approved: Yes _ No Clerk-Administrator Office Use onlyt pemsrkei lai,A, i ;5 “ 02/17/91 Pi C8 PRRCaOft COUNCIL MEETINCFEB 2 jnSMCfTYOFORO ■7 '■; EMP • NAME •i'V:- fp i y 471889060 505662439 474563339 471940871 475443862 472503991 471729281469528026 468821018 472529007 468701868 507585424 469686562 468420832 474667812 475380151 477500666 475444249 471569863 477647279 475248099 504260307 472500574 121262417 470667594 334506281 474822333 477028779 468909535 476783251 470700601 469848107 475382693 473746173 478447253 469629194 475569177 472563051 474663296470704604 475505292 468629488 307809189 500403192 477881539 ANDERSON. BRUCE L BERNHAROSON. MARK E 60BZIEN. SUE A BOSMA. JAMIE L BRINKHAUS. JOHN F CHESWICK. GARY B CHRISTIANSON. SALLY CORMICK. JAMES L ENGLISH III IRVING ERICKSON. KURT R FISCHENICH. DAN T FRITZLER. JOHN M GAFFRON. MICHAEL P GERHAROSON. JOHN R GREGORY. JAMES 0 HALLIN. DOROTHY M HANSEN. STEVEN C HANSINC. CAROL J JOHNSON. BRADLEY P KARNITZ. RICKY D KILBO. MELVIN H KNUTSON. CHARLOTTE A KUEHN. THOMAS M MABUSTH. JEANNE A MORAN. MARK F MOROWCZYNSKI. JAMES NAAB. THERESA L NELSON. DAVID 0 OBERAIQNER. SCOTT G OBRIEN. RANDY L OMAN. LYLE E PALMER. GREGORY A OUAST. WAYNE A RATHBUN. BARRY J ROBERTS. TIMOTHY W SKREEN. DALE S STEFFENHAGEN. RONALD THOMTON. MARK R TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE F TOMCZVK. MARK W VANG. BRUCE L VEE. LINDA S WALSH. KEVIN L WALTERS. LINDA G WECKMAN. STEPHEN J DPT YTD CURRENT GROSS GROSS 31 6465 40 2013 99129585 44 2571 36313812 75 958 72121437.12 668.43426056.39 1522.89316400 00 1600 00 31 728 84 214.09316537 08 1798 18 31 6686 48 1778 06 31 5670.89 1408 48316123 67 1349 82315940 96 1558 56335536 85 1392 25427280 90 1830 71 42 5077 75 1372.22124769 51 1199.28424360 42 1027.48312211.91 519 54 31 6344 32 1791.41«^ A 1718 35 451.89318124 71 2042.96 15 3812.77 958.71 15 7737 87 1945.69337605.88 1743.52316150.40 1537 60 31 6360.17 1725.39123812.77 958 7235284.37 66 30 42 3814 21 870 09924616 76 1035 84 33 5771.19 1392.24 42 3765 81 886.40 92 5682 51 1525.44 92 4459 10 1042.80314327 78 1203.49 42 4436 59 1032.20934776 03 1200.97 31 5863 51 1381.68315613 07 1381.68 31 5648.00 1408.48334530.89 1139 28123241 03 814 9635920 08 271 84IS3755 03 972 48 33 3100.29 945.12 56 509.22 f- 'r-- 1661 CXTV or oioNo CHECK REGISTER 01-ll*ei PAGE 2 CHECK NO.DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO INV.• P.O • MESSAGE HClin C2/07/91 900.00 POSTMASTER POSTAGE 01-1262-000-00 MANUAL 900.00 * HCM12 02/07/11 SO. 00 M FRIT2LER SEMINAR 01-4356-129-31 MANUAL 50.00 * HCItlS 02/07/91 14 85 1ST NATL riCA 1/23/91 01-4142-020-11 MANUAL HCM13 02/07/91 378.67 1ST NATL FICA 1/23/91 01-4142-039-12 MANUAL HCII13 02/07/91 275 43 1ST NATL FICA 1/23/91 01-4142-069-15 MANUAL HCII13 02/07/91 59.74 1ST NATL FICA 1/23/91 01-4142-111-31 MANUAL HCIII3 02/07/91 121 25 1ST NATL FICA 1/23/91 01-4142-115-31 MANUAL HCU13 02/07/91 20.95 1ST NATL FICA 1/23/91 01-4142-121-31 MANUAL HC6I13 02/07/91 494.04 1ST NATL FICA 1/23/91 01-4142-174-33 MANUAL NCU13 02/07/91 16.65 1ST NATL FICA 1/23/91 01-4142-185-35 MANUAL NCII13 02/07/91 645.66 1ST NATL FICA 1/23/91 01-4142-249-42 MANUAL HCU13 02/07/91 100.81 1ST NATL FICA 1/23/91 72-4142-549-91 MANUAL HCSI13 02/07/91 151.22 1ST NATL FICA 1/23/91 72-4142-569-92 MANUAL HCII13 02/07/91 88 03 2.367.30 • 1ST N/^TL FICA 1/23/91 74-4142-590-93 MANUAL HCII14 02/07/91 60.00 L MN CITIES CONF GOETTEN 01-4356-020-11 MANUAL 60 00 * HCtllS 02/07/91 8.05 COMM LITE .AN INS 01-4152-039-12 MANUALHCIIIS02/07/91 2.15 COMM LIFE JAN INS 01-4152-069-15 MANUALHCtllS23.00 COMM LIFE JANS INS 01-4152-069-15 MANUALHCIIIS15.75 COMM LIFE JAN INS 01-4152-121-31 MANUAL HCIIIS 02/07/91 3.40 CUMH LIFE ja!< ins 01-4152-126-31 MANUALHCIIIS52/22 60.18 COMM LIFE JAN INS 01-4152-129-31 MANUALHCIIIS02/07/91 5.90 COMM LIFE JAN INS 01-4152-174-33 MANUALHCIIIS02/07/91 16.51 COMM LIFE JAN INS 01-4152-249-42 MANUALHCtllS02/07/91 1.42 COMM LIFE JAN INS 72-4152-549-91 MANUALHCIIIS02/07/91 2.13 COMM LIFE JAN INS 73-4152-569-92 MANUAL• HCIIIS 02/07/91 .85 COMM LIFE JAN INS 74-4152-590-93 MANUAL .* •139.34 • MClIII 02/07/91 40.00 ST OF REGION MTG 01-4356-039-12 MANUAL40.00 * HCII17 02/07/91 905.54 HMCG FUND BALANCE 01-2025-000-00 MANUAL•905.54 * HCIIII 02/07/91 20.00 MWCG DINNER GOETTEN 01-4356-020-10 MANUAL20.00 * HCIIII 02/07/91 30.00 30.00 • MWCG DUES 01-4380-020-11 MANUAL 15,097.79 FUND 01 TOTAL GENERAL FUND •“•-CKS 496.25 FUND 72 TOTAL WATER OPERATING FUND744.38 FUND 73 TOTAL SEWER OPERATING FUND405.78 FUND 74 TOTAL GOLF COURSE OPERATING FD 16.744.20 TOTAL >» A., .....j-.. lU ffn *•■• -••1 I-*: p • r:0- itfi cm or orono CHECK NO. DATE HCII03 NCII03 NCtl03 HCM03 HCII03 HCII03 HCIt03 HCII03 HCIS03 HCIS03 HCItOA HCII04 HCIS04 HCU04 HCI104 HCIIOS HCII05 NCIiOS NCIIOS HCtlOt HC4I04 HCII07 HCMOl MCI40I HCIIOI NCUOl NCMOt NCtlOlpi HCitOI HCMOl HCIIOI HCIIOI HCIIOI HCIIOI HCIIOI HCIIOI HCIItO 02/07/91 02/07/91 02/07/91 02/07/91 02/07/91 02/07/91 02/07/91 02/07/91 02/07/91 02/07/91 02/07/91 02/07/91 02/07/91 02/07/91 02/07/91 02/07/91 02/07/91 02/07/9102/07/91 02/07/11 02/07/91 02/07/91 02/07/91 02/07/91 02/07/91 02/07/91 02/07/91 02/07/91 02/07/91 02/07/91 02/07/91 02/07/91 02/07/91 02/07/11 02/07/11 02/07/11 02/07/91 02/07/91 02/07/91 02/07/91 I V'V - AMOUNT 1,121 756 462 294 462 1,211 37i 1,155 176 264 6,217 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 40 60 00 • 120.00 120.00 120.00 462.00 351.00 1,173.00 210.16 420 32 453.29 231.00 1,314.77 • 14.15 133.66 141.51 600.00 600.00 * 236156 110 24 50 10 2057 259 69 46 104 69 51 34 440 66 51 • 8 16 62 94 32 42 24 62 42 44 62 54 36 45 • 101 St 152.37 253.95 14.34 14.34 • CHECK RCCZSTER VEN009 PHP PHP PHP PHP PHP PHP PHP PHP PHP PHP MED CNTR MED CNTR MED CNTR MED CNTR MED CNTR GROUP .H GROUP *H GROUP H GROUP H SAFE BEN SAFE BEN POSTMASTER 1ST NATL 1ST NATL 1ST NATL 1ST NATL 1ST NATL 1ST NATL 1ST NATL 1ST NATL 1ST NATL 1ST NATL 1ST NATL 1ST NATL 1ST NATL 1ST NATL 1ST NATL POSTMASTER POSTMASTER PERA ITEM DESCRIPTION JANS JANS JANS JANS JANS JAN JANS JANS JANS JANS INS INS INS INS INS INS INS INS INS INS JAN INS JAN INS JAN INS JAN INS JAN INS JAN INS JAN INS JAN INS JAN INS JAN FEE JAN FEE POSTAGE PD FICA FICA FICA FICA FICA FICA FICA FICA FICA FICA FICA FICA FICA FICA FICA 1/6/91 1/6/91 1/6/91 1/6/91 1/6/91 1/6/91 1/6/91 1/6/91 1/6/91 1/6/91 1/6/91 1/6/91 1/6/91 1/6/91 1/6/91 4TH OTR SWR/WTR 4TH OTR SWR/WTR PERA WECKMAN ACCOUNT NO. INV 01-3872 01-4151 01-4151 01-4151 01-4151 01-4151 01-4151 Cl-4151 72- 4151 73- 4151 000-00 039-12 069-15 121-31 126-31 129-31 174-33 249-42 540-91 569-02 01-4151-039-12 01-4151-069-15 01-4151-129-31 01-4151-174-33 01-4151-249-42 01-4151-121-31 01-4151-126-31 01-4151-129-31 74-4151-590-93 01-4306-299-72 01-4306-299-72 01-4321-129-31 01-2032 01-4142 01-4142 01-4142 01-4142 01-4142 01-4142 01-4142 01-4142 72-2032 72- 4142 73- 2032 73- 4142 74- 2032 74-4142 000-00 039-12 069-15 111-31 115-31 121-31 174-33 185-35 249-42 000-00 540-91 000-00 56C-92 000-00 590-93 72- 4321-540-91 73- 4321-569-92 01-2031-000-00 Ol-ll-ll MOE 6 P.O 6 MESSAGE MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MA.NUAL MANUALMANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUALMANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL MANUAL iftl CITY OF (MONO CHICK NO. DAT!0M0310SI0310S3031 0S3031 CHECK 3EQISTER 'VQ39030 t nil* mill 033157 1^;,’ If 033233 I MM73 i fiSi,:c AMOUNT VENDOR ITCH DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO INV02/19/9102/19/9102/19/91 02/19/91 1 42 11 22 11.22 11.22- 12.64 A AT A T COMM AT & T COMM AT A T COKW AT A T COMM TELEPHONETELEPHONETELEPHONE TELEPHONE 01-4320-129-3101-4320-175-3401-4340-175-34 01-4340-175-34 02/19/91 330.00 330.00 A BUREAU CRIMINAL APPR CJDN CHGS 01-4355-129-31 02/19/91 02/19/91 02/19/91 133.10 .02 61.16 194 24 A COLONIAL LIFE INS CO COLONIAL LIFE INS CO COLONIAL LIFE INS CO FEB INS FEB INS FEB INS 01-4151-121-31 01-4151-126-31 01-4151-129-31 02/19/91 213.75 213.75 A 1 COPY DUP PR INC RENTAL 01-4210-129-31 02/19/91 18.60 11.60 A CROWN HARKING INC OcSK PLATE 01-4210-020-11 02*/19/91 39.10 39.10 A CULLIGAN WTR SOFT 01-4343-099-17 02/13/3102/19/9102/19/91 180.00 48.08 45.00 273.08 A DAHLQREN SHARDLOW OAHLQREN SHAROLOW DAHLQREN SHARDLOW HWY 12 COORIDOR LONG LAKE ANNEXATION SHORE LAND REGS 01-4306-299-72 01-4306-299--2 24-4306-409-00 02/19/91 109.00 109.00 A QOVERNMT TRAINQ SERV CLASS/ROBERiS 01-4356-129-31 02/19/9102/19/9102^3/9102/19/9102/19/91 210.16 420.32 559.82 117 82 23' 00 l.S: 12 A GROUP HEALTH INC GROUP HEALTH INC GROUP HEALTH INC GROUP HEALTH INC GROUP HEALTH INC MAR INS MAR INS MAN INS MAR INS MAR INS 01-415.-121-31 01-4151-126-31 01-4151-129-31 01-4)51-174-33 74-4x51-590-93 02-2S'91 PAQE • P.O • MESSAGE *'"-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS ■••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS ■ « •-CKS ■ AO -CKS % 1991 CITY or ORONO CHECK REGISTERCHECK NO.DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION056279 056279 02/19/91 02/19/91 20.00 30 00 50 00 • GOPHER STATE ONECALL GOPHER STATE ONECALL JAN SE JAN s: 056304 02/19/91 73.91 73.91 • DEPT PROPERTY TAX POSTAGE 056330 02/19/91 150.75 150.75 • ICMA RETIREMNT TRUST ICMA 2/4 TO 2/17 056334 02/19/91 667 54 667.54 • INNOVATIVE MICKO 1 ST FILES •■•■•• 096423 056423 056423 056423 02/19/91 02/19/91 02/19/91 02/19/91 31.50 31.50 31 SO 31.50 126 00 * LEAGUE OF MN CITIES LEAGUE OF MN CITIES LEAGUE OF MN CITIES LEAGUE OF MN CITIES CITY BULLETIN CITY BULLETIN CITY BULLETIN CITY BULLETIN •••••• 0S6434 • ••••• m .-'if:kt. % 016474 02/19/91 02/19/91 02/19/91 02/19/91 02/19/91 02/19/91 rO - K*.,.k: St 464.68 464 68 • LONG LAKE GLASS WINDSHIELD DO/DOOR 10.957.00 10.957.00 * METRO WASTE MAR SERV 235.15 MIDWEST ESNS PRCX)OFFICE SUPPLIES 13.55 MIDWEST fiSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 52.02 MIDWEST 3SNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 20.50 MIDWEST BSNS PROO OFFICE SUPPLIES 13.55 MIDWEST 6SNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 13.56 MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 02-25-91 PAQC 2 ACCOUNT NO INV 8 P.O • MESSAGE72- 4306-549-91 73- 4306-569-92 01-4321-040-13 01-4140-039-12 01-4306-174-33 01-4240-020-11 01-4240-069-lS 01-4240-129-31 01-4240-249-42 74-4341-590-93 •5- ■:0I6467 02/16/91 120.00 MED CTR HEALTH CARE MAR INS 01-4151-039-12:v.i0}6467 02/19/61 120.00 MED CTR HEALTH CARE MAR INS 01-4151-069-lS ■ }'056467 02/19/91 120 00 •'ED CTR HEALTH CARE MAR INS 01-4151-129-31 096467 02/19/91 462.00 i^ED CTR HEALTH CARE MAR INS 01-4151-174-33 , i'-- ••j^;«t6467 02/19/91 351.00 MED CTR HEALTH CARE MAR INS 01-4151-249-42 7--1282-000-00 01-4210-039-12 01-4210-059-14 01-4210-069-15 01-4210-129-31 01-4210-174-33 01-4210-249-42 •••-CKS « • «-CKS • • • -CKS -••-CKS m m n -CKS -••-CKS •••-CKS -••-CKS rliiMrfi iMiii II —-II‘i fiiiiiiiTi IMl CITY Of ORONO CHECK NO. DATE 0St4l5 p' r*#» ’■ -4X. ;.!?'■ ••^ ostsoo 096511 •••••• :A ^1 e,•••••a r k 096912 7 ■ '.> ■;: ■ -• ■ .'•■ • ■ -I P'T fte> I1 '■* 1:..' » •'. ■. '■V -I'i ■^,^v'■..;::V. 02/18/91 02/16/91 02/19/61 02/19/91 02/19/91 02/19/91 02/19/91 02/19/91 02/19/91 02/19/91 02^9/91 02/19/91 02/19/91 02/19/91 02/19/91 02/19/91 02/19/91 02/19/91 02/19/91 02/19/91 02/19/91 j: ■ .. AMOUNT 341.33 • 13.50 13 50 • 672 81 45 259 71 53 38 81 259.81< 259.81 1,059 50 * 17 04 17 04 • 120 00 120.00 • 562.00 591.00 1.153.00 73 83 6 200 37 3.38 405.45 66 62 99 57 23 1,341.11 209.99 48.11 1.598.31 • 53.04 53.04 • CHECK REGISTER VENDOR HPIS OXYGEN CO MINNEQASCO MINNEGASCO MINNEGASCO MINNEQASCO MINNEGASCO MINNEGASCO MINN 60MM MN POLICE CHIEFS ASN MOTOROLA INC MOTOROLA INC NAVARRE NAVARRE NAVARRE NAVARRE NAVARRE NAVARRE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE HARDWARE NSP .NSP NSP OMAN/LYLE ITEM DESCRIPTION DEMMURAGE UTILITIES utilities UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES TELEPHONE Oi'ES 2 WAY RADIO 2 WAV RADIO MISC MISC TOOL MISC MISC MISC SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES UTILITIES UTILITIES UTILITIES MILEAGE 02-25-91 PAGE 3 ACCOUNT NO tnv. i P.O • MESSAGE 01-4'32-129-31 01-4324 01-4324 72- 4324 73- 4324 73-4324 73-4324 099-17 129-31 549-92 569-92 569-93 569-93 01-4320-249-42 01-4380-129-31 14-4560-632-00 14-4560-633-00 01-4231 01-4232 01-4232 01-4232 72-4231 74-4232 099-17 129-31 174-33 249-42 549-91 590-93 72- 4324-549-91 73- 4324-569-92 7.-4324-590-93 01-4381-174-33 •••-CKS •••-CKS •*«-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS ••-CKS •••-CKS lltl C|TV OF ORONO CHECK NO. DATE OStSII osAtn •••••A 050719 •. 4 . . ?v.OS6727 0Si74e r- 'V.0Sf7tlMtrsi h. 0907M |02 mPiili ^^OSiTif . . OStllS i 1 ‘ i^y K i fL*: . i ■t'^ >r biijfsi-. u.i f 02/10/91 <;2/19/91 02/19/91 02/19/91 02/19/91 02/19/91 02/19/91 02/19/91 02/19/91 02/19/91WM'Ai 02/19/91 02/19/91 02/19/91 02/19/91 02/19/91 02/19/91 02/19/91 f ( • AMOUNT 9 00 9.00 ■ 40.00 40 00 • IS 00 IS.00 • 137 SO 137 SO • 295.00 295.00 • ♦07.70 212.SO 690.30 * 725.00 • 136.19 * CHECK REGISTERVENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION PERA INS MAR INS PERRYS TRUCK REPAIR REPAIR BRONCO DIXIE PETRO-CHlK EMURRfl' t TESSMAN SEED CC RASS SEED STREICHERS AMMO SUNDIAL BLDG SERVICE SUNDIAL BLDG SERVICE JAN CLEANING JAN CLEANING 02>29-91 PAQE ♦ACCOUNT NO INV i P 0 • MESSAGE 01-4152-129-31 01-4341-185-35 72-4234-549-91 74-4231-590-93 01-4241-129-31 01-4349-099-17 01-4349-129-31 87 SO TWIN CITIES OICTN sv EQUIP 01-4340-039-12 2S 00 TWIN CITIES DIO ?N sv EQUIP 01-4340-069-15 425.00 TWIN CITIES DICTN sv MNT DICTATION 01-4340-129-31 112.SO TWIN CITIES OICTN sv EQUIP 01-4340-174-33 25.90 TWIN cniEs DICTN sv EQUIP 01-4340-249-42 25 00 TWIN CITIES DICTN sv EQUIP 72-4340-549-91 25.00 TWIN CITIES DICTU sv EQUIP 73-4340-569-92 142.15 142.15 • UNIFORMS UNLIMITED UNIFORMS FRITZLER 01-4221-129-31 45 94 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 01-4320-1T9-31 29.62 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 01-4320-2 9-42 27.41 US WEST COMMUN DATA PROC 01-4355-069-15 33 22 US WEST COMMUN DATA PROC 73-4355-569-92 • « •-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS • ■ ■•CKS r 1I91 CITY OF ORONO CHCCK NO. DATE 0S6I22 05M32 I 8tl42 t •••••• a i” . jSKS I '■' ■ 0St9O2 £;>^mosc904 ^ IgMOSI - *tt" a-T 9909 099909 ;r’;5i?y i ;> 099907 '-V. I?;;'::.'!fv i^i:'0f990i . 099909 •• ■ pv 099910 S.'-'* .. V**M ;;t kf i f: AMOUNT CHECK REGISTER VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 02-25-91 PAGE 5 ACCOUNT NO INV • P 0 • MESSAGE 02/19/91 500 00 500 00 • W SUB MEDIATION CNTR CONTRIBUTION 01-4'’P5-100-21 02/19/91 187 44 187.44 • VANG BRUCE SEMINAR EXP 01 4356-174-33 02/19/91 02/19/91 1.622 75 22.42 1.645.17 • WAYZATA-CITY OF WAYZATA-CITY OF 1ST OTR FIRE 1ST OTR FIRE 01-4318-133-32 72-4355-549-91 02/19/91 300.88 300.88 • CONTENTAL LIGHTING 1 LOT BULBS 01-4231-129-31 02/19/91 02/19/91 73 00 50.00 123.00 • DEPT NATL RESOURCES DEPT NATL RESOURCES FEE FEE 72-4383-549-91 74-4383-590-93 02/19/91 27.078.45 27.078 45 • LATOUR CONSTR PYMNT U 2 73-2060-00000 02/19/91 02/19/91 02/19/91 10 00 10 00 * MN MAYORS ASSOC DUES 01-4380-020-11 57.50 115.00 172.50 • NO COUNTRY FLAGS NO COUNTRY FLAGS 1 FLAG 2 FLAGS 01-4231-099-17 01-4231-129-31 02/1 ■‘/''I 13 25 13.25 • WALSH KEVIN REPAIR JACKET 01-4221-129-31 02/1 225.00 225 00 • MOUND MEDICAL STRESS TEST/ROBERTS 01-4306-129-31 02/19/91 56.00 56.00 * CPAC MTQ 01-4358-129-31 02/19/91 92.25 92.25 • ROTO ROOTER REPAIR SEWER 73-4344-569-92 02/19/91 5 30 » 00 • MUNK IPALS OUES/HALLIN 01-4380-039-12 02/19/91 75.00 75.00 • J JOHN:ON EXCAVTNQ PERMIT REFUND 01-3l?i 00-00 0 11.438 07 1.153.00 FUND 01 'OTAL FUND 14 iOTAL GENERAL FUND IMPROVE & EQUIP OUTLAY F •••-CKS •••-CKS ***-CKS •••-CKS l-.l'.i''*^11h Af''pr<f ■ ^ t' • A1p-'ra.CHECK REaiSTERCHECK NO. DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITF.<( DESCRIPTION 02-25-Sl PAGEACCOUNT NO. INV. • P.O. • MESSAGE gt mk■min i -m-' \, i I’ ■ ^ 'iA, I ^ • IV-j f • I j ^ t*-y If . •. vi.<5 ’t • / .1 • k- 45.001.579.1439,614.92834.67 FUNDFUNDFUNDFUND 24727374 TOTALTOTALTOTALTOTAL PERM IMPROVE REVOLVING F WATER OPERATING FUND SEWER OPERATING FUND GCLF COURSE OPERATING FD53.934.70 TOTAL ?S-' ' i /i fr: .-‘s. i i4 . i W'fA r> W rJ^^ f- k. COUNCIL MEEnNG FEB 2 5^1*91 CITY OF OBONO • • \ • I- \ ^::9i. i TO: FBOH: DAIS: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate)' February 22, 1991 SUBJECT: "Group of 8"/LMCD Meeting ISSUE - Provide Council an update following the February 22, 1991 meeting of cities of LMCD who are in opposition to the Comprehensive Plan as it currently exists. INTRODUCTION - As you may recall Wayzata had called the meeting of the Group of 8 cities who had been in opposition of the plan for 8:00 a.m. on February 22, 1991. DISCUSSION - In addition to representatives from each of the cities being present, David Cochran, David Babcock, and Gene Strommen of LMCD, Ed Pick of DNR were also in attendance. The initial focus of the meeting was to discuss shoreland regulations and how the cities may go forward with that independent of LMCD. Various scenarios were discussed with DNR indicating that they may not have funding available for cities going independently and what their interpretation of their rules were regarding approvals. As the meeting developed David Cochran, Chair of LMCD, indicated that in his personal opinion perhaps LMCD could either: A. Delete the shoreland regulation portion from the plan or B. Serve as a facilitator for the individual cities to work with DNR. He indicated this may not be the opinion of a majority of the Board, but at least he felt that could be something that he could support. Additionally he indicated that if the cities would request he could support the Plan be amended to; A.) leave the Board composition as it is (it was also suggested that he get letters from the three agencies who indicated that they did not want to have seats on the Board) B.) amending a portion regarding additional taxing authority and only leave a statement encourgaging additional funding the LMCD. On behalf of Orono it was indicated the City would also like to see tighter controls on the surface use density model, that perhaps LMCD should get full control of the lake and not just the surface (ie. that DNR give them jurisdiction over the entire lake) and further that the plan define the issues related to consistency between the plan and LMCD actions and also whose approval would be required for any future changes in the Comprehensive Plan. As a result of this meeting it was agreed that a workshop would be held at 7:00 p.ra. on Wednesday, March 6, 1991 between representatives of the 8 Cities and representatives of the LMCD. (Orono tried to have the meeting changed to March 13th but because of other conflicts it was left at March 6th. The request by Orono was made ir rder that Mr. Callahan would be in town.) As a result of the meeting we are reviewing the drafts to the Mayors and LMCD that were contained under this discussion item to see what amendments, if any, would be appropriate. ■ li ■!-iItkAM i LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Board of Directors Regular Meeting, Wednesday, January 23, 1991 Tonka Bay City Hall 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order Cochran at 7:40 p.ra. by Chair 2. Oath of Office. Charles LeFevere administered the oath of office to David Bartos (Victoria) and Scott Carlson (Minnetrista). Bartos and Carlson wore seated as Board members and welcomed by the Board. 3. Boll Call Members Present: Bert Foster. Vico Chair, Deephaven; Grathwol, Excelsior; David Cochran, Chair, Greenwood; Plllsbury, Minnetonka; Scott Carlson, Minnetrista; Thomas Mound; David Bartos, Victoria; Thomas Martinson, Wayzata. peasant: Charles LeFevere, Counsel, Sgt. Wm. Chandler, Patrol; Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician. Members Absent: Jan Boswinkel, Treasurer, Minnetonka Robert Rascop, Shorewood; Douglas Babcock, Secretary, Park; Marvin Bjorlin, Tonka Bay; Robert Slocum, Woodland; Hurr, Orono. James Robert Reese, Also Water Beach; Spring JoEllen 4. Reading of Minutes: Grathwol moved, Martinson seconded, approval of the 12-5-90 minutes as submitted. Motion carried, Carlson abstaining. 5. Public Conments: There were no comments from persons in attendance not on the agenda. The Board approved Foster's request to amend the agenda by withdrawing item 7.B.4, City of Deephaven request to maintain power boats on buoys in the district mooring area, at the request of the Deephaven Dock Committee. Cochran further presented a letter of 1/23/91 from Duane Markus, Wayzata, stating his understanding that power boats are not allowed District Mooring Areas, making reference to LMCD's Policy and Criteria of 4/1/87 for DMA permits. With the item being withdrawn from consideration, the concern is registered for future purposes. 6 Chair Report, Cochran ^ * Cochran reported that the City of Greenwood has voted to replace him on the Board at the end of his term. Ho stated he is saddened that he will not be able to help the Board beyond that point. He will continue to devote time to the development ®f the Management Plan. Cochran noted the new appointee, Brian Burdick, was noted in Greenwood's Council minutes as to bo appointed as of !• Cochranes 'tarin actually runs through tha appointment of new directors at the October board meeting. Foster moved, Pillsbury seconded, adoption of a Resolution Commending Cochran for his service as the LMCD Board chair for his extensive dedication to the Long Term Management Program and -continued LMCD Board of Direc'tors January 23. 1991 over-all public service for Lake Minnetonka. Motion carried unanimously. Foster moved, Martinson seconded, to amend the Resolution to state "Unanimous" instead of ■wholehearted” support. Motion carried unanimously. Pillsbury moved, Grathwol seconded, a motion requesting the City of Greenwood to rescind its action not allowing Dave Cochran to continue to serve LMCD. Cochran expressed his reservations about the motion. Reese agreed the need is to reach the middle ground with tha cities. Foster noted many people appreciate the work Cochran has done. Bartos concurred it would be better to let time work to settle this issue. Pillsbury withdrew his motion, Grathwol the second 6.A. "Save the Lake" Annual Recogn.,.tion Dinner. Cochran reported the Annual "Save the Lake" Recognition Dinner will be held 2-21 at Lord Fletcher’s. The dinner cost is $20.00, $3.00 of which is a donation to the Save the Lake Fund. Board member’s dinners will be complimentary. A Water Patrol special deputy will be honored. The newly appointed Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources, Rodney Saudo, has been invited to speeds. (He has subsequently accepted.) Two film clips illustrating winter lake ice hazards will be shown by the Hater Patrol. The Board members are asked to urge attendance by a representative of their city. 6.B. February Meeting Dates The Board discussed changing meeting dates in February, the consensus was to stay with the original schedule. but 6. C. Em'^loyee Performance Review Cochran reported the officers and committee chairs are proceeding with employee performance reviews. Board members were invited to nass any performance observations along to an officer. 7. Cosimittee Reports Management Program 7.A. ADVISORY. Chair Rascop 7.A.1) Presentation of Long Term Metropolitan Council Systems Committee The Board received the Metropolitan Council ?taff report, findings and recommendations to its Metropolitan Systems committee dated 1/15/91. A subsequent amendment to the Findings and Recommendations as adopted by the Metropolitan Systems Committee (MSC) at it- 1/22/91 meeting were also received. Cochran updated the board on two MSC meetings attended in January. The first on 1/0, included Arndorfer. Hurr, Strommen - continued I LMCD Board of Directors January 23, 1991 and Cochran. Wayzata, Orono, Spring Park and Greenwood 2>QpiPQ5ontatives presented objections based upon the resolution drafted 12/6 and subsequently signed by eight cities. Woodland’s Mayor spoke in support of the plan. Cochran's address to the MSC appeared to be favorably received based upon questions from the committee members. The second MSC meeting held 1/22 was attended by Cochran and Foster. Cochran re-stated the Board’s position. The MSC requested a time extension of six months for its comment and review purpose. Cochran offered to present the request to A major item cited in the MSC staff report was the lack of memoranda of understandings to clarify and simplify the management structure for the lake. This was to be accomplished among the various agencies which share authority over lake related concerns so that "existing authority be exercised in a consistent and coordinated manner," according to the Metropolitan Council staff report. Cochran advised the MSC that LMCD intended to develop such memoranda once the Management Plan was approved. The second item in the amended Recommendation by the MSC changed "suspend" to Give Tentative approval of the plan . . . which Cochran reported the Metropolitan Council attorney advised the MSC after its 1/22 meeting that it cannot give tentative approval. It must either approve or suspend the plan. Cochran interpreted the “tentative approval to be the MSC s general agreement with the plan, but concerned that city differences be resolved. , Cochran invited the Board’s consideration of a motion to extend the Metropolitan Council’s review period statutory sixty da^^.t which expires 2/4/91 to six months as requested in the recommendations. Martinson moved, Grathwol seconded, to authorize the chair to approve a six months delay of the Metropolitan Council review period. DISCUSSION: . , .. ^ . Reese sees the positions of the cities as widely divergent with no middle ground. Cochran noted that some cities objections are contrary to the directives the Metropolitan Council gave LMCD. Met Council's offer of a staff assistant should help the cities realize the obligations LMCD has to the Metropolitan Council directives. . .Grathwol recommended the MSC report receive broad distribution, to the cities, newspapers and interested persons or organizations. He expressed disappointment that after two of hard study, the Met Council has not backed up the hMCp. Grathwol reconsidered his second for a six month extension to tr>e Met Council recommending sixty days instead. Martinson proposed that the board allow jiE montns extension to the Met Council comment period. Foster sees the purpose of the time extension to get moat or all of the cities on board with the Management Plan. . LeFevere reviewed the Met Council’s authority in this regard to be: u A- continued LMCD Board of Directors January 23, 1991 1) Suspend implementation of the plan because they don’t approve it; 2) Approve the plan: 3) Let the sixty days lapse which has the efrect of approval: LeFevere added that the Met Council does not have a legal basis to turn the Plan down or to disapprove it. The Met Council does have the option to take the dispute to the legislature. If LMCD disagrees with a Met Council decision, it can appeal again to the Met Council. If LMCD still < isagrees, it can go the legislature. LMCD would want to dissuade the Met Council from also going to the legislature. The best way to do that is to get the Met Council into LMCD’s process so they see what LMCD has been through, and thus give it the best shot to get together with the cities to resolve the issues. There was further discussion to concur that LMCD is prepared to work with the cities to resolve the differences and in turn alleviate any need to turn to the legislature by either the Met Council or LMCD. The discussion then was directed back to the amount of time for extending the Met Council's comment period. Cochran agreed to accept a motion for a 90-day delay in the Metropolitan Council’s 60-day review-and-comment period due to expire February 4. 1991, subject to the Metropolitan Council s providing staff to facilitate the agreement. Martinson and Grathwol agreed to a..iend their earlier motion to reflect the 90-day delay and staff assistance offer by the Metropolitan Council. The motion carried unanimously. 7.A.2) Update, Meetings with Cities Resolution. Shoreland Rules. Management Plan Cochran I Grathwol, Arndorfer, Steve Prestin and the executive director met January 10 with Spring Park’s mayor, planner, attorney and clerk. A Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Sho.reland Protection Management Objectives was presented to the Spring Park officials. Their planner reviewed the unique characteristics of the city’s Comprehensive Plan and the density concsrns particularly in their R-3 and R-2 districts. The outcome appeared positive, with the consideration that their acceptance of the Memorandum of Understanding would result in withdrawing their objections stated in the Resolution. A subsequent meeting w? h City of Orono administrator and two council members was not ,.»■*,••• lusive. Orono sti^’ insists it will work independently with DNft on tne Shoreland Rules adoption. It is also concerned about giving up shoreland density to other lake communities. An attempt to meet with the City of Wayzata could not be arranged in the time ahead of the 1/22/91 Systems Committee meeting. LMCD Board ox Directors January 23, 1991 7.A.3) Progress on 1988-89 Recreational Monitoring Report The amended copy of the Recreational Monitoring Report, a draft of which was provided Board members December 5, will bo available in a final amended form at the February Board meeting, Cochran advised. Comment on the draft had been received from some Board members. 7.%.4) Management Program Provision for Future Amendments A draft of a procedure for amending the Management Program wis submitted by the executive director dated 12/12/90. Attorney LeFevere noted that he had not had a chance to review the draft with the executive director. Thir is an elaborate review process with more notices, public hearings and board reviews than might be needed for some changes. Starting off with notice and at least one public hearing would suffice in most cases. Where change is controversial and involves much consensus building more elaborate procedure could be provided for. Foster moved, Martinson seconded, to refer the memorandum to the Advisory Committee. The motion carried unanimously. a a 7.B. WATER STRUCTURES, Chair Grathwol 7.B.1) Approval of Minutes Grathwol moved. Foster seconded, approval of the minutes of the 1~12-91 meeting as submitted. Motion carried, Carlson abstaining. 7.B.2) Minnetonka Boat Rental - Option for Storage of Temporary Rental Pontoon Boat Grathwol moved, Foster seconded, to approve Option 4 of Attorney LeFevere’s 1-2-91 letter authorising Minnetonka Boat Rental to delete the permanent storage slip (1*4) at the ramp location and move it to the location at which the pontoon boat is being stored next to slip **8, making that location a storage slip. Motion carried unanimously. 7.B.3) UlCD Code Proposed Ament lent to Sec. 2.11 Regarding Conve.raion of Use of Multiple Dc ~*ks Qfathwol moved, Foster .seconded, the first reading of a proposed amendment to Se^. 2.11, Conversion of Use, adding Subd. 5, Determination of Status. Grathwol explained that this provides a uniform way of handling conversions of use as it applies to Excelsior Bay Associates and Chapman Place, which have technical problems with their applications. Reese inc^uired as to where LMCD ended up on requiring additional amenities in this code amendment. LeFevere advised this code amendment does not go to that point. It is a mechanism for determining what somebody's status is. If someone has a question as to where they fit under the no-conversion ordinance - continued LMCD Board of Directors January 23 1991 they would get a hearing on this question. It is a procedure. If a conversion has occurred, the license is subject to the 1:50 rule, or 1:10 rule if eligible through the provision of amenities. There being no further discussion, the motion carried. 7.B.4) City of Deephaven Request Withdrawn 7.B.S) Amendment to Temporary Low Water Variance Application Form Grathwol moved, Reese seconded, approval of the changes to the Temporary Lew Water Variance for temporary dock oxter*ion application form as recommended by the staff. Motion carried unanimously. , . .n questioned if applicants are referred to cities, auc.^' 'netrisoa, for their dock permit requirements. He was aasux .at applicants are advised that they must check with the municx^<k.L 1 tA of location to see if it also requires a permit. Staff should be aware what cities have dock permit requirements. 7.B.6) Refunds Grathwol moved, Foster seconded, appro-'al of the following refunds: Minnetonka Boat Works (Waycata). new dock license application - $100 Minnetonka Boat Works (Orono), new dock license application - $100 Minnetonka Boat Works (Orono), special density application - $100 Bean's Greenwood Marina, variance application denied $100 Driftwood Shores, overpayment on application renewal fees ' $20 Motion carried unanimously. « » * 7.B.7) Dei ing Applications Grathwol moved, Foster seconded, approval of the following deicing permits: * Renewals for Clay Cliffe ar.d Dennis Carlson ^ ^ e New Ownership for Minnetonka Marina and f^cht Club (formerly Smith’s Bay Marina fit Yacht Club) Motion carried unanimously. 7.B.8) Complaint re Name Similarity Cochran reported calls from the Upper Lake Minneto tka Yacht Club and the Minnetonka Yacht Club about the si»nil'.,.xcy of the Minnetonka Marina and Yacht Club name. LeFevere advised that it be up to the complainant to protect its interests. LMCD Board of Directors January 23, 1991 7.C, EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL TASK FORCE, Chair Reese 7.C.1) Progress on Barging/Trucking Contract Reese reported there have been seven requests for the speci fications for the barging/trucking contract. Bid opening is 2/4/91. Once this cost is established, a EWM budget for 1991 will be prepared. Grathwol expressed concern for the outcome of the EWM budget considering the funding problems and prospective vhigher barging costs. 7.C.2) Report on MN DNR Meeting Regarding Control of Spread of EWM Reese reported on a 1/19/91 meeting at the Freshwater Foundation to discuss EWM control. The meeting was well attended with many outstate people. Thirty-three lakes have EWM. The meeting was well run by a DNR trained facilitator. The general consensus was that quarantine and monitoring at access points are not realistic. There were a number of legislators in attendance. Many suggestions were made to monitor/control its spread. The group will meet on a continuing basis as there is ongoing education. Reese suggested the best place to start is in the schools. advertisement has been placed for a .lOrm Paurus. There has been one7.C.3) Project P project manager applicant. 7.C.4) Funding. The contribution flow continues to be slow. If Hennepin County funds are not forthcoming there will be budget adjustments. 7.C.5) Other Foster reported a digitized map on a University^ Minnesota computer is planned to be used to illustrate EWM infestations. He also reported there is ongoing investigation of a biological solution to the EWM problem using a fungus. He also noted there is not a consensus from the angling community or DNR fisheries personnel that EWM is a totally bad thing. 7.D. FJkKE USE, Chair Pillsbury 7.D.1) Approval of Minutes. Pillsbury moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve the minutes of the 1-14-91 meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. 7.D.2) 1991 Hennepin County’s Lake Services and Projects Program Pillsbury reported the proposed budget for 1991 Lake Minnetonka improvements of $174,UOO reported by Denis Bailey, Hennepin County Lake Improvement Section, to the Lake use Committee has since been reduced to $124,000. Adjustments will have to be made in the program. • » LMCD Board of Directors January 23. 1991 7.D.3) Navigational Buoy Programs Foster objected to tl*e Lake Use Committee recommendation to continue the "danger” buoy placement in lieu of channel navigation buoys, to mark channels of 2~l/2’ depth or less. It Is his opinion that they should be used along with the normal channel markings. Sgt. Chandler said using the channel markings would b© misloadingi even with the danger buoys. County legal coun.sel recommends danger buoys to protect boats from damage. Carlson suggested using the newspapers to publicize the purpo.se of the danger buoys marking the channels. Cochran moved, Grathwol seconded, to continue the danger buoy, slow buoy and navigation buoy programs in 1991 on the same basis as 1990, and to publicize the purpose and description of the danger buoy marking in channels. Motion carried, Foster voting nay. 7.D.4) Special Event Licenses 7.D.4a) Pillsbury moved, Foster seconded, approval of two new events! Excelsior Chamber of Commerce’s Chili Open and Lafayette Club ice fishing and sleigh ride party. Motion carried unanimously. 7.D.4b) Pillsbury moved, Foster seconded, to approve the refund of a $100 overpayment on an event application by Lord Fletchers. Motion carried unanimously. 7.D.4c) Foster moved, Pillsbury seconded, to rescind the 1-24- 90 stipulation placed on the Holiday-Johnson Crappie Contest requiring map distribution, replacing it with a requirement that their newspaper advertisements for the event advise participants that navigation buoys on Lake Minnetonka may not be in place. Motion carried unanimously. 7.D.5) 1991 LMCD Special Deputy Award. The Board accepted the Committee recommendation of a Special Deputy, to be announced at the 2-21-91 Save the Lake dinner. ice more 7.D.6) Water Patrol Report Sgt. Chandler reported there have been nineteen emergencies in the County. In the past ten days, two motorized vehicles have gone through the ice. . i ^ The fish house count has started. It has been delayed because of the number of thefts. There are eight new special deputies and seven have entered the program for a one year training, for a total of forty-five personnel. A time, licensed deputy has been assigned to the Water ratroi, highest number of deputies ever. There have been five DWI arrests, two involving personal injuries. One of the two deputies injured last month in snowmobile chase accidents has returned to duty. The other is still recuperating. 8 i- ' LMCD Board of Directors January 23. 1991 7.E. FINANCIAL REPORTS E.l) The statement of cash transactions for the month ending 12-31-90 was received and ordered filed. E.2) Audit of Vouchers for Payment Cochran moved, Martinson seconded, approval of Checks No. 6614 through 6706 in the amount of $30,705.97. Motion carried unanimously. Reese questioned if using the District truck for staff transportation in lieu of paying mileage would be a savings to the District. . Grathwol noted the newspaper publication costs are high. He suggested checking with other publications for fee schedules. 7.E.3) United Marine International Offer to Settle 1990 Warranty Claim Reese reported UMI has made the following offer to settle the 1990 warranty claim for hydraulic problems on UMI Aquatic Weed Harvesters: $9,450.42 Original Total Claim - 2.125.00 LMCD Labor - forgiven 7,325.42 Balance due LMCD UMI proposed to send a check to LMCD for an initial amount of $3,662.71 and to further provide LMCD with a credit of $3,662.71 for parts and/or service to be used as required. Reese moved, Foster seconded, to instruct the Executive Director to settle the claim with UMI in accordance with their offer. Motion carried unanimously. 7.F. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, Strommen Cochran noted receipt of a memorandum from the Executive Director in which he discusses priorities for December and January. 8. Unfinished Business None 9. New Business Foster moved, Reese seconded, to authorize staff to prepare an appropriate application for the 1992-94 funding cycle from the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources before the 2-15-91 deadline. Motion carried unanimously. 10. Adjournment There being no further business, Foster moved, Keese seconded, that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Signatures -Page 10 f I K-. Si.'- K?' ri:. LMCD Board of Directors January 23, 1991 David Cochran, Chair Douglas Babcock, Secretary I t » fi * * ’ r.. tea- LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT LAKE USE COMMITTEE AGENDA Mondayt February 25, 1991, 4:30 p.m. ConuDunity Room, Norwest Bank Building Wayi^a ^ _ 1991 900 East Wayzata Blvd., Suite 135 ^ ^ (Elevator access for handicapped: use west entrance on Wayzata Bl-vd) 1. Request from resident, Jim Urban, Crystal Bay, to add a Slow buoy at the east end of Coffee Channel. 2. 3. 4. 5. 8. 9. Resolution to establish fees for a public hearing on a liquor license application that is adding a Port of Call, per Code §5.44, Subd. 4. Revised draft of MN DNR Bill for an Act relating to personal watercraft. Resolution #59, Policy on Open Water Fishing Contest Permits, recommending deletion of the requirement that a copy of the DNR permit is needed with the LMCD application, due to excessive delays. Review fee for a preliminary Investigation required with initial applicatioit for an on-sale wine license. } 6. Amendments to Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol annual operating agreement. 7. Liquor license renewal application for Queen of Excelsior by John Lambin. Special Events: a. Deposit refund for Lafayette Club’s 2/3/91 winter event - $100 b. Return deposit for cancelled kite flying event at Excelsior Chamber of Comnierce's Chili Open 2/9/91 - $100 Proposal to invite public contributions to EWM weed control through an insert in sumner rules booklet, and expanded distribution of summer rules. 10. Water Patrol report a. Fish House Count b. Additional report 11. Other business recommended by the committee 2-15-91 frill lilMliillWiifcl /. 2 rr OO ^jt/t -$^e<tc; -^s a,M~t . „^„ „.. “'“ It ^ 2; CAe<^4 ^■'’' i^. ^/; /.^>* ./ «;><r ?;■ ilr I I' ^7/- ■v ' . ‘ - :<iiCtiv« PfB 5 1991 t.UM.C.D. iLi^. -1 -•"' >.‘' I t I \ t^*.- . lie »it2fwLr ^1^ , I L-L. . J a fc .’k. I ^.MZa« -W a ft ^ - * ■— -- - ^ ^ ^ —f f '■ «»* . aesociation of metroDolitan BULLETIN munici ropoNTonicipalities Fabruary 14, 1991 Feb 1 5 TO: FROM RE: 2. ■li AMM City Officials TQ lern Peterson, Executive Director BOARD AND TAB VACANCIES AND MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 1. AMM BOARD OF DIRECTOR'S VACANCY: There is one vacancy on the AMM Board due to Sharon Klumpp's resignation as Oakdale City Administrator to become the new Executive Director of the Metropolitan Council. The person selected to replace Sharon on the ' MM Board will serve the balance of her term which expires May 31st. but will be eligible to be re-elected to a full term beginning in June. The AMM Board is responsible for the yearly work program and budget, overall management of the AMM staff and office and establishes the yearly dues rats. The Board meets the first Thursday evening of each month at 7:00 P.H. THE BOARD IS SOLICITING NOMINATIONS VIA THIS BDI<UsTIN. NOMINATIONS ARE WELCOME FROM THROUGHOUT THE 7-COlINTY AREA AND MAY BE EITHER ELECTIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS. NOMINATIONS ARE ESPECIALLY ENCOURAGED FROM WASHINGTON COUNTY CITIES. WRITTEN NOMINATIONS INCLUDING A BRIEF RESUME SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO THE AMM OFFICE TO MY ATTENTION BY NO LATER THAN THE END OF FEBRUARY. NOMINATIONS WANTED FOR TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD (TAB) VACANCY: There is also one.city vacancy on TAB due to the sudden death of Apple Valley Councilmember Barbara Savanick. Metropolitan area cities are allocated 10 positions on this very important advisory body and the AMM is responsible for making these nominations. To be eligible for nomination, you must be a Mayor or Councilmember. WRITTEN NOMINATIONS FOR THIS VACANCY SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO THE AMM OFFICE TO MY ATTENTION BY NO LATER THAN THE END OF FEBRUARY. -1- 183 university avenue east. st. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 227-4008 frhiTirihiffiiriairtlfrtinfciiM — ■ 3. REGIONAL TRANSIT BOARD (RTB) LOCAL OFFICIALS ADVISORY ‘.’s TTEE: We also need to replace Ms. Savanick on the RTB Local Officials Advisory coranittee. While Barb was both a member of TAB and this committee, it is preferable that the same person not fill both positions. Members of the RTB Local Officials Advisory Committee can be either elected or appointed City Officials and this committee meets the second Wednesday morning of each month at 7:30 AM in Hears Park Centre and parking is reimbursed. NOMINATIONS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO THE AMM OFFICE TO MY ATTENTION BY NO LATER THAN THE END OF FEBRUARY AND THIS NOMINEE SHOULD BE A CITY OFFICIAL FROM DAKOTA COUNTY. 4. OVERSIGHT OF THE METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION (MWCC) : As you may know, there has been discussion and several proposals in recent months about the possible need for additional monitoring and oversight of the MWCC. The AMM Board discussed this item at length at the January Board meeting to determine what role, if any, the AMM should play in this matter. The Board was not convinced that additional monitoring or oversight is needed at this point in tins but since a number of member city officials believe there is a problem, the Board decided an investigation is warrant;ed. As such, the Board has directed that the AMM Metropolitan Agenci»is Committee take the lead in this matter. The charge to the committee is two-fold. A. B. Determine if additional monitoring of the MWCC is warranted and vhat can be accomplished, and Recommend the role that the AMM should play if in fact additional monitoring and oversight is determined to be needed. The committee will hold an initial meeting very soon to begin its investigation and we will keep you updated as its work unfolds. 5. NEGOTIATION TRAINING SEMINARS: Enclosed is a copy of a news release from the State Planning Agency announcing the schedule for several negotiation training seminars to be held throughout 1991. He were asked to communicate this by Roger Williams, Director of the office of Dispute Resolution and Chair of the AMM's'Dispute Resolution Committee. 6. BOARD MEETING SYNOPSIS: To better communicate board actions to members, we are beginning a monthly digest of board of directors meetings. The synopsis will include major discussion topics and a brief description of board -2- action and/or comments. We will try to mail the synopsis within a week to 10 days of the meeting. A copy of the February 7th. board meeting synopsis is attached. BOARD MEETING SYNOPSIS (board meeting of February 7, 1991) STATE AIDS: It may be a matter of who blinks first — the governor or the Legislature — regarding cuts in state aids to cities, Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM) board members said during the February 7 board meeting. Board members agreed that the message city officials need to stress when talking to legislators is twofold: 1. city government is not a big spender, and 2. cutting aids to cities too deeply will cause service cuts and increased property taxes may be politically damaging for state officials. The board agreed that alternatives to deal with proposed cuts must be explored and asked that the AMM Revenue Committee reconvene to discuss and report options. In other business: RTB RESOLDTION: The board voted not to endorse a Regional Transit Board (RTB) reguest to support its resolution for a one-cent sales tax dedicated to light-rail transit. The board expressed its continued support of AMM policy relating to a metropolitan tax. FISCAL DISPARITIES: The board agreed to support the AMM Fiscal Disparity Task Force recommendation of no fiscal disparity policy for 1991. The Task Force will reconvene if it appears that legislative action is likely. SCOPE REPORT: Board member Bill*J5arnhart reported on the Select Committee on Packaging and the Environment (SCOPE). He said the committee recommended that recycling goals be set for packaging materials. If packers do not meet these goals by the mid-1990s, they would be assessed a non-compliance tax. Other recommendations were: 1. elimination of all toxics in packaging, 2. support of volume-based pricing for waste disposal, and 3. suggesting that creators of hazardous materials in the waste stream pay their way. -3- •"If ariiMTini '-n i ' AMM DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD: Th« board approvad the presentation of AMM's Distinguished Se^ice Award to Jim Krautkremer, longtime AMM activist and past president, and former Brook)yn Park Mayor. This prestigious award for outstanding city service has been awarded only four times since its inception eight years ago. APPOINTKENTS/NOMINATIONS; ..£agan Mayor Tom Egan was named to fill vacant board position. —Oakdale Administrator Sharon Klumpp will resign effective February 22 to become Executive Director of the Metropolitan Council, creating a vacancy on the AMM board. —Brooklyn Park Council member Dale Gustafson was nominated to the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB). The search for a TAB replacement for the vacancy created by the sudden death of Barb Savanick, Apple Valley Council member is under way. —Brooklyn Park Council member Douglas Pearson was nominated to replace Gustafson on the RTB Local Officials Advisory Committee. DISTRIBUTION NOTE: This bulletin has been mailed to mayors and Managers/Administrators. Please copy and distribute it to other officials in your city as you deem appropriate. Thank you. -4- Xntts^/ NEWS RELEASE Februarv 11,1991 S tate of Minnesota Stale Planning Agency 300 Ctnifnnijl Building 658 Cedar Street St. Paul. Minnesota 55155 1612) 2%-3W Coniaci: Roeer Williams 6’l 2-296-2633 Negotiation Training Seminars Announced The schedule for the 1991 Effective Negotiation Training Seminar series has been announced by the Minnesota State Planning Agency’s Office of Dispute Resolution. This year’s seminars will be held on March 13-14, May 22-23, September 11-12 and November *13-’.4. Regardless of position, public employees negotiate every day with supervisors, feliow employees, elected officials and the general public. An improvement 'n negotiation skill is likely to be matched bv an improvement in job performance and satisfaction and in one s interpersonal relationships. Employees who deal more effectively with job related disputes at their level in the organization reduce the need for costly and time consuming intervention by others. T:'e curriculum provides a balancedend of theory and practice. Trainers use lectures and demonstrations to illustrate negotiation techniques. Participants engage in role-play exercises to practice a concept or technique before going on to learn another. Class size is limited to 30 participants to assure individual attention from the three professional trainers. Since 1987, over four hundred public employees from state and local governments have attended these seminars. Recent participants have said, “This is the most useful training I’ve received as a public employee, and the trainers were personable, knowledgeable and experienced.” ' Training will be conducted at the Energy Technology Center. 1450 Energy Park Drive in St. Paul. The registration fee is $180 per person. For more information, please call or write to Roger Williams, Director, Office of Dispute Resolution, State Planning Agency, 300 Centennial Building. St. Paul, MN 55155,612-296-2633. - end - AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER R Cl i <> \ \ L I :\ \ ^r 3 O \ i\ .) g<t V t jCTyl. MICHAEL J. EHRLK HMANN C'.:a:r F£3 1 /> ^ ac.";. Februar.’ 11. 1991 RTB Facing Budget Challenge For nearly a year many transit agencies, including the Regional Transit Board, have been trs'ing to cope withoc:* much-needed federal funding. Now the RTB finds itself trs’ing to squeeze more services out of less money in the face of significant state revenue shortfalls. This situation jeopardizes our ability to ensure a basic level of mobility for the citizens of the seven-count>' metro area. Regional transit took a S3.5 million cut for the last pan of the cunrent biennium. Of that, the RTB cut $700,000 cut of its own budget which equals about 20 percent of the shortfall. Board travci and per diems, administrative costs and consulting services were Lacluded in the cuts. Our budget was not extravagant and these were not easy cuts to make. In addition to the cuts we have made in our own budget, we are forced to make service reductions.The ne.xt two fiscal years promise ongoing battles for funds. In the next biennium, service needs will exceed anticipated funding sources by $13.1 million. Without additional funding, we will not be able to sustain service levels. The RTB is examining both operating and administrative measures that will make the transit system more efficient For example, the RTB is raising bus fares as of March 1, 1991. This action has the potential to raise an additional 36.2 million in fare revenue annually. In additir*n to raising fares, the RTB is looking at ways to lower the subsidy requirement for Metro Mobility. During th; last year, demand for .Metro .Mobility increased significantly and it will continue to increase in the future. It is an expensive service to provide, yet the RTB is mandated to provide accessible transit to persons with disabilities by both the State Human Rights Act and the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act. Last year, Metro Mobility cost $>railiion more than what the state allocated the RTB. After the state denied the funding supplement, the we were forced to transfer funds from our fund balance to Metro Mobility. This year demand has increased, funding has not increased and there is no money to transfer firom any other service categories. In 1990, we worked with social service agencies to ensure we were recovering the total federal subsidy we could for transpomng developmentally disabled people to day training facilities. These trips can be paid for with Medicare. The cost of these trips, which comprise one-third of the total Metro Mobility rides, amounts to an estimated $3 milUon a year. Our staff is recommending an in- depth study of Metro Mobility service to identify further changes that would reduce subsidy requirements. While costs and demand continue to increase, we are committed to providing transit services that meet people's needs. We recognize that we need to be fiscally conservative, yet we also recognize that transit is no longer a privilege--it is a right. It is interesting to note that if the federal government spent as much for public transit in a year as it will in one week for Operation Desert Storm, we would not need to go to war. We would have a transit infrastructure that would serve and attract a significant number of riders. Consequently, we would not need to import a single gallon of foreign oil. Despite our significant federal and state budget problems, we will strive to maintain a transit system, that m^ts thjtljeeds of our riders. / V, 230 E.XST FIFTH STREET. SEVE.NTH I LOOK • ST./\L L. MN • :y2-S"' *il f , 1 !' JfH f V:- y- RcKional Transit Board \ckd paper. M«if Mean Puk Cemre 230 E. Fifth St. Si. hiuI.MN 55101 6l2;:92.878y BUKJMKI RARINERSHIPS FOR THE FUTURE 4 ru. rvi’.viK/.N.^i- 1 4 ncjAUirs ix)CAL. ornaALs ISOivi CON L\ LLii*. ^ SF.W TRANSIT CONNECTION UvaJ panicipaiion is a crincal component of the Regional Transit bt>ard‘.s tRTB) planning pntccss To increase Itval pariicipaijon in transit issues, the Associatum of Metropolitan Municipalities selected members to sersr on the RTB s neu Lt»cal Officials Advisor) Committc-: (LCVAC) The RTB appmsed all th members, who w ill help ensure that local communities have direct access to RTB polic) devrlopmeni An> issue the committee acts on goes onto the RTB agenda / t/ • ^ - The 22*memler ccmii.inec is made up of local elected officials and sta.M memben from throughout the seven-cr)untv metro area who have a special interest in transit. The committee gives them the chance to effer their penpective on transit issues like acccvsihilit/. light rail transit, reverse commuting and n;ainlinc services. Their input will help make sure that transit plans made from a region-wide perspective continue to fulfill the needs of local communities The RTB IS alwuvs iva lab^e m |isu:n to transit concerns. Now aikUhcr connection between local communities and me RTB is available to communicate ideas on improving transit services. Colleagues wfio serve on the local ofilciald advisory committee kno* your community and ha .c a direct link to the RTB. They can help ensure that regional transit plans w ill al.so meet vour local needs. i LOCAL OmCIALS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERSIUP LISTINi; t .2 \ Cotate UmtHiber kUfmeapoUs €73-2202 CamcUmember Hmntapoks 673-22IS CamcUmember E€enPnune 9J71959 t ’ i.‘ i' FmtkBayUi Auistam Oh' Managrr PhmiMh S50-50U Stan Qerkin CtHtnalmember Coiumhut m-2677 SumLmnom CamcUmember Hew Brighton 636^0997 B ken Mahie Mayor mjtjJbun 7J9^59Z: E V- Tkmtponaron Uatson Shidopet 44^4196 Smrmnkk CamcUmember Apple HtUes 4SI-B800 LnukDimUr Cvmcilmeml>er Cmtnhas^en QJt4-g074 r«'yL .% » • ' Tom IXmond Coum Umeml*er S: Paul 29S.5516 S mm ^ •4 ■ rim « ••••! . r- - fkut thinjord f*ubltc Ht>rh ,\irmntitrtuor S: f\iul 29: 6 “^n Q iJule Cfustafion Counalmembrr SrtHtilm fijri t1 f•f :i%11•a1'.-•td:. -••• \it \ 1 V» 1 Jan Haugen Minor Shitrtn^tuHJ 474 9141 MU lc Holtz Cvunalmemher RobbinuJalt' 5J745J4 Larry MueheU Coum iimrml*rr Si Lmis fiirk 924 2m E Mark Hagel Cth Manager .Anoka 42I66J0 E Hettn Smdi CouncUmember LaknUlr 4eN44Jl kZi Urn TUien Piannmg Cimvmsstoner Mendoui Haghn 6SH646C) Sam Jacobi CtfuncUmember fiilcvn Height.% 644-5050m iffii ^2 Todd Hudum Mayor Rn»(4l\n Center 5693300 E CtAmcilmember MaplewiteHl TKLtm fZ % r' et¥vr OF aFrawo 0 I CITY of ORON Post (Office Box 66 •Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 •Mun9ai OfBc« On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka February 14, 1991 Mr. Euoene R. Strominen, Executive Director Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 900 East Lake Street Wayzata, MN 55391 Subjects 1991 Marina Licensing Dear 'lene. Recently the City of Orono received notice of licensing for the various commercial marinas within the City of Orono. It istne vatxuuo w*-* ............w -------------- - . .i_ *. requested by the City of Orono this year that as you go througt the licensing process for these marinas, the following concerns be responded to during this process: General Concerns - A. Temporary "dock extensions" - It is our understanding that for the last year and a half the marinas, some more thai others, have been granted specific extensions of their docks and mooring facilities to a-'commodate low water problems. Is '>at least one case, it is our understanding, that the docks have gone from 200 to 600 feet out. It is requested that these temporary dock permits be carefully monitored so that removal occurs when the excess length is no longer needecL Further, we request that appropriate action be taken so th^ there is no chance that individual marinas, because of the extended nature of these temporary permits, can legallf leverage themselves into greater dock limits in the future when the water has returned to its normal level. As you m^ be aware, the City of Orono and LMCD went to Court with Nortt Star Marina back in the '70's to reduce its docks from 30(r to a 200* limit. B. It is additionally requested that any changes that relate to land use as far as services offered, alteration ox parking, landscaping, etc. be first referred back to the Ci^ of Orono for their review prior to any initial consideraticm of the operating licenses. ■UIUNNG a ZONING - 473-73S7 ASSESSING administration a finance - -m-TSM FAX-4TMSI0 PUBLIC MVORKS-eS43S9 ■ - Mr. Eugene Strommen Feburary 14, 1991 Page 2 of 3 It should be noted the City of Orono is considering, as it reviews its shoreland regulations, what additional regulation it would desire related to marinas. This will be reviewed in context with the level of jurisdiction and enforcement LMCD already has in this area. Soecific Orono Land Use/Zoning Requirements - Based on the assumption that, per LMCO Section 2.03 Subd. 2(e), LMCD in their licensing process requires that the licensee must meet all LMCD requirements as well as all the requirements of a local government (with the most restrictive applying) we would lilce to inform you of the following ongoing issues the City of Orono has with specific marinas, as follows: ^ 1. North Shore Drive Marina A. Encroachment into an adjacent dock area, residentially zoned Millard property east of marina . B. The 1991 LMCD license application indicates an increase in boats over and above the number historically licensed by Orono. The last license that was issued by Orono (1984) was for 76 rental slips, 6 transient slips, 4 company slips, 20 boats dry stacked and 45 boats stored for sale or service with a maximum density of 151 total. Apparently since 1988, North Shore Drive Marina has been given an LMCD license for a total of 165 boats. 2. Lakeside Marina A. The City has received complaints about the condition and status of the floating dock extensions. The complainant was referred tc the LMCD. B. A 1985 variance review for limited commericial use of non-adjacent lakeshore lots owned by the marina, has left unresolved issues of boat storage on and off land, as well as parking and related land use issues. C. The City originally was in support of the applicants previous west side dock layout because it limited impact on the affected neighboring property owner, however, the new dock layout per the LMCD plan has not resulted in recent complaints from that neighbor. - 4 Ilia H" i-'.' L.: 1 CITYofORONO - ehiTv^—Post Office Box 66•Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323 • Municipal Offices OF laRana On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka February 13, 1991 Jim Murphy and Sandee Smith 30 Orono Orchard Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Dear Mr. Murphy and Ms, Smith, Thank you for your letter dated December 21, 1990 outlining your ideas related to the current discussion of Highway 12. In your letter you have urged us, as a new Council, to seek alternatives to auto and truck transportation and therefore reduce the need to do an upgrade of Highway 12 from Wayzata west. are in agreement that we do not want to see homes and countryside destroyed. Our first dilemma is that currently we have a problem on the two lane configuration of Highway 12 at 19,000 cars per day with projections bringing it to over 30,000 in the next 15-20 years based on preliminary traffic studies. Even if we were to find a way to eliminate all additional traffic, a problem still exists. As for the impact, mass transit in the Twin Cities currently takes about 3% of the total daily trips of the system and 8% of the trips during peak. Even if efforts of alternative modes of transit could double or triple these figures, it would only be a 10% reduction in daily trips and not substantially address the projected 50% increase in traffic on the current Highway 12 in the Long Lake/Orono area. A second dilemma we face is that we desire to keep our low density in the rural portions of the community. To make alternatives such as light rail/fixed guideway feasible between here and downtown the density both to the east and eventually to the west of Orono together with Orono would need to become an urban (Mpls) density. It is not expected or desired that such population density be reached either here or in the other areas identified. Related to development of alternative means is the fact a decision was made several years ago and is now "being etched in concrete" with the construction of 1-394. That decision was for ■UlUMNG a ZONING - 473.73S7 ASSESSING ADMINISTRATION & HNANCE - 473-735* FAX-4734K10 PL BUC WORKS - 473-7359 m-* James Murphy and Sandee Smith February 12, 1991 Page 2 two freeway lanes for normal traffic in each direction with High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes for use by car pools and buses together with parking facilities to assist in promoting such during peak hours. Because of this, the proposed development on a Metro wide basis of Light Rail did not envision any facilities in this corridor. (Even if proposed, the construction, reconstruction or addition of a parallel alternative to 394 may not receive a high priority for funding given the recent expenditure in the corridor.) As such, the only mass transit means that would merit priority would be buses. Park and lides and car pools to utilize the installed HOV lanes. While not given much viability as an alternative at the meeting on December 1st, the Environmental Impact Statement will address alternative methods of transportation such as you suggest, brief though it may be. If mass transit could fully address not only the existing problem but the projected increase, it would be a viable option. Our expectation is that it will not. We will seek to encourage greater use of car pools and buses in this corridor. We, however, feel that despite that, it will not address even the existing traffic safety problem. As for using preventive rather than remedial means to address problems (your Japanese parable) even if the preventitive steps are taken they may well not alleviate the existing problems and so remedial action is necessary, in looking to solve this problem we will make our best efforts to minimize the negative impacts on homes and the "countryside". We request you help us in this endeavor. he Orono City Council. Ciu;. City Administrator cc: bcc; Mayor and City Council John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building ii Zoning Adnun. Highway 12 Corridor Citizens Committee Planning Commission ■ ■ I r I I IIII M iMin i'i‘W < VI -tm t- '4 ’k-- t' *' •: tv f iti- CfcTV- - OF QRawcr CITYof ORONO Post Office Bo* 66«Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323* Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka February 13, 1991 Mr. John Stine Department of Natural Resources Metro Waters 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, Mn 55106 Subject: DNR Shoreland Grant Dear John, In response to your letter dated February 6, 1991, the City of Orono is submitting a resolution requesting funding for shoreland grant as an independent entity. It is our understanding that although an approximate $5,000.00 has been allocated to the grant for Orono, that DNR will pay up to half the cost and that Orono may be eligible should its costs exceed the $5,000.00 grant for additional monies. Your consideration of this request is appreciated. S^incere]^,n Mark E. Bernhardson Adminstrator cc:Mayor and City Council Thomas Barrett, City Attorney JoEllen Hurr, Orono LMCD Representative Jeanne A. Habusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Admin.Michael P. ■UlUMNG a ZONING - 473>73S7 ASSESSING administration a HNANCE - 473-7358 FAX-4734510 PL'BUC WORKS - 473-7359 13091.6City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2930__________ CITY OF onONO SHORELAMD GRANT APPLICATION WHEREAS# the State, as provided by Minnesota Statutes 105.485 and Minnesota Rules parts 6120.2500 through 6120.3900 pertaining to Statewide Standards for "Management of Shoreland Areas"; and WHEREAS# the State is authorized by the Laws of 1989, Chapter 335, Article 1, Section 21, Subd 3 to provide grant assistance for Cities to adopt a shoreland management ordinance consistent with statewide standards. NOW THEREFORE# subject to available funding, it is hereby requested by the City of Orono that an agreement be entered into by the State of Minnesota, acting by and through the Commissioner of Natural Resources and the City of Orono, to provide grant money assistance up to at least $5,000.00 matching fund dollars, for the purposes of adopting a shoreland management ordinance consistent with statewide standards. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held February 11, 1991. rL f** MINUTES OF THE RE6UU.. NG OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ORONO INDEPENDENT SUOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 HELD ON JANUARY 28. 1991 The regular meeting of the School Board of Orono Independent Scho(flE©istrfet 278 was held on Monday, January 28, 1991. Present: Dave McKown Don Anderson Lucie Taylor James Franklin Peg Swanson Thomas Mich William Fenholt Board member John Maresh arrived while the meeting was in progress. Chairperson McKown welcomed everyone to the first Board meeting in the new Orono Education Link, Room 107L, and stated that this is the culmination of many months of effort/work and that it is wonderful to have such a multi-purpose meeting room. UPON MOTION by Lucie Taylor, seconded by Don Anderson, the consent agenda was approved as follows: -approved the minutes of the January 14, 1991 regular meeting; - accepted the resignation of Barbara J. Jacoby, high school foreign language teacher. at the end of the 1990-91 school year; - approved the Activity Fund Report for the second quarter, 1990-91; - approved the bills as covered by vouchers 068570 through 068687 building construction bills as covered by vouchers 1219 through 1261. Motion carried. Board member Maresh absent. Or. Mich welcomed everyone to the new facility and expressed appreciation to the custodians and others who put forth extra effort to have this room ready for use for this meeting. He stated that this is a multi-purpose room which will serve the School District in many capacities. Dr. Mich stated that students visited the new building last week, moved their school supplies in their rooms today and classes will begin in the building on Tuesday. January 29; that he was distributing the 1991-92 registration guide for the high school; that he wanted to congratulate the following Orono students who are enrolled in the University of Minnesota Talented Youth Mathematics Program: Anita Bersie. middle school, Wonju Kim, Neil Smeby, and Michael Kirby, from the high school; that on February 25 a tenure granting ceremony for teachers will be held at the regular Board meeting; that last year a committee was established to develop a plan for evaluating probationary teachers, which has now been established, and the comnittee reconvened last week to develop a policy for supervision/evaluation in the Schrol District which should be completed before the end of the school year; that Bill Fenholt, Jim Franklin and he had attended an AMSD legislative breakfast and that the Board should consider a session with the legislators representing our district; that Jim Franklin and he have been asked by their respective organizations, MSBA ar MASA, to be trained as 7 ^ conflict mediators in our area; that he wanted to express appreciation to everyone who made the recognition luncheon such a success, namely Bill Fenholt for his excellent speech, Gertie Corpe and her staff for the luncheon, Ken Jensen, Brian Bergstrom, Toni Bergland and Sue Sjeklocha for their efforts and Dave McKown for his remarks in honoring our twenty-five year employees; that as war has begun, principals and their staffs have been working with the students in a variety of ways to help them deal with the situation; that Early Childhood Health and Developmental Screening will be held February 4 - 8 at Orono Primary School; that arrangement with a photographer have been made for Board members to have their pictures taken for school use; that the Board needs to review/evaluate its long-range planning program for the purpose of establishing directives for the future. Dr. Mich provided the Board with an update on the construction stating that the classrooms are in use and the pool should be completed within six weeks. Dave McKown expressed appreciation to Lucie Taylor as she has spent a great deal of time/effort in the area of color coordination for the new building as well as tending to many other details involved with the construction process. 9 Dr. Mich reported to the Board on the progress of the development of a policy book with Bob Schueble serving as the consultant on this project. He informed the Board of the format/program that will be followed with explanation as to the development of policies/procedures stating, that at the completion of each policy series, the Board will review that series, which includes making suggestions/changes, and then the series will be approved by the Board. Dr. Mich stated that the goal for completion of this project would be prior to the close of the 1990-91 school year. UPON MOTION by Jim Franklin, seconded by Lucie Taylor, the Board of Education approved the development of a summer school program for 1991 and directed admi nistration to conduct such a program from June 10 through June 27, 1991. Discussion ensued regarding the costs for this program each year with mention of pursuing alternate funding possibilities in the future, and concern regarding recision of funds for the District as a result of legislative action. Lucie Taylor MOVED, Jim Franklin seconded, to amend the motion that if the State has a recision of funds for the 1990-91 school year, the summer school program will automatically be reconsidered. The question was called on the amendment. Carried unanimously. The question was called on the motion as amended. Carried unanimously. The P.E.R. policy was presented to the Board of Education for a first reading. This will be brought back to the February 11, 1991 meeting for approval. The Board heard a report from Ron Gilbert, Schumann Elmentary Principal, on the Josten Learning Center in the Schumann Elementary School in which he provided the Board with background information on the program, processes that are involved and reports/placement summaries that are available for teachers. Mr. Gilbert stated that students use the laboratory for two twenty minute periods a -- week, time which is viewed as a supplement to reinforce the skills taught in the classroom. Geraldine Oressel, computer laboratory clerk, was commended by Mr. Gilbert for her outstanding work with this program and with the students. At the conclusion of the Board meeting. Board members visited the laboratory and worked on the computers. UPON MOTION by Don Anderson, seconded by John Maresh, the meeting was adjourned. Carried unanimously.