Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-11-1991 Council PacketAGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, MARCH 11, 1991, 7:00 P.M. (*)Asterisk items are cons; «5“ red to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Discussion will be held upon request. Memos regarding each of the Agen^ items are available in the Public Packet which may be upon request from the Recorder. ROLL CALL 1.Oath of Office - Councilmeraber Mary Butler 2.CONSENT AGENDA* S.'S ClTYoc' APPROVAL OF MIRUTBS *3, Regular Meeting of February 25, 1991 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS PLAIIHIMG COMMISSION COMMENTS - Sara Moos Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS • (Liait 5 Minutes Per Person) ZONING ADMIRISTRATOR'S REPORT **APPLICANTS**Immediately 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. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. #1497 Toberman Property, 1960 Shoreline Drive - Conditional Use Permit #1493 Chuck Downey, 2665 Casco Point Road - Variance - Resolution #1570 Chuck Downey, 2665 Casco Point Road - Conditional Use Permit/Varii’nce - Resolution #1609 Alice Brock, 2780 Shadywood Road, Variance - Resolution Joint Use Dock Licenses - Resolutions BHGINBBR'S REPORT * 9. Change Order No. 2 Pumphouse #3 * 10. Pay Request #5 Pumphouse #3 MATOR/i 11. 12. 13. 14. ■CIL REPORT Town Meeting Joint Council and Planning Commission Meeting Planning Commission Applicants City Communication - Cable TV Rep Report CITY ADMIRISTRATOR'S REPORT 15.Highway 12 Planning Commission Recommendation 16.Noodhill Country Club Facilities Storm Water Management LMCD Comprehensive Plan Strategic Planning - 1991 Stubbs Bay Sewer - Ziesroer Letter 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. f ■ r/. l> I AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAYr MARCH 11, 1991, 7:00 P.M. * * 23. 24. 25. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT - Continuted * 22. Municipal Board Process Yard Waste Drop Off Program 1991 - Resolution 1990 Budget^ Adjustments Adn\ini8trator' s Information 'Aorth Ferndale Alan Carlson Development Plastics Recycling • Contract Kpnnel Service January Receipts and Disbursements Wire Transfers Administrator's Goal Setting CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT LICENSES (26 *} BILLS (27*) ADJOURNMENT UPCOMING ISSUES AND EVENTS 03/06 - Group of 8 Cities 7:00 p.ro. 03/11 - Council Meeting 03/18 - Planning Commission Meeting 03/25 • Council Meeting 04/06 - Town Meeting 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) PUBLIC ATTEMDAMCE CITY OF ORONO MEETING DATE ^ Q / PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORi-tATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. 3 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEET|1W#|j|- HELD FEBRUARY 25, 1991 J 1 ,0membetwj '»*1 ROLL CALL: The Council met on the above date with the foi present: Mayor Barbara Peterson, Councilmembe' Goetten, and Gabriel Jabbour. CounciImember Edward caliana.• Mary Butler, Councilmember Select, were absent. 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, and City Recorder Laurie Scheffler. iVG («1*)CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Peterson requested that item #20A, Canine Program, be removed from the Consent Agenda. It was moved by Goetten, seconded by .Mayor Peterson, to approve the Consent Agenda, with the exception of item 20A, which was removed and discussed in the sequence shown on the Agenda. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0. Motion passed. (#2*)APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Goetten, seconded bv Mayor Peterson, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting held "ebruary 11, 1991. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0. Motion passed. PUBLIC COHHENTS: None. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: (13)ZONING APPLICATION #1605 DR. RICHARD LINDSTROM-1065 WEST FERNDALE ROAD VARIANCE Paul Bedker, the applicant's architect, was present. Bernhardson provided a brief review of this application and the action taken by Council at their February 11, 1991 meeting. He said, "The applicant has subsequently spoken with Michael Gaffron. I will refer this matter to him so he can provide an outline of the issues on which the applicant requested further direction in order to amend his proposal." Gaffron stated the first item for clarification is the degree of structure that exists in ,the 0-75' setback area. He said, "The applicant has stated from the beginning that he will remove existing rock and plastic in that area. There is also a deck in that area, which was on the original plans when the house received Variance approval in 1974. The applicant is questioning whether removing the deck would help to gain a more favorable review from Council. The applicant is also asking for more direction on Council's - 1 - r ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 25, 1991 (#3)ZONING FILE f1605-LINDTROM CONTINUED position on the second story additioti. Perhaps Council can provide some specific information that may help to revise their plan. Does Council believe that the average lakeshore setback is an issue? I have been asked by the applicant to note that drainage coming off of the house goes north and back around through the neighboring property before entering the lake. It is their preference that Council not adopt the resolution for denial, but give them an opportunity to revise their plan." Goetten stated that she had no objection to tabling this application. She said, "My concerns focus mainly on the amount of structure on this substandard lot. V/ith regard to the proposed pool, I do not favor the exchange of non-structural hardcover to structural hardcover. I know that Mr. Bedker included the pool water surface in his hardcover calculations. I am also concerned about the two garages, one at basement level and one at ground level. In my opinion, the addition is too large, though we would prefer that you expand up, rather than out. I would like to see this proposal down-sized. The City will no longer accept landscape plastic as a trade-off for structural hardcover." Bedker replied, "We did not intend to use the landscape plastic as a trade-off. We merely offered removing it as a good faith attempt to improve the existing situation." Goetten acknowledged Mr. Bedker's good faith attempts to better the hardcover situation on this lot. She asked Staff the width, of the existing deck and how many feet from the lake it is locaced. Gaffron replied, "The deck is 12 feet wide and is 3.3 feet from the lake. The heise is located approximately 15 feet from the lake.” Goetten stated that she did not oppose the average lakeshore setback Variance requested in this case. Jabbour asked if either of Dr. Lindstrom's neighbors had expressed any opposition to this proposal. Gaffron replied, "No objection was expressed by either neighbor." Jabbour stated that he had no objection to the average lakeshore setback Variance. He said, "The project as presented is substantially over-ambitious for the size of the lot. I think the Hardcover Ordinance serves as a means to not only protect the lake, but regulate what kind of house is constructed on a - 2 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 25, 1991 (#3)ZONING FILE #1605-LINDSTROM CONTINUED particular lot. It is unfortunate that this house was approved and granted Variances in order to have existing cabins removed. The City should work with you as much as we can, but the question is at what point does a property become developed to its maximum capability. I think it may be possible to make considerations in light of removing the deck. I do not foresee us trading hardcover that should never have been there, even in the 75-250* setback area. I think Staff misunderstood my personal intention regarding this issue. Any excess of rock and plastic hardcover, in any zone, is non-conforming and should never have been there and cannot be traded. If a person has less than 25% in the 75-250* setback area, and quite a bit of it is plastic and rocks, and he/she wishes to trade that for structure, I would not disagree with that.** Goetten wished to clarify her position regarding swimming pools. She said, **When Council was deciding whether or not a swimming pool constituted hardcover, I was in the minority when the vote indicated that it would not be hardcover.” Goetten suggested to Bedker that he may wish to work with Staff to examine whether portions of the driveway could be removed, while maintaining a safe iccess. Bedker explained that he had tried to locate the additions over the existing driveway hardcover and house. He said, '*I have not heard Council address the second story. Is that a problem to go up?** Goetten said, **I would prefer that you go However, I was concerned a‘ it the fa up and not out. that you are approximately doubling tho squart. :oc'*-aq )f t-.-; existing house.’* Mayor Peterson stated that she did not object to the average lakeshore setback variance, or the second story addition. Sne asked Jeanne if the driveway had been indicated on the plans approved in 1974 as it now appears. Mabusth replied, **Unless Michasl has an old site plan actually showing the driveway, it is doubtful. In 1974 the City did not have its Shoreland Regulations in place and driveway hardcover was not considered.** Mayor Peterson asked Bedker whether Dr. Lindstrom would be willing to remove a portion of the lakeside deck. Bedker replied, "I have wculd have to discuss that issue with Dr. Lindstrom.** Goetten said, **I think the Council *s position is that the plan is too ambitious for the lot. If the additions could be - 3 - 'i ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 25, 1991 (13) ZONING FILE #1«;05-LINDSTROM CONTINUED reduced in size, I would think that wouJd be more acceptable." Jabbour asked Goetten if s*ie would accept a revised proposal that did not change the existing structural hardcover, but resulted in a substantially larger house? The square footage of the house is not an issue." Goetten agreed that the hardcover is the major issue. It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Jabbour, to table this application and refer it back to the Planning Commission for their review. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0. Motion passed. (|4)HARDCOVER POLICY - POOLS/PLASTICS Mayor Peterson asked whether the policy applies to geotechnical fabric as well as plastic. Gaffron indicated that the policy does include fabric, as Council has previously directed. Mayor Paterson asked if the Planning Commission has reviewac this information. Gaffron replied, "The Planning Commission has not seen the cover letter. The Planning Commission has ^n upcoming work session to review zoning amendments, and I oelieve this issue will be addressed at that time." Jabbour asked Gaffron to more specifically identify what the term "geotechnical fabric" refers to, and does it include fabrics that are only "semi-permeable". Gaffron replied, "We are mainly considering landscape fabric that allows water to penetrate. The concern is that if there is no weed prevention method for landscaping that is not considered hardcover, then people will tend to use more chemicals to control weeds in their rockbeds. In my opinion, the effect the chemicals have on the lake is worse than rain runoff." Jabbour said, "I agree with you, absolutely." Goetten stated that she had the same concerns. She added, "I also think this should be considered in conjunction with the Shoreland Regulations. I am very concerned about the amount of fertilizer that is going into the lake. I talked with Jeanne about this issue and questionei whether we might implement a lake protection policy. She indicated that the City can establish specific rules to protect the lake. I think we ought to consider something along those lines and incorporate it with the hardcover policy. It may be that people do not realize what damage they may be causing. I also think that wa really need to prioritize - 4 - .'I I V Jl, L jiumL-L,ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 25, 1991 (14)HARDCOVER POLICY CONTINUED the most important issues and address only those. I do not want people in the Community to think that we are picking on every single thing that they wish to do. I think the major concerns involve lakeshore property. I would like the policy to be presented in such a way that the residents will understand the purpose and need for it. I also think we need to address the issue of decks and the potential for such structures to develop into screen porches, three-season porches, and additions. It may be appropriate for the City to professional assistance with these issues. enlist some Gaffron said, 'Staff agrees that there are a number of sources, such as the Freshwater Biological Institute, the LMCD, etc., that we would like to involve. I would recommend that we first have the Planning Commission review the policy and provide information, and then involve other consultants, hopefully at no cost." Jabbour stated that when the City first adopted its Shoreland Regulations it was innovative. He said. Since lakeshore property is becoming scarce, Orono is going to be subjected to high pressure for redevelopment. I think the City needs to do everything possible to prepare itself. I do not believe that we can continue on the policy of calculation to see how much more hardcover a property can have. I also think we need to revisit the issue of eaves. I think Council did itself a disfavor by not addressing this issue when it was last before them." Mayor Peterson asked Gaffron how the City would control the companies that provide lawn fertilizing services. Gaffron replied, "We may need to have some inspection requirements, based on neighbor complaints received by the City. Another method may be to license the lawn fertilizing companies and require them to obtain a permit prior to performing lawn treatments." Jabbour stated that he too was concerned about chemical fertilizers. He said, "I have talked with Staff regarding the advantages and disadvantages of liquid versus pellet fertilizers. It is my understanding that there was a great deal of chemical runoff into Long Lake last year. I was told by a fireman that his department was asked to respond because of a strong kerosene or gasoline odor. I do think we need to address this issue and perhaps establish penalties that would apply to companies that do not meet our standards." Goetten stated that it is also important to let residents of Orono know the reasons behind any new policies - 5 - the t. ; . ii, iAft ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 25, 1991 (#4)HARDCOVER POLICY CONTINUED addressing these issues. She said, "I think they should know we are doing this because of our concern for the environment. Most of the people living in Orono are environmentally conscious, but some may not realize what effects certain things have on their environment.” Mayor Peterson suggested including information regarding these issues in the Mayor's News Letter. She asked Gaffron if his recommendation is to present this information to the Planning Commission for their review. Gaffron stated that, in his opinion, the Planning Commission was an appropriate starting point. Jabbour said, "In the meantime, Council is on record with the position that we consider any rock and plastic as hardcover. We will no longer consider any excess to the permitted amount, in any zone, as a trade-off." It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Mayor Peterson, that this matter be referred to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendations, with the directive from Council that their considerations include decks, permeable fabric, lawn fertilizers, and eaves, in addition to rock, plastic and swimming pools. Staff should explore the possibility of using outside resources to assist in drafting a policy incorporating these issues. Motion, Ayes-3. Nays-0. Motion passed. ENGINEER'S REPORT: (|5)LIFT STATION 10 ft 43-FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Jabbour, to approve the second and final pay request, for Lift Stations #10 and #43, to LaTour Construction for an amount of $27,078.45. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0. Motion passed. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT: (#6)PARK COMMISSION APPOINTMENT Mayor Peterson stated that the City is fortunate to have so many qualified people willing to volunteer their time to serve the City. She said, "This was not an easy choice to make, but I feel that all three of us agree on the person we would like to see appointed to this position. We are hopeful that this person will bring some new and innovative ideas to the Park Commission and we look forward to working with this person." Goetten concurred with Mayor Peterson's comments and encouraged those not selected this time to seek other positions as they become available. - 6 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 25, 1991 (|6)PARK COMMISSION APPOINTMENT CONTINUED A motion was made by Goetten, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to appoint Stephen Johnston to the Park Commission for a two-year term, and to appoint Richard Flint, James Gilbert and Susan Wilson to the Park Commis'^ion for three-year terms. Jabbour expressed his appreciation -o the applicants who were persistent in their efforts to be appointed. Motion, Ayes-3, Na/s-0. Motion passed. OTHER Goetten stated that she and CounciImember Jabbour had attended the February 20, 1991 Planning Commission meeting regarding the Highway 12 Corridor issue. She said, "The purpose of the meeting was to solicit input from the public on that issue. I thought the meeting went very well and was pleased to see that so many people were interestad in attending. The Planning Commission will hold a Work Session on February 27th for the purpose of preparing a recommendation to Council." Jabbour concurred with Goetten. He said, "I was extremely impressed that everyone was given an opportunity to say what they had to say. I think people left with the feeling that they had been given a chance to be heard. I would like the Council to know how much I appreciated the manner in which Mr. Kelley conducted the meeting." Goetten said, "I agree, Charlie Kelley did an excellent job. I think we should all be thankful that he is involved in our City." Sherokee Use said, "From the public’s perspective, it was wonderful to have the opportunity to be heard. Many people expressed their appreciation for the opportunity to be heard and to participate in this process. I would like to thank the Council and Pj.anning Commission for making it possible for the citizen.^ to be involved in this process." Mayor Peterson stated that Council needs to schedule a date for the first "Town Meeting". She said, "The purpose of this meeting is to give Orono residents the opportunity to come before the Council in an informal manner and tell us their likes and dislikes about the City. Council will not give their opinions, but will listen to what the residents have to say." Sherokee suggested that Council may wish to limit the time period of the meeting. Mayor Peterson suggested 13:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Jabbour stated that it may be appropriate for Council to make an opening statement indicating their position on the major issues. - 7 - r t kti- ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 25, 1991 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT-OTHER CONTINUED Goetten stated that the residents are likely to questions involving Council's position on the ma^or issues. ask Sherokee suggested that it may be beneficial to the residents if the Mayor's News Letter could precede the Town Meeting and provide at update of t'ne mUjOr issues in the Community. Jabbcur agreed that it would be helpful to have the Mayor's News Letter precede the meeting. It was agreed that the Town Meeting would be held on April 6, 1991, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., at the Orono High School in either the cafeteria or auditorium. Mayor Peterson stated that she has been approached by a Navarre business owner about whether the City is considering Christmas decorations for that area. She also asked Gerhardson how the Beautification Committee was progressing with tlie new signs for the City. Gerhardson stated that he just started to work on the sign project. Jabbour asked whether it should be the responsibility of the business owners or the City to provide such amenities. Gerhardson stated that in the past, there has been financial participation from both the City and the Navarre Retail Association. Mayor Peterson said, "It is my understanding that there is some money available to help pay for Christmas decorations. The unsolved issues are where to store the decorations, and putting them up and taking them down each year." Bernhardson said, "I recall that some arrangements had been discussed with regard to installing and removing the decorations. I would have to go back in my files to confirm that. I had not heard from the person who discussed this issue with me last year and I thought that the project was stopped due to a lack of money." CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: (#7)LMCO COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN Bernhardson presented Council with updated information resulting from the February 22 1991 meeting with the cities. He said, "We think we are making progress. Another meeting is scheduled for March 6th at 7:00 p.m., at the v^ayzata City Hall, to see in fact if any progress has been made on the major issue - 8 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 25, 1991 (#7)LMCD PLAN CONTINUED of shoreland and how that is included or excluded in the Comprehensive Plan. Other issues include what the Board’s composition wi]l be and whether they will take a change in position on that, and taxation authority. It is our understanding that the Chair is looking at some modifications in the plan for that. We are also presenting an updated draft of the letter we would like to submit to the LMCD. We would like to send the letter out Wednesday, February 27th, and would appreciate receiving any additional comments from Council prior to that day. Staff will also send the letter previously reviewed by Council to the Mayors of the eight cities." Jabbour stated that it is frustrating to see the disci’jsions at the "Group of Eight" meetings being dominated by lar.a use issues, when there are other issues to discuss as well. He said, "I do want Orono to come across as being in support of the LMCD, or the concept of the LMCD. I do not want it to appear as though we are attacking the LMCD. I am not anxious to have the legislators handling issues that are better left to us. Orono is approaching things from a different aspect. We are concerned that the LMCD is not restrictive enough. Other communities believe they are too strict. I want us to be aware of that contrast. Most of the meeting discussion :s dominated by the people who want liberal development around the lake." Bernhardson stated that communities such as V</ayzata and Spring Park have a majority of commercial property within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. He said, "Those cities are afraid that their current development becomes non-conforming under the regulations. They also do not wish to limit their options for future development. The LMCD talked with Spring Park and assured them to a certain degree that they would not have to make a lot of changes, and there would not be a great number of structures considered as non-conforming." Council accepted the information presented by Bernhardson and took no formal action. (#8)LAKE USE AND MANAGEMENT-DRAFT SHORELAND REGULATIONS Bernhardson presented Council with a draft of the Shoreland Regulations prepared by City Staff. Jabbour stated that he had recently attended a "Save the Lake" banquet. He said, "The Commissioner of the DNR was there and made a statement to the effect that Lake Minnetonka has 'too much*. He said that the lake has too much weeds, and among ot..er things, too many boats. In the past we have been concerned about the DNR taking the opposite opinion of the lake, and that the density of the lake could be increased and have more accesses. I - 9 - ! j • ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 25, 1991 (#8)SHORELAND REGULATIONS CONTINUED thought that was a major statement. I found the Commissioner to be more receptive to our way of thinking." Jabbour also stated that the Commissioner also warned of the Zebra Mussel that may infest Minnesota lakes. Goetten stated that she would like the preface page to the City's Shoreland Regulations to include a statement indicating Orono’s position for protecting the environment. Jabbour stated that the first page of the Comprehensive Plan could be used. Goetten and Mayor Peterson concurred with Jabbour's suggestion. Council accepted the information presented by Bernhardson and took no formal action. (#9)FACILITIES REVIEW Bernhardson presented Council with information pertaining to the issues and factors of a com.mon facility site versus split sites. He provided Council with a rough draft of a questionnaire for residents of the Crystal Bay area, and noted that Councilmember Callahan had requested the opportunity to further consider it. He said, "I have also included some information on options for the Public Works facilities. Staff would like Council to consider a scenario where we fence off the equipment here in the Spring, or utilize the Water Tower property, while we tear down the existing facility. Depending on the progress we are making toward a permanent facility, and how quickly that may be constructed, we would either wait or look at renting a 5,000 s.f. temporary facility located here, at the sewer plant, or in Navarre. Staff did examine the possibility of existing rental space, but only found a facility in Tonka Bay that would cost approximately $50,000/year, plus utilities. It was John's opinion that the whole department should be moved if it is going to be moved that far away. If we are not going to seriously consider the rental property, we need to let the people involved know tha as soon as possible." Goetten stated that she is mainly concerned about the safety of the employees. She said, "Given the condition of the existing building, I believe we need to dc something as soon as possible. I cannot say that I favor renting space for $50,000 per year. Constructing a temporary pole barn facility may be the answer, especially if we could find a use for it later. We have to get our people out of that building." Jabbour said, "I believe that Band-Aid solutions are going to wind up costing the City a lot of money. I hope that everyone recognizes the seriousness and urgency of trying tc go forward - 10 - ■rivvu--i>-k/j- t • . L ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 25, 1991 (#9)FACILITIES REVIEW CONTINUED with the new municipal facilities. Wa have tried to save the citizens some money by researching the issue further, but time seems to be working against us. I would like to see the building torn down and a new location for Public Works determined as soon as possible." Bernhurdson stated that the shed is needed for another month or so, until the snow season ends. Bernhardson asked Council if they wished to select a workshop date. Mayor Peterson asked if the Planning Commission would be invited. Bernhardson replied, "I btalieve Council previously indicated that the Planning Commission should attend. You may also wish to include the members of the Facility Committee." Jabbour asked whether letters had been sent to the Committee members asking them whether they wished to continue in that capacity. Bernhardson replied, "Council requested that we not send a letter until it was determined whether or not the Committee should continue." Goetten stated that a concern had been raised about the need to determine and inform the Committee of their role, before asking them if they wish to continue. She said, "It is apparent that we will probably be making some changes, so I think they will be needed. I also insist that they elect a Chair." Jabbour said, "I think we should first find out if they wish to continue. I would also be interested to know the attendance record of the members." It was the consensus of Council to hold a workshop meeting with the Planning Commission at 6:00 p.m. on March 27 , 1991, in the Orono Council Chambers. Bernhardson stated that he would attempt to have Jack Boarman present also, and would contact the Facility Committee members. (#10)HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR-PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW Bernhardson presented Council with the Agenda for the February 27, 1991 Planning Commission Work Session on the Highway 12 issue. Council asked Mabusth to relay their appreciation to the Planning Commission for a job well done at the February 20th meeting, and took no further action. - 11 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 25, 1991 (#11)POLICE CHIEF SELECTION PROCESS Bernhardson presented a recommendation to Council to transmit a Request for Proposal to the three or four firms in the Metropolitan area, and use the information received to determine the next step in the process. Goetten and Mayor Peterson asked whether Staff was asking for an itemized proposal. Bernhardson indicated that the Request for Proposal would ask the specific costs for specific services. Jabbour asked whether it would be possible for such a firm to examine the Poliv'e Department and make recommendations on what could be improved. He said, "I would like to start at zero. In talking with Long Lake and Spring Park, I feel that something needs to change with the Police Department. I do not believe that anybody I know, including myself, is qualified to do that. I think we need an outside source to recommend what needs to be done, define the job description for the Police Chief, and then assist us with hiring a Chief." Goetten asked if it would not be the responsibility of the new Police Chief to determine what needs to change or stay the same and then make appropriate recommendations. Mayor Peterson stated that neither Council, nor Staff has the expertise to know what needs to change. Jabbour stated that it is difficult to hire a new person without first having a specific job description defined. Mayor Peterson asked if any of the firms being considered provided such consulting services. Bernhardson stated that the firms provided a variety of services including employee hiring, labor relations, personnel work and department head selection. He said, "I would like to hire a firm and have them identify the areas that need improvement and then look for a person with expertise in those areas. It was moved by Mayor Peterson, seconded by Goetten, to direct Staff to transmit a Request for Proposal to a minimum of four executive search firms, and any others that may be interested and have experience in the local area in Police Chief selection. Mayor Peterson asked Staff to consider any other method of making this information known to other search firms. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-9. Motion passed. - 12 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 25, 1991 ..ction under dru, entorce.enr could include a push for the DARE Program on a State-wide basis. It was moved b/ Jabbour, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to adopt a Legislative Policy for 1991. Motion, Ayes-3. Nays-0. Motion passed. (#13)1991 STRATEGIC PLAN Bernhardson presented the 1991 Strategic Plan. Council with a preliminary draft of Mayor Peterson asked how the City may go about obtaining the services of someone willing to author a quarterly news letter. Jabbour suggested asking persons who have previously applied for various committees of vacancies if they would be interested in providing such a service. previouSlSl*‘'expresre “®lnte'rest'’\n^\ capacity on ® bj-aren^^in^res\^e^d.^°aSd?S? pr^^e ^^y charge. It is difficult to find someone that may be ^^le to combing the talent and time needed if the letter is produced more than once or twice a year." preseJted^^and'’%e”'';^rr\h°er =d7s"c>^s^ion ^'^n^Tl t,"a^r^h^^U?h Council meeting. (#14*)MUNICIPAL BOARD PROCESS It was m.oved by Goetten, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to accept the information regarding the Municipal Board process. Motion. Ayes-3, Nays-0. Motion passed. (#15*)AMENDMENT TO LOGIS JOINT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT RESOLUTION^ #2^33^^ by Goetten, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to adopt Resolution #2933, relating to Loca ■- system (LOGIS): Approving Amendment No. Cooperative Agreement changing the date by whii.h ® ® required to notify LOGIS of their withdrawal from the system. Motion, Ayes-3. Nays-0. Motion passed. ^ 12,5*) REs2UEST for funding-west HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES PLANNING by Goetten, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to authorize the payment of $1,600.30 as the request is within the amount budgeted for 1991. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0. Motion passed. - 13 - r-':. ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 25, 1991 (#17*)POLICY BODY MATERIAL PREPARATION It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to accept the information regarding policy board material preparation. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0. Motion passed. (#18*)WEST HENNEPIN RECYCLING COMMISSION JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to approve the West Hennepin Recycling Commission Joinc Powers Agreement for 1991. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0. Motion passed. (#19*)SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE CDBG YEAR XVII FUNDS It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Mayor Peterson to approve March 25, 1991, 7:00 p.m., as the Public Hearing for Year XVII of the Community Development Block Grant and to tentatively allocate the funds as follows: Rehabilitation of Private Property $23,175 Interfaitn Outreach 1,000 Westonka Community Action 1,000 Westonka Intervention 1,000 $26, 175 Motion, Ayes-3. Nays-0. Motion passed. (#20)1991 WAYZATA FIRE CONTRACT ADDENDUM It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to adopt the addendum to the 1991 Wayzata Fire Contract. Motion, Ayes-3. Nays-0. Motion passed. (20A)CANINE PROGRAM Mayor Peterson withdrew this item from the Consent Agenda-. She said, "It was my understanding that Baron (the City’s Police dog) was not suited for this particular position because he did not pass the drug portion of the program. I also understood that he would go to someone familiar with the manner in which he should be handled, due to the training he received. I was confused by the opening sentence of Chief Kilbo's memo regarding training Baron further." Bernhardson clarified, "Baron was not trainable from a drug searching aspect. If there is someone in need of a dog that does not require that ability, he could go to them." Mayor Peterson said, "It is my understanding that the only additional costs the City may incur in obtaining another dog is the cost of replacing Officer Fischenich for a certain number of days." Bernhardson replied, "That is correct." Council took no formal action on this item - 14 - ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 1991 (21*)ADMINISTRATOR'S INFORMATION It was m.oved by Goetten, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to accept the City Administrator's Information regarding: Public/Private Roads, Community Development Block Grant Program, Prosecution/Court Fines, Lake Minnetonka Levels/Minnehaha Creek Wateirshed District, Business Cards, Identification Cards, December Receipts and Disbursements, and Wire Transfers. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0. Motion passed. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT: None. (#22*)LICENSES Bernhardson stated that he had intended to re.aove the license for L. Cramer Designers under the Consent Agenda and asked Council if they would do so. He said, "They were supposed to have provided us with some additional information prior to this meeting, but we did not receive it until today. Their license will be included for consideration at the March 11, 1991 meeting." It was moved by Jabbour, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to remove the Parade and Special Event license for L. Cramer from the Consent Agenda for further reconsideration. Motion, Ayes-3, Nays-0. Motion passed. It was moved by Goetten, seconded by Mayor Peterson, to approve the following license(s): Annual Home Occupation: Maryanne Ebert Priority Associates 1680 North Farm Road Septic System Installer:Sullivan's Services, Inc. 3660 Highway 101 South VJayzata Patnode Bros. 16551 Lake Ridge Drive Hayes 4 Sons Excavating Route 1, Box 202 Montrose Cigarette: Orono Golf Mike Mehner-Crystal Bay Service 3398 North Shore Drive Motion, Ayes-3, Na/s-0. Motion passed. (#23*)BILLS It was moved by Goetten, seconded approve payment of the All Funds Account. by Mayor Peterson, to Motion, Ayes-3, - 15 - I ... ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 25, 1991 i i (#23*)BILLS CONTINUED Nays-0. Motion passed. EXECUTIVE SESSION City Attorney Barrett requested that Council adjourn to an Executive Session for the purpose of discussing pending litigation. At 8:33 p.m., the Regular Meeting adjourned to an Executive Session. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Mayor Peterson, seconded adjourn the Regular Council Meeting at 9:22 p.m. Nays-0. Motion passed. by Jabbour, to Motion, Ayes-3, Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk c:; V i . 3691.3 <■( TO: FROM: DATS: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardcon March 1, 1991 , City AdministratoV^ ’ V SUBJECT: Application 41497 Toberman Property Attachment:A. Application #1497 Toberman Property Memo Dated March 15, 1990 B. Toberman Management Memo Dated November 9, 1990 C. James Gilbert Letter Dated November 19, 1990 ISSUE - 1. Determine whether Council desires to adopt a denial resolution regarding the above cited application as outlined in Attachment A regarding non-conforming use of property as commercial use. 2. If Council does not desire to adopt a denial, give conceptual direction as to what process would be appropriate. INTRODUCTION - This application was initially submitted about a year ago. The initial application was for the following type of usage: Sale of boats, equipment and parts and introduced servicing of boats. During the consideration of this. Council indicated they were not willing to grant such an application. As noted in Attachment C the applicant's attorney has requested that the original conditional use permit be renewed and takes issue with the City’s position that there was a lapse in usage of a non-conforming use. As you may recall one of the issues for denial was that if the use did lapse and the City were to subsequantly grant a variance for an acknowledged lapse of use of a nonconforming use, the City would be granting a use variances which would not be allowed under the statutes. It is the applicant's position that the City could consider, that because of circumstances, the use in fact was not volunarily abandoned and that Council could then just grant a renewal of the previously existing variance. A private opinion from the City Attorney will outline his opinion on the matter. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt the denial resolution as presented. 2. Amend and adopt. 3* Give conceptual direction to permit Toberman to use the property under the conditions set forth in the 1987 permit L li I'. m amending to allow him a year from approval of amended resolution to utilize the property for the use under the special permit. 4. Refer to Planning Commission for recommendation as to any additional conditions based on Council direction. 5. Table for further discussion. 6. Give conceptual direction for alternatives: Granting another similar usage Combining this use with the marina Acquisition of the property Direct single/multiple residential and the abutting property as an allowable use RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that Council reconsider the direction of a denial application and if appropriate, give conceptual direction regarding the existing use on that property. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by that Council direct staff regarding its position on this application. Ayes , Nays I i cc; James Gilbert, 1616 Park Avenue, 55404 r I / ITo:Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Mencers Planning Commission Chairnan Kelley Orono Planning Commission Members City Administrator Bernhardson Prom:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Dato: Subjactt March 15, 1990 #1497 Vern Larson, 1960 Shoreline Drive - Conditional Use Permit/^^ariance - Public Hearing Pertinent Ordinance - Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 - A conditional use permit is required for a non-conforming use. The property is located in the LP.-lA zoning district. Previous retail use was approved in resolution #2193 (review Exhibit F), expired June 8, 1988. No commercial use of the property has existed on this site since early 1987. Section 1C.03, Subdivision 5 (A) - Per City Attorney's memorandum, a variance to this section will be required as it involves a change from one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use. Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 (E) - Whenever a non-conforming use of structure or land is discontinued and remains discontinued for a period of twelve months, any future use of said structure or land shall be in conformity with the provisions of this zoning chapter. Resolution *2193 expired 6/8/88. Section 10.09, Subdivision 8 - Conditional uses: Lapse of permit. A conditional use permit shall lapse one year following the date on which it became effective, unless prior to that time, a building permit is issued by the Building Inspector and construction is commenced and pursued towards completion on the site, which was the subject of a conditional use permit application. A conditional use permit may be t ^newed for an additional period of one year provided that the request be filed prior to the expiration of one year from the date when the use permit is filed with the Zoning Administntor. The council may grant or deny an application for renewal for a conditional use permit. / Zoning File #1497 March 15, 1990 Page 2 of 4 • It would be the City staff’s ooinion that the issuance of a building permit was secondary in regard to the principal intent to install a retail operation. Mr. Tobernan was advised prior to his letter of August 30, 19S8 tr.at his conditional use permit had expired and he would have to apply for a new conditional use permit. The current application itself is a renewal conditional use permit. The building permit was required to make the necessary structural improvements for the non-conforming use to be allowed to open to the public. The commercial use was never installed. Section 10.09, Subdivision 9 - Conditional uses: Lapse of use. Should a conditional use lapse or cease for a period of 6 months, future use shall be in conformance with the terms of the Zoning chapter, unless such lapse of ceasation is determined to be due to illness, nature disaster or acts of war. A conditional use is exactly what the term suggests, a use and has no relation to a building permit issued for construction. To staff's knowledge, none of the three standards set forth in this section is applicable for the lapse of this non-conforming use. The non-conforming use and conditional use standards of the code refer to the use of a property. When a conditional use permit requires structural improvements, a building permit is required and suggests an intent to install new approved use. section 10.03, Subdivision 5 (J) - Applied to uses only: The non-conforming use provisions of the Zoning Chapter apply only to use which land and buildings are put, and do not apply to situations where location or height of structure, lot size or other factors not involving the use of the premises prevent strict conformance of the Zoning chapter. Where, however, such a situation existed legally under the prior applicable law, the Council will not unreasonably restrict strict compliance and will generally look with favor on granting a variance under Section 10.08. The City /Ittorney's memo suggests that such variances may not be able to be granted by the City, and that additional research would be necessary. The granting of such variances iDBy find us in violation of MN Statute 463.357, subdivis..on 6 (City cannot grant a use variance). i Zoning File #1497 March 15, 1990 Page 3 of ^ List Of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Application Property Owners List Site Plan Floor Plan Resolution #961 Resolution #2193 City Attorney’s Memorandum Staff Sketch Review of Current Application - Mr. Toberman has filed a renewal conditional use permit to install a boat sales/nautical shop retail use on the property. Mr. Larsen, Mr. Toberman's representative, has noted that this use is not specifically for a sailboat operation, but for motorboats* They seek no other changes from the original proposal. They ask for approval of the original site plan submitted with the sailboat operation in the 1987 review (review Exhibit C). Mr. Toberman is in the process of attempting to sell this property. It is impossible for him to sell the property without knowing what the City will allow now that the original conditional use permit has expired. Mr. Toberman has been advised that the City Attorney's office is preparing a memorandum concerning the legal options of the City concerning the future use of this property. The City has made it quite clear to Mr. Toberman that they are concerned with the physical limitations with this site for commercial use. The fact that a commercial use has not been installed on this property within the legal period of time suggests the unsuitability of this site for commercial use. As staff noted before, many of the required improvements set forth in the original conditional use permit in 1987, such as drainage improvements, fencing, landscaping, cosmetic repair of exterior of building, internal modifications per floor plan (Exhibit D) have been completed. In fact, some need upgrading because the property has been vacant and not regularly maintained. r Zoning File #1497 March 15, 1990 Page 4 of 4 The Planning Commission is asked to review the City Attorney's memo that outlines the options of action available to the City regarding this current renewal conditional use permit for the continuation of a non-conforming use. Please note, if it is the Planning Commission's intent to approve a conditional use permit, the City Attorney would ask to further research Minnesota case law and other cases from other jurisdictions to determine how they have dealt with granting variances to non- conforming use standards of the Zoning Code. If Planning Commission recommends denial based on your responses to the pertinent sections of the code and City Attorney's memorandum staff would ask that your denial of the variance be based on the findings in Section lO.O0r Subdivision 3 (A), and that you provide further directions to Council concerning the granting of reasonable variances for the (javelopment of a single family residen^-e on the site. A) The property consists of 11,406 s.f. in area and is served by sewer but subject to 2 acre setback standards. Would the Planning Commission recommend approval of setback variances for a single family residence . . . duplex? B) Would this property developed as a single family residence, be consistent with the surrounding pattern of residential development within the neighborhood? (refer to Exhibit H) C) What other reasonable uses could be made of this property? The applicant owns che land to the immediate east • 1950 Shoreline Drive. Per the directives of the City Attorney's memorandum, it will bo necessary to have the City Assessor provide a valuation of the property if it is to return to a residential use. If the Planning Commission finds that the property is not suitable for residential development and no economic use of the property is possible, the issue of a "teiking" must be addressed by the City. Please feel free to contact my office prior to the meeting if you have any questions concerning the issues raised in the City Attorney's memo or in the City staff memo. Zoning File #1497 April 4, 1990 Page 5 Additional Connents and Planning Conmission Recommendation ~ Please review the Planning Commission minutes of March 19, 1990 for background discussion on issues raised for this current review. The majority of the Planning Commission members were sympathetic to the applicants' request to renew the non- conforming conditional use permit that would allow a beat sale/nautical shop use on the property. The neighbors in attendance were equally opposed to the reinstallation of the commercial use. Rezoning to commercial use was scon ruled out of the question because the City would loose control of the commercial use of this severely limited property. If there is to be a commercial use, it must be controlled with a conditional use permit. The applicant claimed that the property has not been utilized for commercial use because of the impact of the severe drought on boat sales in general. Lack of interest had nothing to do with the physical character of the property. Planning Coamission Recommendation - Planning Commission voted to recommend approval (3-1) of the renewal conditional use permit for Gerald Toberman that would permit a boat sale/nautical shop to be installed on the residential zoned property located at 1960 Shoreline Drive. The Planning Commission further referenced the City Attorney's memo that strongly recommended that if the recommendation was to approve the commercial use of the property - approving a change from one non-conforming use to another - continuation of a cooQBercial use once it had been discontinued for over 12 months - that further case study be conducted to assure that such action would not be in violation of State Statutes that prohibit use variances . Optl^^s of Action Available to Council - A) Adoption of Planning Commission approval recommendation, but prior to formally directing staff to draft the appropriate resolution, the City Attorney must be directed to further study the issue of a potential violation of the State Statute that prohibits use variances. Can the City legally grant variances to the standards of the non-conforming use sections of the code? I' . V li I Zoning File #1497 April 4, 1990 Page 6 Denial. Denial of the conditional use permit for the reinstal laticn of a commercial/ non~conforming use of the residential property and per the directives of the code to require that the property be used for a permitted use within the LR”1A zoning district. Council should review Exhibit K, the survey of the lot areas in the immediate neighborhood and determine if the property is suitable for single family residential use. Based on 2 acre standards, setback variances and hardcover variances would be necessary. If Council deems the single family residential use acceptable, staff will draft the appropriate denial resolution of the current non~conforming conditional use permit. Sue resolution will contain directives to applicant for single family residential development of the site based on Council's willingness to grant setback and hardcover variances . Denial of both a conditional use permit for the continuation of the non-conforming commercial use of the property ^nd finding the property unsuitable for single family residential use and to determine a reasonable use of the property. If it is found that no economic use of the property is possible, the issue of a "taking must be addressed by the City staff prior to any formal action by the Council. Frcm: Mayor Grabek & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date:November 9, 1990 Subject: #1497 Toberman Management, 1960 Shoreline Drive - Conditional Use Permit/Variance - Denial Resolution The enclosed denial resolution has been reviewed by the City Attorney, Suesan Pace-Shapiro, and all requested amendments and additions have been completed. Unfortunately, because of the Zoning Administrator's two-week leave and the difficulty of transferring the final editing responsibilities to another staff member, the final draft was completed and mailed to applicant and applicant's attorney Friday, November 9th. Staff would recommend that all formal action on the resolution be tabled until Council's November 26, 1990 meeting providing Council, the applicant and applicant's legal representative adequate time to ask any questions or make any corrections of the factual findings within the subject resolution. 5-- Proposed Motion: Moved by seconded by to table formal action on the denial resolution for application #1497 until the November 26, 1990 meeting. Ayes _ _, nays _ _. ■ K' V 1 t’ City of ORONO CITY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________ ORONO K RBSOLOTION DENYING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 5 (E) AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 5 FILE #1497 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statute 412 et. seq. and 462 et. seq., the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted zoning regulations for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, Gerald Toberman of Toberman Management Inc. (hereinafter "the applicant") has an interest in the property located at 1960 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, Tourangeau Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City of Orono for a conditional use permit per Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 to allow non*‘Conforining commercial use of the residential property involving a boat sales/ship store; and WHEREAS, Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 (E) requires a variance for a non-conforming use of property as commercial use of the property has been discontinued for over a 12 month period of time; and WHEREAS, the applicant has discontinued use of the non- conforming use for more than 12 months; and Page 1 of 13 H :'..J .1 / \ i \ L CITY I OF t ORONCr City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. WHBREASr the City Council has reviewed the application; the recommendations of the staff and Planning Commission; and the comments of the applicant and applicant's attorney. NOW, THBRBFORE, BB IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby denies the conditional use permit and variance for the property described above, based upon one or more of the following findings of fact concerning this property: FINDINGS 1. On November 14, 1978, Ordinance #214 was adopted rezoning the property to LR-IA, single family lakeshore residential district. 2. A portion of the property was originally zoned B-1, commercial. 3. The LR-IA zoning district requires a minimum of 2 acres in area; the property consists of 11,435 s.f. or .26 acres in area. 4. Comparable use in a commercial district would have the following minimum area requirements; B-1, B-4 and B-5 would require a minimum of 20,000 s.f. in area; B-2 and B-3 require a minimum of 2 acres in area. In 1970 at the time of the rezoning of the total property to LR-IA, a gasoline sales/auto repair business existed on the property. Prior to the 1976 rezoning this use existed as a permitted use requiring a conditional use permit. The LR-IA zone does not allow gasoline service station use. Portions of the gas station use encroached into the surrounding LR-IA zone. 5. On December 18, 1978, the City adopted Resolution 1961 establishing a conditional use permit for the ■ '-aeration of a lawful non-conforming use of the property. Page 2 of 13 iiiiiikiiiiailtiiiii , s. t cirv I OF IORONO City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________ 6. Under Orono Municipal Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 5, a conditional use permit is required for a legal non- conforming use as automatic condition or result of the rezoning (e.g. adoption of Ordinance #214). 7. Conditional use permit issued pursuant to the adoption of Resolution #961 allowed the property to continue to be used for the existing gasoline sales/auto repair use subject to all pertinent sections of the non-conforming use sections of the Orono zoning code and to special conditions set forth in Resolution 1961. 8. The property continued to be used for gasoline sales, auto/transmission repair through May/June of 1987. 9. On June 8, 1987 a conditional use permit was granted to the applicant for a boat sales/nautical shop. No boat repairs were to be performed on the site, and as such the boat sales/nautical shop use was considered a less intense commercial use of the residential property than the gasoline sale auto repair use. 10. Resolution #2193 was considered based upon the standards set forth in Orono Municipal Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 (J) and conditions contained in Orono Resolution #961. Orono Municipal Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 (T) provides as follows: The non-conforming use provisions of the zoning chapter apply only to the use to which land and buildings are put and do not apply to situations where location or height of structure, lot size or other factors not involving the use of the premises prevent strict conformance with the requirements of the zoning chapter. Where, however, such a situation existed legally under the prior applicable law, the Council Page 3 of 13 1 t J ‘v CITY ORONO> City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________ will not unreasonably require strict compliance and will generally look with favor on granting of a variance under Section 10.08. Orono Resolution #961 states as follows; Other uses may be considered by the Council upon application and upon the finding that the proposed use is less non-conforming than the above permitted uses. 12. After the approval of the conditional use permit (Resolution #2193), the applicant obtained permits necessary to prepare the building for the sales use (i.e. removal of underground tanks, remodeling of building and installing of air conditioning). 13. Early in the summer of 1987, the applicant learned that the persons who were to operate the boat sales business were no longer interested in operating a boat sales operation on the property. 14. During the rest of the summer and early fall of 1987, the applicant attempted to sell or lease the property for boat sales use. If the City received calls from persons interested in other uses, they were advised of the need for a conditional use permit. 15. After a phone call from the applicant, the Zoning Administrator sent a letter on January 25, 1988 advising applicant of limitations of the conditional use permit granted in June of 1987. The letter reads as follows; Dear Mr. Toberman: This letter is written to confirm matters discussed in an earlier phone conversation relating to the use of Page 4 of 13 If iI CITYI 1 ORONa City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ the property located at 1960 Shoreline I r. e. If a boat/sales operation is in use by June 0, 19^<^’, a new conditional use permit will not be require.. The original conditional use permit approved for your boat sales use will expire on June 8, 1988. As we discussed, any other commercial use proposed for the residential zoned property will require a new conditional use permit review in order to permit a non- conforming use. Please contact my office if you have any further questions on this matter. Sincerely, Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building and Zoning Administrator 16. At no time prior to the June 8, 1988 deadline was the property used for a boat sales/nautical shop or any other use that would have been permitted under the applicant's conditional use permit. 17. In a letter dated August 16, 1990, James H. Gilbert, applicant's attorney, notes as follows: "My client will never concede that there has been a lapse of commercial use on this property. There is no question because of other hardships relating to the Marina, there has been a decreased use, but there has been a continual use of this property for commercial purposes related to the Marina business. This has included, but has not been limited to, the storing of property, the conducting of meetings, the storage of boats and other Marina equipment, sales and leasing Page 5 of 13 f CITY ORONOJ City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________ efforts relating to the Marina property and other miscellaneous commercial work. 18. If the uses noted in Mr. Gilbert's letter of August 16, 1990 took place on the property, the applicant knew he was violating the non-conforming use sections of the Orono Municipal Code. Any of the uses described in Mr. Gilbert's letter would have required tl... applicant to seek a new conditional use permit. 19. Mr. Gilbert's letter of August 16, 1990 goes on to note: .this property is an integral part of the Marina". 20. Prior to 1987, the properties located at 1955 Shoreline Dri\e and 1960 Shoreline Drive were under separate ownership. In 1987, the applicant acquired both properties. Historically, there has never been a connection between the properties eith.ii in use or ownership. Tt should be noted that 1960 Shoreline Drive and 1955 S/ioreline Drive are divided by County Road 15. 1960 Shoreline Drive is zoned LR-IA lakeshore residential and 1955 Shoreline Drive is zoned B-2 lakeshore commercial. 21. In 1987, Application #1112 was filed by the applicant and involved a comprehensive land use review that included three properties purchased by the applicant within the Crystal Bay neighborhood; 1950, 1955 and 1960 Shoreline Drive. A) 1950 Shoreline Drive was residentia1ly zoned property (LR-IA) that was residentia1ly used (4 residential units). The applicant proposed the removal of all structures and the installation of a parking lot for the use of the marina at 1955 Shoreline Drive. The Page 6 of 13 1 CITY OF ORONO City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. City Attorney advised that the City could not approve the proposed use because the use was commercial and would be in v ’ ation of both Orono code and State Law. The City w< have to rezone the property to commercial. City denied the request. B) 1955 Shoreline Drive is zoned lakeshore commercial. The City approved variances for the construction of a new clubhouse and other site Improvements. C) 1960 Shoreline Drive, a i dential zoned property, had an established legal non--onforming use, gas sales and auto repair. Based on the findings already noted in this resolution, the City approved a boat sales/nautical shop use. The City specifically granted approval of this use because there was to be no specific connection to the marina use on the east side of County Road 15 and no service of boats because of the physical limitation of the property. It was clear throughout the review that the property at 1960 Shoreline Drive had no connection with the operation of riarina at 1955 Shoreline Drive. File #1112 is hereby referenced to confirm this finding. 22. On January 29, 1990, the applicant filed a conditional use permit to permit boat sales and service use at property located at 1960 Shoreline Drive (Orono File #1497). The current application involves an expansion with the servicing of boats. This use was specifically denied In the review of Application #1112 because of the limited size of the property. 23. On March 19, 1990, the Plarning Commission voted (3 ayes# 1 abstention) to recommend approval of a conditional use permit to allow the property located at 1960 Shoreline Page 7 of 13 iv'* r ;.i ■ • • • 1 CITY ORONO City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _________________ Drive to be used for boat sales and service. The Planning Commission further directed the City Council to seek further advise from the City Attorney regarding the legality of this approval under Orono Municipal Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 (E), since commercial use on the property had ceased over 12 months ago and the current application for a conditional use permit involved a change in use from the conditional use permit approved in 1987 (File #1112). 24. On April 9, 1990 the City Council considered the applicant's request (File #1497) for a conditional use permit. The Council conceptually denied the conditional use permit application that would allow a continued commercial use of the residential property and directed staff to draft the appropriate denial resolution for formal action by the Council. In addition, the applicant was asked to provide a plan for the restoration of an approved residential use on the property and asked the applicant to meet with staff within the next 30 days to discuss a plan for restoration. 25. At the request of the applicant and applicant's attorney, Jim Gilbert, the Council once again reviewed the conditional use permit application at their August 27, 1990 meeting. The Council reaffirmed it's original action to deny the conditional use permit. The applicant's attorney sought direction on the specific issue raised in Finding #17 and #19 noted above. 26. In a notice of Council action dated August 30, 1990, the applicant was once again asked to meet with the Orono staff to develop a plan for a residential use of the property. As of this date the staff has not been contacted by the applicant. 27. The City has been advised that the property continues to be offered for commercial sale and use. In a phone Page 8 of 13 I- fe’ I OF ■ ORONO City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________ conversation (October 15, 1990) with an attorney for a potential buyer, the City was advised that the property is being offered for sale for joint use with the Marina property located at 1955 Shoreline Drive. 28. Orono Municipal Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 (A) provides that: "the non-conforming use may not be changed to another non-conforming use". 29. In a memo to the Zoning Administrator from the Assistant City Attorney, Suesan Pace-Shapiro, dated March 8, 1990, the City Attorney commented on Resolution 1961, approving the 1978 conditional use permit which allowed a legal non-conforming use on the property. Resolution #961, Item #6 provides the following; "Father uses may be considered by the Council upon application and upon the finding that the proposed use is less non-conforming than the above permitted uses". 30. In 1978, the City approved the continued commercial use of the 1960 Shoreline Drive property for gasoline sales and auto repair. Since that time the City allowed an expansion to include transmission repair of automobiles and small trucks in an attempt to assist the former owner during the "gas shortage/higher price" years when the business was in danger of failing. 31. On June 8, 1987, the Council approved Resolution #2193 granting a conditional use permit for a limited boat sales operation finding that use to be less non-conforming than the gasoline sales/auto repair/transmission repair use. Page 9 of 13 ,1' fv.. ■ii; • • • t N. City of ORONO CITY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _________________ ORONO 32. A boat sales/ship store use was never installed on the property. No permitted commercial use has been made of the property since the gasoline/auto repair use ceased in May/June of 1967. 33. Condition #5 of Resolution #2193r approving the 1907 conditional use permit for a boat sales/nautical shopr provides the following: "authorities granted by this conditional use permit run with the property not with the applicantr but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this conditional use permit will expire on that date (June 8, 1968).” 34. Applicant -^nd applicant's attorney argue that the language in Condition #5 is misleading. Applicant and his attorney argue that Condition #5 is satisfied because the applicant obtained a building permit to make the necessary alterations to the property for a boat sales/nautical shop. Finding 115 set forth above negates this claim. Applicant had adequate notice concerning the expiration of the conditional use permit and the legal status of that permit. 35. Orono Municipal Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 (E) provides t "Whenever a lawful non-conforming use of a structure or land is discontinued and remains discontinued for a period of 12 months, any future use of said structure or land shall be in conformity with the provisions of this zoning chapter". 36. The 1967 conditional use permit has lapsed since a boat sales/nautical shop was not in use by June 8, 1988 and the Page 10 of 13 1 CITY OF ORONO City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. l^^licant failed to request a renewal of the 1987 conditional use permit prior to its expiration. The applicant may only use the property for purposes permitted in the LR-IA lakeshore residential zoning district. Retail operations are not permitted in an LR-lA district. 37. Minnesota Statute Section 463.357, Subdivision 6 provides in part: "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the governing body, as the case may be, may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for property in the zone where the effective person's land is located." The Council cannot approve the current application for a conditional use permit. 38. The property located at 1960 Shoreline Drive was entitled to a conditional use permit when the property was rezoned in 1978 from B-1 to LR-IA. Since the granting of that original conditional use permit, the City has continued to grant many concessions regarding the use of this property, based upon findings that each new use was less non-conforming than a previous use. 39. In 1987 the property was granted a conditional use permit because the sailboat sales and nautical shop retail operation was viewed as less non-conforming than a transmission repair business. 40. The property has not been used for a legal non- conforming commercial use for more than 2 years and per Section 10.03, Subdivision 5 (E) of the Orono Code, the 1987 conditional use permit has lapsed. Page 11 of 13 • • • r\\, L CITY ■ ORONa City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 41. The City Council cannot grant a use variance, pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 463.367, Subdivision 6, Any future use of the property must be for a permitted use in the LR-IA zoning district. 42. In review of specific findings noted above, it is apparent that the applicant had received adequate notice advising of the expiration of the 1987 conditional use permit. The 1987 conditional use permit expired June 8, 1988. The current application for the commercial use of the property was filed January 24, 1930. 43, The property can be put to a reasonable allowed use. It can be combined with the adjacent residential property also owned by applicant but applicant has failed to meet with staff to discuss options for residential use of the property. 44. The intent of the application is cor > ;y to the intent of the Orono Comprehensive Plan. 45. The granting of this conditional use permit and variance would establish an adverse precedent in the City. 46. T’he applicant had full and complete knowledge of his rights and risks regarding the non-conforming use of this property, any alleged hardship appears to be self-imposed. FURTHBRMORB, BB IT RBSOLVBD that the City of Orono continues to encourage the applicant to work with the City to develop a reasonable residential use on the property. If dimensional variances are required to accommodate such residential use, the City Council may consider the granting of reasonably needed variances to install such use. Page 12 of 13 f i... . ■ • • • •» I Cl T y OF ORONO City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Adopted by the Orono City Council of the City of Orono on this _ _ day of November, 1990. ATTEST: 'I Tos Mayor Peterson & Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson ^';h Front Date: Subject: cJeanne A. Ma'^^usth, Building & Zoning AdministF/ftjC/£ ^ March 6, 1991 #1493 & #1570 Chuck Downey, 2665 Casco Poi Variance/Conditional Use Permit - Resolution mu.- ' The comprehensive application review involves the following ordinances: 1. 2. Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 - After-ther-Pact Average Lakeshore Setback Variance for second story deck constructed sometime in 1982. Mote: Entire second story deck is located in front of the average lakeshore setback line. Review Exhibits J, M-1 and M-2. At the August 20, 1990 meeting of the Planning Commission, members recommended approval of the after-the-fact variance for the lakeside deck subject to the applicant obtaining a building permit and paying appropriate penalty fees. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 (a) - Hardcover variances required for new improvements within 0-75' and 75-250' setback areas. a.0-75' setback area = 4,500 s.f. Existing ■ 718.7 s.f. or 15.97% Proposed « 652.9 s.f. or 14.5%* * Original steps ■ 142.5 s.f. Proposed steps = 153 s.f., a net increase of 10.5 s.f. Retaining walls *■ 29 s.f. additional hardcover Applicant proposes removal of 105.3 s.f. of existing hardcover (90.6 s.f. of structural hardcover) for a reduction of 66.3 s.f. of hardcover within the 0-75' setback area. b.75-250* setback area » 8,325 s.f. Existing hardcover > 4,990.1 s.f. or 59.94% Approved hardcover in Application #787 (1982) = 3,760 s.f. or 45% Proposed hardcover « 3,967.8 s.f. or 47.6%* 114 s.f of entry addition 10 s.f. for retaining wall matched with removals of 1,136.3 s.f. of paved/gravel driveway, landscape area underlain with plastic. Refer to Exhibii*?: I and J. t Zoning File #1493 & #1570 Page 2 3.Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8- Land Alterations involving retaining walls within the 0- 7S* setback area require both a conditional use permit and variance approval as no land alterations or structures are allowed within the 0-75' setback area. List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G- Exhibit G- Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J Exhibit K- Exhibit L Exhibit M- Exhibit N Exhibit 0 - Application - Plat Map - Property Owners List - Council Minutes 10/13/82 - Street Elevation - Floor Plan •1 - Hardcover/Existing 0-75' ■2 - Hardcover Proposed 0-75' - Hardcover Existing 75-250' - Hardcover Proposed 75-250' - Survey-Revised 7/26/90 •1, K-2 - Cook Reports - Cross Profile Retaining Walls •1, M-2 - Letters from Adjacent Neighbors - Planning Commission Minutes - 2/20/90, 8/20/90 - Council Minutes for 9/90, 9/10/90 3/19/90, Review of Application #1493 - At the September 10, 1990 meeting of the Council, Council tabled all action on the hardcover variance application phase of this review as applicant proposed major land alterations involving tiers of retaining wall within his lakeshore yard. Application #1493 involved a hardcover variance for a 6' x 19' street side addition to the existing residence. Half of the structure would be an enclosed entry addition and the second half an open porch with roof overhead. The new addition required no setback variances only a hardcover varxance within the 75-250' setback area. 84 square feet of the oiea covered by the 114 square foot entry addition was already covered with non- ^tructural hardcover consisting of landscape area underlain with plastic and paved walkways. As already noted in the hardcover facts above, with the addition of 124 s.f of structural hardcover (114 s.f., entry addition - 10 s.f., retaining wall), applicant proposes a matched removal of 1,136.3 s.f. of non- structural hardcover. L Zoning Pile #1493 6 #1570 Page 3 The Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval of the proposed entry addition subject to the removal of existing hardcover as set forth above in the hardcover facts. Although the Planning Commission's original recommendation required removal of hardcover up to the allowed amount of an earlier 1982 review at 45%» it was noted that surveys of hardcover in that year did not include landscape areas underlain with plastic. In addition staff had already confirmed that in the 1982 review, the expanded gravel area was approved by Council to assist in the backing out maneuver. Cook at an earlier meeting confirmed that based on the location of the garage, the gravel area could not serve as a turnaround area but that the right-of-way of Casco Point Road was used. The existing gravel area serves as only additional parking space. The Planning Commission has recommended that this be removed as a condition of the variance approval. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the after- the-fact average lakeshore setback variance for the lakeshore deck constructed without a building permit sometime in 1982. They based their findings as follows: 1.Recent letters submitted by adjacent and most affected neighbors site no problem with location of existing deck. Review Exhibits M-1 and M-2. 2.Second story deck does not interfere with the site line views of lake because of the sloping topographies within the lakeshore yards. The Planning Cobimission recommended approval of the after- the-fact variance at a 3 to 2 vote. The 2 denial voters did not support the motion as it included a condition that would require applicant to pay a double fee with building permit. The minority opinion felt that because of the lapse in time it was not appropriate to charge the penalty fee. The enclosed resolution has been drafted per the Planning Commission's approval recommendation for Council's review and action. Please note that the after-the-fact phase of the application has been conditioned on the penalty fee payment. If Council wishes to amend the majority action of the Planning Commission, the resolution can be amended accordingly. Review of Application #1570 - Review Exhibit J. Members will note levels of tiered retaining walls shown on the original land alteration plans for applicant's lakeshore .{ard. In the first review the Planning CoBunission denied the request finding the plan did not address the real erosion problems within the lakeshore yard. The Zoning File #1493 & #1570 Page 4 Planning Commission requested that applicant meet with staff so that plans could be amended to reduce magnitude of retaining wall construction and to specifically address the areas of concern. Those areas were defined as an eroding bank adjacent to boathouse and erosion near stonewalk adjacent to southern lot line. The revised plan proposes retaining walls limited to two sections with one running approximately 45' parallel to the lake and continuing eastward along the access stairs* The second section will be placed along the south lot line at approximately a 3 to 3-1/2* height for 25+. The plan also shows the access stairs within the 0-75' and within the 75-250' setback area. The stairs will be reinstalled at a 3' minimum width. Review Exhibit L. The walls adjacent to the boathouse will be at approximately a 4 to 4-1/2' height. As for the upper wall along the southern lot line# Cook cautions that the wall inay channelize the water and erosion problems may result. Applicant should be placed on notice that he would be expected to maintain/repair this retaining wall in order to ensure against any negative impact on the lake. In Cook's report (Exhibit K-2), he asks that a typical section of the wall be strengthened by including a lower row of deadman offset from the top row at 8' on center. Applicant is required to provide erosion control fence between the work areas on the lake. Erosion control must be installed prior to any land alteration. Hardcover within the 0- 75* setback area will be increased 29 s.f. and 10 s.f. in the 75- 25(J* setback area as already noted above in the hardcover facts. Members unanimously approved the land alterations within the lakeshore protected area and 75-250' setback area as shown on Exhibit J based on the following findings: 1.Application proposes an overall reduction in hardcover within designated setback areas. 2.Proposed land alterations and installation of retaining walls will stabilize the banks and prevent further erosion. 3.The stability of an existing boathouse will be secured and erosion of lakeside banks minimized. Approval would be subject to the following conditions: 1.Applicant is placed on notice that the upper wall section may channelize water and create further erosion problems. Applicant is responsible for the repair of these areas in order to minimize erosion and protect quality of run-off into lake. Zoning File #1493 & «lb70 Page 5 3. Typical section of wall shall be strengthened by includii a lower row of deadman offset from the top row at 8* on center. Applicant shall be required to provide erosion control fence between the work areas and lake. Such erosion control to be established prior to any land alteration. A single resolution has been drafted for both Applications #1493 and #1570 that incorporates the findings and conditions in the approval recommendation of the Planring Commission. Isv r i^; is * m I'S- A IIBSOLDTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO NDNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1, SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 AND SECTION 10.55, SOBDIVISION 8 AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAI. USE PERMIT PER SECTION 10.03, SUPuIVISION 19 FILES #1493 AND #1570 WBBRBAS, Chuck Downey (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 2665 Casco Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 136, Spring Park, Hennepin County, Min* (hereinafter "the property"); and Ota WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City of Orono for an after-the-fact variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22 Subd. 1, to permit a deck constructed in front of the average lakeshore setback line where no encroachment is allowed and per Section 10.22 Subd. 2 seeks approval of hardcover variances within the 0-75* setback area for the installation of retaining walls at approximately 58* in length and the installation of access stairs resulting in a net reduction of hardcover of 66.3 s.f. or 1.47% (final hardcover 0-75' * 652.9 s.f. or 14.5%) and seeks approval of a hardcover variance within the 75-25C setback area for a 6' x 19* entry addition resulting in 114 s.f. of structural hardcover resulting in a net reduction of 1,022.3 s.f. or 12.3% (final hardcover 75-250' » 3,967.8 s.f. or 47.6%) and grants a variance per Section 10.55 Subd. 8 and a conditional use permit per Section 10.03 Subd. 19 that would allow land alterations involving retaining walls within the lakeshore protected area where no such alterations or structures are allowed. Minnesota: HOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Page 1 of 6 FINDINGf, 1. These applicaviions were rev ewed ?s Zoning Piles #1493 and #1570. 2. The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring 21,780 s.f. or 1/2 acre in area. The property consists of 12,850 s.f. or .29 acres. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed these applications on February 20, 1990, March 19, 1990, August 20, 1990 and January 22, 1991 and recommended approval of the proposed variances and conditional use permit based upon the following findings: Hardcover variances a. Excessive hardcover resulted from landscaped areas underlain with plastic that was not considered hardcover at the time a 1982 survey was completed. b. Applicant was advised in an earlier 1982 variance review to maintain gravel drive area to as. . in backout maneuvering from garage. c. Hardcover will be reduced 66.3 s.f. or 1.47'. in the 0- 75' setback area anti 1,022.3 s.f. or 12.3% in the 75-250* setback area. After-the-fact average lakeshore setback variance a.Current neighbors on adjacent properties hid submitted letters notiijg -.lo problem with location of second story existing lakeshtre deck. b. Second story deck provides no visua.* interference with lakeshore views for residence-, side because of sloping lakeshore topographies. >act or -n either *^agc 2 of 6 r'« UBJ P L Conditional Use Permit/Variance for land alterations a. Proposed land alterations and installation of retaining walls will stabilize the steep lakeshore banks and prevent further erosion. b. The stability of an existing boathouse will be secured and minimize erosion of adjacent lakeside bank. 4. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district? that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions# light# air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant# but is necessary ti. alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to ©reserve a substantial property right of the appli­ cant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow retaining walls within the lakeshore yard will not be detrimental to the health# safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light# air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties# nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the prop'^sed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. €. The ty Council has considered this application including the fir* #gs and recommendations of the Planning Commission# report#> y City staff# comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variances and conditional use permit on the health# sfaety and welfare of the community. Page 3 of 6 ■V COHCLOSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, the Orono City Council hereby grants an after-the-fact variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22 Subd. 1 for a lakeside deck and per Section 10.22 Subd. 2 approves hardcover variances within the 0- 75* setback area and the 75-250' setback area that would permit an entry addition, retaining walls and installation of access stairs within the lakeshore protected area and per Section 10.03 Subd. 19 and Section 10.55 Subd. 8 grants a conditional use permit and variance for the installation of retaining walls within the lakeshore protected area. Such approvals are subject to the following *•. drlions: 1. All hardcover removals within the 0-75' and 75-250' setback areas are to be completed prior to footing inspections for new construction by the Orono Building Department. Existing hardcover areas scheduled for removal are shown on survey/site plan and attached as Page 6A of this resolution. 2. Applicant to file for an after-the-fact/penalty building permit for second story lakeside deck constructed sometime in 1982. The City will require penalty fee payment upon issuance of building permit. 3. A typical section of retaining wall shall be strengthened by including a lower row of deadman offset from the top row at 8' on center. 4. Applicant shall be required to provide erosion control fence between the work areas and the lake. Such erosion control to be established prior to any land alteration. 5. Applicant is placed on notice that the upper wall section may channelize water and create further erosion problems. Applicant is responsible for the repair and maintenance cf this retaining wall and any land areas disturbed by further erosion in order to protect quality of run-off into Lake Minnetonka. Page 4 of € 6. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (March 11, 1992), 7. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 8. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 11th day of March, 1991. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Ballin, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Prcnerty Owner(s) STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 11th day of March, 1991, by Barbara A. Peterson & Dorothy M. Ballin, Mayor fc City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 5 of 6 1 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application v; ■4 fee) PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 7 ^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) P O 3 3 P 3 c Ich (3)6 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. f 7TA.., ^V mr OF cm ^im:s OFFICE RECEIPT-mK YW lil^250 COQl RO! U0:U va/ f\ APPLICANT Name Address: • v,6/,• r /0^'f' P/f Phone (home) -v 7/- "7 v~ v o_ _ _ _ _ Phone (work) V - 0 f i _ _ Zip: /City \U.' I Vy ONNBR (if different than applicant)Phone (home) Name Phone (work) Address:City:Zip: Date Property Acquired /QD<er<^ \57;>(month/year) I (do) Cdo^ not^ also own the adjacent parcels of land PRESENT USB OP PROPERTY Present Zoning District _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost % oo * Describe request in detail: ^(4: ^- - - - - - - VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback Variances ( Lot Width Front Hardcover Side _ _ _ Rear) Other 1 ADSHIP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty resulting from strict enforcement of zoning regulations;^^«^sS>wr~ sK. r<?cic\.' DESCRIPTION OP OMUSDAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Cpde Requirem :si‘^j>_^'~ n(=~ ug»r >o<?r fc*yr>x>^ m _ _ _ 2. 3. 4. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list frOTi Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Govt Center 048-3271). Plat.Hap (obtained with property owners list). Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. S)cetche3 or plans of floor and elevation views. As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. 5. €. 7. 8. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A NORKIHG COPY (ll* X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not ccaplete if the above inforaetlon has not been inclod^.' Certification by Clerical Department that Variance Application is complete. Initialed by Clerical Staff:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ APPLXCaiNT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her )cnowledge. Applicant's Date // ONMERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby aclcowledges and agrees to this application and further auchorxzes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga ­ tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled l••view meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an ^u^Aorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building s Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. I ■' CITY OP ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE fit T PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address CA^CC __ Property Identification Nvunber (P.I.D.) rrrv r,~ ni:m^ WA I I I/I brlll/lll/ rvii'v'-r 'IFFICF a h/fcifv*:. W'V'W , ! i iTa/ X/J, OUTr? vc:,‘i /V) Cw'V.' • VV Please attach legal description to application if not incluci«^;.j...j..A^ . on required survey. rih: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------—-- APPLICANT Phone (home) ______________Phone (work) Address O C GtASCe^ P^- City zip S'S’bM ■ / /> Name (if different than applicant)Phone (home) Name Phone Address _ City Zip Date Prope I (do) oper£y-A (5dnot)) cquired /*^ »MK-PC- / i 11 itP (month/year) also own the adjacent parcels of land PBB8 - CONDITIONAL USB PERMITS - Renewal Fee - 1/2 Current Fee After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee $ 50.00 For each variance request with CUP application $125.00 Residential accessory Use $150.00 Institutional (church/ school/ etc.) $150.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments $150.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $250.00 Oommercial/Industrial Use $200.00 Land Alteration Grading and filling ~ designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Grading# seawall# retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see fee schedule APPLICATIONS _ _ _ $200.00 _ _ $250.00 $175.00 " $ 50.00 ” $250.00 $100.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) Vacation Easement Vacation Easement Vacation with Subdivision Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) Appeals Other - see fee schedule PRESENT OSE OP PROPBRTy Present Zoning District Present Use of Property Residential Other —(specify] DESCRIPTION OP REQUEST ^ r, Vi Describe request in detail:Sl^-P t nOOIKaD SOBMITTJkLS 1. Completed Application Form. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350' (you can obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance A-603 Government Center 348-3271). Plat Map. Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor). Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). Construction plan/ if applicable (see staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR A WORKING COPY (ll* X 17* OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. The applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is nor complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Date_ _ _ _ _ _ _;_ _ _ mm mm mm mm mm m mm mm mm mm ^m mm mm mm mm ^m mm mm mm mm mm mm mm ^ mm mm mm ^ mm APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees tc pay additional fees (staff time not co/ered by original fee payment) and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the besjL>pf his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature Date Cp' ^ ^ OWNERS SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by city staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council memhars for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commissio.. and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and advise the Building 6 Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. / >U5)/ (2D 4 « 123) v*ft. (24) H (34) CaS£ *6624 (36) ^\i"L:i I / ^ .>-/ Y 4t 9 VlOT '5^!sj| («:) r 24 I Is fAsm p^int rd #^■5^ £335'^ 29) a ^',. loa T •«■ .0 <0 ‘10 i <0 ,».leC»)T . . w • . - Vr “ . -I . . - 2 ‘ > / r Z', / '. ,' ^ / • ■'• 2*-:. coc no .''#3'-»:‘ ■ ^ ^0) ( l?@ ’4;is • "• '57 (I) -1^ (2) « ‘0 v» I*(0 (5) (46) /•(44) (45)<7f. •2S(?V » '(7) I ( 13) I? 4a^»;v£/.(25) Lt>1 14 (;>' 1-1 ( ''' / ij- '.» ( -Oi -/ V-^Jo Zv, i'v''''r'r7'=£ ■ 1*^*’. 7 <A/<? i’7 ^5 . V ^ 5>.' i0',73 ' 3 /',^( liry- > '•. ' <^ f MO' .V V, r^ . ( 17T' j: ^ 1 7," LSk-T'(7i <2 y/*: t g fC » t \ A 2 ‘ '-,'> / fe'. '^.t ^ < e ^ o ^ / / 4 jt,m .^, I •^1 « / / -/ 4y ^.f 'p *J-- - '—^ A . •i ^/ • • • \ • M ' •i V •', II: m ^ ♦ i s.- I- iLN OATM 0I/S6/90 iATCH 004 HErt4£PIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY (VtiERS LIST PROP ADDR ONNER NAMi TAXPAYER NANE/AODR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NRNE/AOOR PROP AOOR CM€R NANi TAXPAYER MNE/ADOR PROP AOOR ONNER NANE TAWAYER NAHE/AOOR OIMR NANS TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR OmSR NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SO E0-117-3S 2S 0001 OOOSO ADORESS UNASSIGNED OEVERLY 8NER11N0 BEVERLY SNERL1N6 2552 K LAKE OF ISLES PKHY NPLS NN 55405 SO 20-117-21 2S 0004 02047 CASCO POINT RO A A C KANE A LANRENCE KANE ^447 CASCO POINT RD . YZATA MN 55S91 SO f0-117-2S 2S 0021 ^2405 CASCO POINT RO BENNETT C OONNEY A NIFE BENNETT C OONNEY 2445 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA NN 55S91 SO 20-II7-2S 24 0002 02440 CASCO POINT RO V A 0 ROLLER VEMON J ROLLER 2440 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55S91 SO 20-I17-2S 24 0020 02750 CASCO POINT RO BALE A CHRISTENSEN A NIFE OALE A CHRISTENSEN 2750 CASCO POINT RO HOYZATA MN 55S91 SO 20-117-2S 24 OOSO 02445 CASCO POINT RO N J GREENE A A K CREE»^ NORHA GREENE A ALAN GREENE 2445 CASCO POINT ROAD NAYZATA KN 55S91 38 20-117-23 23 0002 02691 CASCO POINT RD ROBERT K HUNT ETAL ROBERT K HUNT 2691 CASCO PT RO NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 23 0005 02715 CASCO POVr RO TAD ERNIN TERRY A i DOROTHY L ERN1!4 2715 CASCO POINT RO NAYZATA MN 55591 38 20-117-23 23 0022 02659 CASCO POINT RO S S STANOA IIS STANDA S S STANOA IIS STAt^OA 2659 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 24 0003 026B4 CASCO POINT RD THEODORE C OANTIS DAVID RUNKlc 2664 CASCO PT RO SO NAYZATA MN 55391 36 20-117-23 24 0021 02710 CASCO POINT RO C H I B J PALMER CURTIS H I BARBARA J PALttER 2710 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA m 55591 36 20-117-23 24 0031 02635 CASCO POiriT RO MARILYN B THORNE ET AL MARILYN B THORNE 2635 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 REPORT PfU*KI43540112 38 20-117-23 23 0003 02695 CASCO POINT RD D I P LEE 0 E F I P R LEE 2695 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA HN 55391 38 20-117-23 23 0020 02677 CASCO POINT RD TYRONE A BUCEY I MILA BUCEY TYRONE A I MILA BUCEY 2677 CASCO PT RO NAYZATA Yl 55391 38 20-117-23 24 0001 02684 CASCO POINT RO THEODORE C DAiniS OAVIO RUrtCLE 2684 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA rtl 55391 38 20-117-23 24 0004 02666 CASCO POINT RD THEODORE C DANTIS OAVIO RUTKLE 2684 CASCO POINT RO NAYZATA MN 55391 36 20-117-23 24 0029 02649 CASCO POINT RO J I J SCHERVEN JON SCHERVEN 2649 CASCO POINT RO BOX 120 NAVARRE m 55392 3d 20-117-23 24 003? 02623 CASCO POINT .<0 JAN STntSON JAMES L I NAOK!i STINSON 2623 CASCO POINT RO NAYZATA 5S3?1 MM OATS Cl/t4/90 MTCH OM H» ADM CMCR NAME TAXfAYm NAfM-'AOOi ONNM NAW TA)»AVEi NAME/AOOR M tO>117-ZS EA 00S5 02A17 CASCO POINT RO 0 L HAROUAROr/J H HARQUAROT OARV L A JOAN H HAROUARDT 2A17 CASCO POINT RO NAVZATA M 5SS91 a 20-117-2S 24 0044 02441 ETIKL AVE OOROTHV L KEARNS DOROTHY L KEARNS 2491 ETHEL AVE NAVZATA HN SS391 HEWCPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATJON SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST 30 20-117-23 24 0038 02418 CASCO POINT RO JOYCE A THEOT JOYCE A THEOT 2418 CASCO POINT RO HAYZATA MN S5391 REPORT NO. •'I43E401 PAGE 13 38 20-117-23 24 0039 02448 CASCO POINi RO J H A 8 J ESSEN JEFFREY A BAR8ARA ESSEN 2648 CASCO PT RO HAYZATA HT4 55391 TOTAL BATCH 004 00022 h h \ I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS f;fPRESENTEO ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMAliON AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNT. DEPARTMENT OF FROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOITLE06E AND BElTEF. DATE t. irUN DATE 07/12/90 BATCH 005 BMO ADDR ONNEB NAHE TAXPAYER KAHE/ADDR SB 20-117-2S 23 0001 026BS CASCO POINT RD BEVERLY SHERLING BEVERLY SHERLING 2552 N LAKE OF ISLES PKW HPLS HN 55405 HErt4EPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OHTIERS LIST 38 20-117-23 23 0002 02691 CASCO POINT RO ROBERT K HUNT ETAL ROBERT K HUNT 2691 CASCO PT RD HAYZATA 1114 55391 REPORT NO. PI455401 PAGE 14 38 20-117-23 23 0003 02695 CASCO POINT RO 0 1 P LEE D E F S P R LEE 2b95 CASCO POINT RD MAYZATA MN 55391 PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER IIAHE/AOOR SB 20-117-23 23 0004 02697 CASCO POINT RO A A C KANE A LANRErCE KANE 2697 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 23 0005 02715 CASCO POINT RD TAD ERNIN TERRY A A DOROTHY L ERHIN 2715 CASCO POira RD KAYZATA 114 55391 38 20-117-23 23 0020 02677 CASCO POINT RD TYRONE A BUCEY A MILA BUCEY TYRONE A A MILA BULEY 2677 CASCO PT RO NAYZATA fIN 55391 I PROP AODR CM€R NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP AODR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR i PPOP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR SB 20-117-23 23 0021 02665 CASCO POINT RO BENNETT C OOIR4EY I NIFE BENNETT C DONNEY 2665 CASCO POINT RO NAYZATA HN 55391 SB 20-117-25 24 0002 02660 CASCO POINT RD V I G DULLER VERNON J DULLER 2660 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 SB 20-117-2S 26 ^;21 02710 CASCO POINT RD C H A B J PALMER CURTIS N A BARBARA J PALMER 2710 CASCO POINT RO HAYZATA MN 55391 SB 20-117-2S 24 0030 02645 CASCO POINT RO N J GREENE A A K GREENE NORMA GREENE A ALAN GREENE 2645 CASCO POINT ROAD NAYZATA m 55391 38 20-117-23 23 0022 02659 CASCO POINT RO S S STANDA A I S STAr40A S S STANDA A I S STANDA 2659 CASCO POINT RO NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 24 0003 02684 CASCO POINT RD THEODORE C OANTIS DAVID RUtiCLE ^684 CASCO PT RO SO HAYZATA rt4 55391 38 20-117-23 24 0022 02700 CASCO POINT RD D P BUESIN6 I L R RUfJTJlNG DANIEL BUESING/LINOA RUNT4ING 2700 CASCO POINT RO I4AYZATA IVI 55391 3B 20-117-23 24 0031 02635 CASCO POINT RD MARILYN B TH0Rr4E ET AL MARILYN B THORNE 2635 CASCO POINT RD HAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 24 0001 02664 CASCO POINT RD THEODORE C OANTIS DAVID RUI4KLE 2684 CASCO POINT RO HAYZATA MN 55391 20-117-23 24 0004 ^ CASCO POINT RO .JORE C OANTIS DAVID RUNKLE 2684 CASCO POINT RO NAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-l’7-23 24 0029 02649 CASCO POINT RD J A .1 SCHERVEN JON SCHERVEN 2649 CASCO POINT RD BOX 120 NAVARRE ^t4 55392 38 20-117-23 24 0032 02623 CASCO POINT RD JAN STINSON JAMES L A NAOMI L STINSON 2623 CASCO POINT RO HAYZATA MN 55391 I-'KIM DATI 07/12/90 MTCN OOf HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTFH PROPERTY OWIERS LIST REPORT NO. PI4S5401 PAGE 15 PROP Al OM«R NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SO CO-117-21 20 0015 02017 CASCO POINT RO O L NARRUAROT/J N HAR4UAR0T CARY L A JOAN N HARQUAROT 2017 CASCO POINT RO NAYZATA MN 55191 SO 20-117-23 20 0039 02000 CASCO POINT RO J H A 0 J ESSEN JEFFREY A BARBARA ESSEN 2090 CASCO PT RO NAYZATA MN 55391 36 20-117-23 29 OC90 02091 ETHEL AVE OOROTHY L KEARNS DOROTHY L KEARNS 2091 ETHEI AVE NAYZATA MN 55391 PROP AOOR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR TOTAL BATCH 005 00021 / 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFOPilATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF HY KNCNLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE lirv I'-.L . \i ftCCUt^NR MKHTINC OF THE ORONO COUNCff.. OCTOBER 13, l?E2 VPJ90i ^RRtMtCS I ^2C«S Casco Point Roatl 797arias ooonay ■A 4* m MMIIO •t*i t 12-2 mtOLOTION 11424 ■odland Associates •2«1 Toning AJumistrator Mabusth reviewed City Council the reque* -. of Charles Downey# 2445 Casco Point Road, for « variance to construct a Mr. Downey w.is present to discuss his variance J application. Discussion Included hardcover * ! and turnaround in addition to the placesent^f• the -larage.t ^ Actin'} Mayor Butler ooved, Hurr seconded, to approve Charles Oowneyt;s,'2445 Casco Point Road# hardj^ver invl street# front# end Side aetbech variances to permit the conatructlon of e now d.'tachel laraqe as follows: 1. Hardcover variance for additional hardcovor of 1% or sq. ft. ‘jgm 4. •A aide setback of 1.8*. 3. Front/Street sotback to bo dotorminod by staff. Buildini] tnspoctor has confirmed a setback of 3* from oak trot. Motion. Ayes (3) - Mays (•). Ci ty Bnq laeer Cook rovlowod with tho City Council tho bid tabulations for tho 82-1 and 82-2 Improvnment projocts statlnq that Modiand Associates wen* tha low blddor for tho sower and water project and that ValUy Pavlnq Is tho low bidder for the stroot projoet. fnqlnoor Cook alno explained the necessity of an addondua II for tho sewer and water project. !turr moved, Frahm seconded# to adopt Resolution 11424, A Resolution Accoptlnq Bid And Ordorlnq improvement, Mavarre Sowar a »*ator Improvomeiua Project 82-1, to Modiand Asaoclatos# to Include Aidendum tl, with thooptlonof tho Administrator to not award the contract if ho doemt it not advisable. Motion# Ayes (3) - Mays (8). — • •Si o w I . . . . . ._ _ _ _:. *w. rr. t: • F t. ?■■■•■ i- i'y- r ■■ • t ‘ 5*>•* ___ 0 •M ;ir-r:-5 ’ .. % J l?6Xt> ^n>E E levation J.^CkLL '/4'- r-o’ ’ *! I ' , * I .•L . ts lii V.' •* - - -“ * •*.» S'- ^ - — -I*-' .-t^-.*V-'T"^** "T'*» ta <h<»L^e^« ’^,mm Wfci ■ - •^* •- »*■ m<jS « w .*. «ii. «,». V: - - I « 4 .* V .. ■%;♦.' •■. "i -«w« rfr, « .««.«iii>w—»■ r T. •. :* ••..... 1 . If #-r L- C*. Dou^f^^Y' HARDCOVER CALCULATIQM WORKSHEET ScToACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 73-2EC' 050-500' 500-10 Existing Hardcover in Zone 6"' - ? ' Y<P r* , L#sJ rs •House -2 2.2 X /2,3 273. / LENGTH a. -f "7 X }§ •• X • Total Hardcover in Zone Total P roperty Area in Zone S . r . • X 3.Garage X • C.Driveway X X 0.. • • SiDEWAL.X • Zy X 2.0 y^. 0 Z7 \ y S.S 9‘f.S . X E.jAT+07‘/«-Vfc' /7. /y X S, 3 5'. 3 -6 f£9.3 F. U]4 AP E 2 X /. Tx /.i*V^S- ARS^ T^4A6tiof> Vx 2 2. 2. 7 »6vsVic •sheeting X . X . CS4^f. Cctir^A / ^X /. 5*Z 2. S G. Other _ X .•=( _ S . F 1 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 7/y.7 S.F. •■fSao s.p.B 7Z/.7 -i-rri X100 /s. 77 % / 'h a C. HARDCOVER CALCULATiGH WORKSiiEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIF.CLE C.‘:=) CO^^ > Existing Harzccve?. in Zone .......'^"^/Tr I I ^ -j A t\ I ■loUSE ^2.2.X /2.3 LENGTH VilDTH X X 3. Garage X c. D riveway X 0.Sidewalk ^ ^ Z7 X y 2^0 S. 5* X E. PAT+OT^/tVIir /7. f I)6CK X y - X S. 3 3 z ■ I ^Vn^r^pp fiitjafS 2 _ X /» 7'X AR^(5 T^4ACHof> atAsVic-sheeting X X CuTTfA / 9 G. Other _ _ _ _ X xr /. 5* Total Hardcover in Zcne Total Property Area in Zone ■7/f.y -^m 2 7J. / V?. 0 9Y. 5 2. 2. 2^. 5 ^-?'fo r* /6^- Sir. S.F. V/ S.r S.F. 5 . r S • F # S • F. S.F. c ^ w • I . S.F. S.F. € t 9« 2 S.F. s. S.F. P>-.f / S.F. 3. r . S.F. 7/^.7 S.F. V5t7<^ s.P B X 100 » ^ - I C. C/OCu.uf f HARDCOVER CALCDLATIO‘1 H0RKSH ^~ * V n Z'^ Cr.'*' ''•r'*/ScT3AC:< ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-/O {JQ-iO}^ ,Lw-_.w- Existing Hardcover in Zone y^.3 X = /VS‘V,P‘ S.r. 1> A. H ouse LENGTH 6? jjko luiL-i J'^ct WIDTH X ^T-ru-gr-*^^=^ - 3. Garage 2<r. 2 ^/MCe rtf^ c. D riveway X X X X X 2y. 2. D.. Sidewalk /? X /i?/ X X JL5 ?. S' 2. Xficck UfJu *•» / 7 E. Patio / V )eck /7^r/o _________• X F. Landscape __ areas UNDERLAIN 3Y t _____ PLASTIC SHEETING / <?>P X A / _______ X _______ X V ____ X o, s (r G. Other 7. 9 V /• 7 y V X /■ -^- MiO m3 6>77r-< Total Hardcover in Zone Total Property Area in Zone •3cJ +s?. V/ S. r I 0 s.p. - - MSO^ • f • c c Ml* I »• i0 I r I ?r^. S' T7^0 /3 o V<? J/5 S.F. S.F. J25- _9i^LZ_ s.f\ Z C S / 20 0 93 3^ s.r/ S.r. S.F. S.F. V ??<?./ S.F. fJ 25 S.F. Oy t 1 D I 2 ^ X 100 “ ‘*’/o '^7-77. Bonestroo Rosene Anderllk & Associates Engineers & Architects January 9, 1991 CtTC G ^Oiecn C Arc:?'' • -c ^ j 'E ^<^^.'0 t V'^ef G ? Crc» “E E ^E SoC'f'T G "E >jWO M C “ A •^err' ^ Oo'Oon ? 'X- «=C5rer Gcrj j C 3uf9^ PE ^ 3cuT3Crr «>E V^nt A Hjrson PE >d < P*ew «»E r ff^utn'jrr PC Pcv-"T p O lOS aOCJ P£ Tnomai \V #Vte»v:r p§ C L.nc*' PE .^fT>es P Milano PE p 4noerv>r Pf Vc>'« » Pcr*i. ‘’S 7cw*^ C PuSiC« A A '---"Jl c r ;■ *^0^.vjn0 A ^nforO P£ j Ecce^on p £ A Se-o PE ''”'"0 - CjiiAeii PE vun.ne/ PE O P£ ^AOr^JS P Ar\3<»)Ton A < A G^rv P 9,ijf\y»’ PC Vi'es 3 .frse^ pe ^ p^ >( £) ;. P£ C P’urn^ A t A Ag-'^S M A C P ^ffTv 0 Pp'trscn ®E Cfc-c Cvie* PE Poorr P D-fOANv PE Gary X Mor>en P£ Cranes a Encuson Leo M Pj^Awcv Hanan M O'sc^ / ; r I r. City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Attn: File No. 139-1570 Chuck Downey Dear Jeanne, JAN 11 1391 We have reviewed the Chuck Downey application for installation of retaining walls. The plan provides for approximately 75 feet of retaining wall on the property. Approximately 65 feet of the wall will be located in the 0-75’ setback area. The section of wall (25’±) next to the boathouse is necessary to prevent failure of the bank and protect the boathouse. The remaining sections are to reduce maintenance problems in the yard. The typical section for the wall should be strengthened by including a lower row of dcadmen as shown^ offset from the top row at <S’ on center. Tlie property owner should be required to provide erosion control fence between the work areas and the lake. The upper wall could channelize the water and erosion problems would result. The owners will be required to repair these areas and continue to protect the lake as neces.sary after the work is completed. Please contact this office if you have any questions. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Glenn R. Cook GRC:li Enel. 139.cor 2335 Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55tl3 • 612-636-4600 [ f/ Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Associates Engineers A Architects Cr:o G Sonen JU’ Sosene joieon C Anoenie. PE '/arv n u PE 6 PE C PE G^'' P Coc* P£ P£ Pocen G p £ Suur* V ££<** ^ C P ^ A GO^OOT p£ Jl/ *^«e^ PE Don^ f. 3owcs. P£ A BourtJon p £ Mart A Hanson P£ '•O K PC v<rae< ' Pautr^a'^'' pf Aoe»? P PWn^ p£ D^/'O O uovttxa P£ 'N.'nas *^fnon PC Vc'ae' C .Fnc- PE *a/-« P \<a‘-ana pe Ke''''rT' P A.'^^rerscn »E Var« P Poh. PE Tccen C P^^iseiL a * ’'nomas E Anguv PE ►*Tvvar3 A Sanfora PE .?a-*^ j E^jgenor. p £ Mari A ie<J PE Pn*o j Cas^«^ PE ismaet Mamner. PE VMft J Aa itv PE *ncmas P A^omor A ( A Gj% p P-.-'anoe' p£ M es 3 -ensen PE . ^• -o Crave- :r p E Per e C »jmaa a i a Agrv« M Ptog A : C P O PpT7«h PE Cc^.•iO C v-H pc Cn^'<3 A c Afcion jfo V Pjy^^srv Hanat M Ovon ; I /<- August 15, 1990 City of Orono Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Attn: Jeanne Mabusth Re: Chuck Dovney Property Our Pile No. 139-1570 Dear Jeanne: Ve have reviewed the retaining wall construction proposed on the Chuck Downey property on Casco Point Road. The retaining wall pl?n appears to be in excess of what is necessary for bank stabilization. would be difficult to erosion evident on the The baiUc from the house to the lake is very steep and maintain. there is not a significant amount of property even though we have had a very wet summer. There does appear to be a need for a retaining wall on the east side of the boathouse. This wall '-Juld be extended along the walkway area about 25 feet to allow proper grading. We would not recommend that the other walla be constructed as there does not appear to be a need for bank stabilization. Please contact this office if you have any questions. Yours very truly, BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Glenn R. Cook GRC:dh grc/89 2335 >We$t HfglMW^ 36 • St. Paul. Minnesota 55113 • 612-636*4600 ri;-- ■ i .: ■ i- sf- #jA ISTO J NCi Wy«LC ScrTI* ^ Ci^^< Oou^tJ£f o(^ -266S Caccc> KyflY c 4TP ^ M a/. CTJOm X. Me-.,U+k 4-4" •Cor' -^acL a-o" oc- i")cC Soate^ poc^eiS OO.pC»ret Sa^JI ft/I p*v-' • -i rv S; 1'.' I " ■'r i* rK-i DATE: 08/19/90 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION, THAT THERE MAY BE CONCERN REGARDING THE SETBACK OF CHUCK DOWNEY'S DECK. I WOULD LIKE TO INPOPM YOU THAT WE HAVE NO CONCERN ABOUT THE PRESENT STRUCTURE. IN ADDITION, THE DECK IS NOT RESTRICTING TO OUR VIEW AND WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE LOCATION OF THE DECK. IF YOU WEED FURTHER INFORMATION OR HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CALL. SINCERELY , 6- I Iit. MIMWTBS OF THB PLAmilliG COTOUSSIOH MEETING FEBRUARY 20» 1990 #1492 MARX GROSS CONT. suggested that as long as an updated survey is difficulty accepting the hardship. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. PX.»n\V" updated survey is submitted. Motion# Ay#’.s-5, Nays-O# Motion passed. •1493 CHOCK DOMHKY 2CC5 CASCO POIMT ROAD HARIAHCB flIHUC BBARIH6 8s07 P.N.TO 8:15 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mr. Downey was present for this public hearing.smssMw-imfMthat staff observed a second story deck which was not shown on the 1982 survey and no record of a permit for that structure exists. Nr. Downey said that the deck was added at the same time the 0«taoe was constructed. It was his understanding that the deck was covered under the permit for the garage. Nabusth said that the 1982 resolution approved 45% hardcover for the garage addition. Kelley said that Mr. Downey is in violation of that resolution. Mr. Do%mey said that he did not understand staff's hardcover calculations of the house. |[03,2.ey said that a review of the existing hardcover should be done before this proceeds any further. Nabusth asked the Planning Commission to provide direction for Nr. Downey. 8 k- r r, 1' 1 5-, [■ nuiotbs of the pLAmiiiKS o IISSION MEETING PEBEOARY 20, 1990 #1493 CHUCK IHBY COHT. Rell«y indicated that he would prefer to have hardcover remain at the level approved in 1962. Mr* Downey asked if he accepted staff’s calculations what he would have to do to be within the Planning Commission's recommendation. hallows replied that it would be Mr. Downey's discretion as to what he proposed to remove. She suggested tabling th^s application to provide time for Downey to re-evaluate this existing hardcover on the property and determine what could be r«Boved • Mabusth said that the applicant is in a hurry. She suggested that the Planning Commission recommend denial of this apoli— * -• - -application* The applicant could bring the hardcover information to Council for their review. It was the general consensus of the Planning Commission that the matter come back to the Planning Commission for review. There were no comments from the public regarding this matter and the public hearing was closed. Relley asked how the City would monitor this to make sure that the hardcover percentage does not increase. Mabusth replied that the City does not have enough staff to oionitor these situations* 2t was moved by Planning Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Bellows, to table this application pending the receipt of all needed to determine existing and proposed hardcover* Bellows put Nr* Downey on notice that the Planning Commission to see hardcover remain at 45%. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Notion passed* #1494 IBiaCIS LIGHTLY 39BS fBmZCK 8TBBBT ILXC HBUBING 8sl7 P*N* TO 8<2« P*M* The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were dJly noted* Nr* and Mrs* Lightly were present for this matter 4 MINUTES or MARCH 19, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING GABRIEL JABBOUR CONTINUED Chairman Kelley allowed Mr. Jabbour the opportunity to speak, but asked him to hold his corjnents within a 5-minute time period. Mr. Jabbour said, "As you probably know, I appeared two weeks ago before the City Council e.xpressing concern and critcism about the Planning Commission. I am concerned about the way in which Orono has been treating the lakeshore and Lake Minnetonka, jjj 2^975 Orono adopted our present Ordinance and it was an exceptionally good first attempt to address all of the unique concerns Orono has to address. Orono always set the pace for other municipalities to follow. Lately, I find there is a sense of confusion regarding what our Ordinance intended to do and the way in which it is being interpreted. I am concerned about the way in which non-conforming structures within 0-75’ of t.he lake are being addressed. We dealt with those in the past with a non-conforming use ordinance. 1 have been advised by City Staff that you can no longer deal with non-conforming structures in that way because they are not a use, they are a structure. In 1975 our Code said specifically that any structure which did not have an appraised market value $3,500 would be torn down. The City d^d not take it upon themselves to go door—to—door to assure that those structures were torn down, but felt that as time went by they would address this issue. I had one of those structures on my property and I hook out a permit from City Hall and tore it down. Lately we have a lot of residents coming to the City to ask, for additions to their primary structures within 75' of the lake. The City has allowed the trading of hardcover to allow these additions to be constructed. The hardcover addition may be a wash out compared to the removals, but the intent of the Ordinance was that the non-conforming structures would be eliminated. I feel it is the duty of the Planning Commission to amend the ordinance if a loop-hole is found to exist. I wish that the Planning Commission would c.hange its position from being f^^ehive to proactive. Orono was always ten steps ahead. I feel the Planning Commission is sending a message to residents: If you want to build within 0-75' of the lake, go now and put in a rock garden with plastic underlining. Then come back to t.he City and trade your plastic underlining in for a new living room. I would like to see that message changed." •1493 CHOCK DONNBX aC65 CASCO POINT ROAD VARXAMCB COHTXHOATXOH OP POBLIC HEARING 7:40 P.M. TO 7:45 P.M. Mr. Downey was present for the continuation of this public hearing. Zoning Administrator Mabusth reviewed the information regarding this application. Mabusth presented new information - 6 - r ~r I p- s >'4- (-: IV: ,y HIMOTES or MARCH 19, 1990 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGZONING PILE #1493-DOWNEY CONTINDED regarding the amount of hardcover Mr. Downey wiU ^ property to maintain 45% hardcover in the /5-250 setback area. Mr. Downey indicated that he had measured his garden before coming to this meeting and found it to be 157 feet. K"V"i v-'rrL ■;? Staff's memo. Brown noted that Mr. Downey would also remove hardcover from the driveway. Mabuath stated that is what Mr. Downey is proposing. There were no comments from the public regarding tnis matter and the public hearing was closed. shoul?^ cons ider ^ the information presented this evening as an amendment to what we received earlier." agreed with that estimate. Mr. Downey indicated that he did not have time to do any more measuring and that he would accept staff’s estimate. It was moved by Planning Commissioner Hanson, to recommend aoproval of the revised proposal for the Downey residence at 2665 cSSco Point Road, subject to final staff tlc^^ir^ that 45% hardcover exists within the 75-250 Motion, Ayes-3, Johnson, Nay. Motion passed. Johnson felt that tih* use ^ of the property was being intensified and that h.rdcov.r i, bein, traded for atructaral hardcover. 91494 FRANCIS LIGBTLY 3589 FRBDIRXCX STREET VARXAHCRS REFRRRBO RACE TO PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. and Mrs. Lightly were present for this matter Mabusth presented the revised plan submitted by LightlJ'J! Ma'Su.th asked Mr. Lightly to explain why he was no longer^ planning to remove hardcover from the west side of th driveway. Mr. Lightly said, -Originally we were removing 200-250 s.f - 7 - H f r' t- ;v [s'" ::r a fy P .^■;r;-- t’:- fy y‘-^F i- ; r*Yi'i I II- ■ft;fI Wil fe.:^ ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 20, 1990 subdivision would be subject to the new park dedication fees. y.otion. Ayes--, Heys-0. Motion carried. #1571 JOAMM 6RIMBS/JAMES HOFFMAN 4720 MOtTB ARM DRIVE WEST _ inCKtlOK OF DjRAIHAGE AND OTILITY EASEMENTS PUBLIC HEARING 7:35 P.M. TO 7:37 P.M. j^fidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Ms. Grimes was present Gaffron stated that the vacation of drainage and utility easements is necessary due to the recently approved lot line rearrangement. Hanson asked, "is the City unaware of any existing utilities within the existing easement?" Gaffron replied, "That is correct." It was moved by Hanson, seconded by Moos, to recommend aooroval of application #1571, vacation of drainage and utility easements at 4720/4733 North Arm Drive West, Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion carried. 1^-70 BJmTuUUl DOmEY 2665 CASCO POINT ROAD VAR1AHCE8 rbfbrral from council •1570 CHUCK DONNEY COMDXTZONAL USE PERNIT/VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 7:38 P.M. TO 7:57 P.M. Mr. Do%mey was present. Mabusth provided a review of this application, and the action previously taken by the Planning Commission and Council (see Jeanne Mabusth‘s memo dated August 15, 1590). She said, "The applicant is asking for your special consideration to allow him to have 48% hardcover, rather than 45% as previously approved." She asked Mr- Downey to provide staff with a sketch gl)Oif|,ng the area of hardcover that he intends to remove. Bellows noted that the after-the-fact deck must also be !ssed. Mabusth said, "Staff was everage lakeshore setback line, permit for the deck in 1982. Mr asked to determine where the We have no record of a building Downey assumed that his - 3 - H r I ■r H' ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 20, 1990 ZONING FILE #1493/#1570-DOWNEY CONTINUED contractor had included the deck in the permit for the garage, was constructed at the same time. The deck is in fact in front of the average lakeshore setback line." Bellows added, "Portions of the principal structure are located in front of the average lakeshore setback line." Mr. Downey stated that he has letters from the neighbors on both sides of his property indicating that they have no objections. Hanson said, "It appears to me that the deck does not obscure the neighbors* views. The standard issues that we address when looking at the average lakeshore setback, in this case are almost irrelevant." Bellows concurred with Hanson but stated that there are many other aspects of this property that must also be addressed. She asked Mabusth to proceed with the review of application #1570. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were duly noted. Mabusth reviewed the history of this property relating to the cause of Mr. Downey's drainage problems (see Jeanne Mabusth*s memo dated August 15, 1990). She said, "I have no indication of what resulted from the litigation that occurred. The City Engineer and I looked at the property and did not see signs of ••vare erosion, which one would expect due to the steep slopes." Mabusth displayed the sketch showing the three-tier plan Mr. Downey is proposing. She said, "I believe that very little fill would be brought in based on the proposed elevations." Mr. Downey said, "My landscape architect has indicated to me that 40 yards of fill will be needed." Johnson asked Mabusth to show where the cuts are to be made. Mabusth indicated where cuts will be made and said, "There are already severe, exposed cuts behind the boat house that will require a retaining wall." Downey referred to the conditions and provisions set forth in Resolution #1079 (Holzer application-property to immediate south). He said, "That appears to be the final plan and it shows where drainage is supposed to go. If you look at the recent survey, you can see that is not occurring." Bellows said, "In my opinion, the condition created by the project next door should be corrected. There is no other place - 4 - fe„. F rf- I- r -f. I k. i. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BELD AUGUST 20, 1990 ZONING FILE #1473/#1570-DOWNEY CONTINUED runoff to 50 Other thdn Mr* Downey s proper^/. Mabusth replied, "v;ater has always drained down to Mr. Downey's property." Mr. Downey disagreed. He said. “The neighbor brought in a tremendous amount of fill. There was drainage onto my property, but it was not as severe as it is now since the retaining v/alls were removed. I know Maureen was out to look at the property. Does the Planning Commission believe there is drainage coming from the neighbor's property?" Rowlette replied, "There is no doubt about it. You can see evidence of where the water is draining and there are exposed tree roots The other Planning Commission members concurred 30IXOWS said, "I am concerned about Mr. Downey's proposal to resolve the problem. I do not see that v/hat is proposed will fix the area that has had the most severe erosion. The area oy tne accomplish what you are trying to achieve. Bellows referred to the letter from the City Engineer. She said, "It is Glenn Cook’s opinion that the retaining wall planned is in excess of what is necessary for bank stabilization. He is calling for a retaining wall along the east side 01 the boat house. However, he is not in favor of the other wa-ls as shown. Mr. Downey replied, "I am trying to save as much money as possible and am, therefore, receptive to the City Engineer s iBOve the boat house out of its present locatj.on. B0XIOW8 asked Mr. Downey how the boat house is currently being used. Mr. Dowiey replied. "It is being used as a recreational area for my children and for a place to store v/ater skis, etc." Hanson said, "I am in agreement that some form of retaining walls are necessary to deal with erosion, particularly at the east wall of the boat house. I concur with Maureen that the area source. We could table this application for another month. - 5 - r t f '■il : M. v: ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 20, 1990 ZONING PILE #1473/I1570-DOUNEY CONTINUED Mr. Downey said, "I was hoping to have been able to start the house remodeling by now. I would like to solve the drainage problem, but that could wait until spring. Council asked to see the conditional use permit before they would approve the front entry proposal." Rowlette asked whether the applications could be separated. Mabusth suggested that the Planning Commission make a strong recommendation to Council that they act separately on the variance phase of tht. application. She said, "The Planning Commission could provide the reasons for delaying a recommendation on the conditional use permit. There is really no connection between the two applications. I v/ould suggest to Hr. Downey that he have his landscape architect meet with City staff to receive some direction. Perhaps the Planning Commission can also provide some direction as to what they would like to see." There were no comments from the public pertaining to this application and the Public Hearing was continued. It was moved by Hanson, seconded by Bellows, to recommend approval of the applicant's proposal for 48% hardcover. Hanson stated that 48% is reasonable based on tr.e fact that the landscaping was not included in the 1902 survey by Mr. Do\/ney’s contractors. Motion. Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion carried. It was moved by Hanson, seconded by Moos, to recommend approval of the after-the-fact average lakeshore setback variance for a second story deck, conditioned on the applicant paying a double fee for the permit. Hanson based his recommendation on the fact that the second story deck does not interfere with the sight-line views of the lake for the properties on either side. Johnson believed that in light of the time that has elapsed it is appropriate to waive the double fee. Rowlette concurred. Motion. Ayes-3, Rowlette, Johnson, Nay. Motion carried. It was moved by Bellows, seconded by Hanson, to table application 11570, to allow time for Mr. Downey to work with City staff and his contractor to design a minimal retaining wall system that will address the primary areas of concern. Those areas include the boat house, and the stone walk near the deck. Bellows noted that Mr. Downey will require approval to have the lakeshore stairs repaired and that should be included in his application. Johnson stated that he could not see how the three- tier plan would work and suggested that tir. Downey may wish to re­ evaluate that aspect of the plan as well. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion carried. - 6 - . . . i: Si- ;• fis MIHOTES of ORONO council meeting held APRIL 9, 1990 1X493 CHOCK DOWNEY 2665 CASCO POINT ROAD VARIANCE *““‘'“*‘®Downey was present for the review application "fo of his variance Bernhardson provided a brief history of this property, as well « 2H?or^2ion regarding what is currently proposed. Mr. Downey cojnmented ^^5ation°'^^it was *ifot something” that Planning ^v, been told I'm some kind of a bad he wished to do. He said, I ” ^/ teriously increased to guy because hardcover on my p P ^ the same 52%. The sidewalk leading to Buifding Inspector wastime the garage was constructed, ^he City Bui g p there and saw what ^ 5- ^^bmii a new survey that showed what my one. I was instructed bywith this application, I fe old one. i the City that in order to^uild my 9^rage^^l h^^^^ driveway so I would which had been blacktop at one part gravel, on the south side, ^ake awav what they asked me time. The City is now asking me I to install. To my knowledge that would have increased 2i-dc^:v.v*fi Ji-t t;.“b;h“\roV';?vi”n°g rd'ri«wirversSr^r:ntry addition.» fUbueth stated that staff ”Vta?°f“''h7s "Sot he provide an updated ^ noted that there is a second dec'k" a "^^rmit and does not appeL on the su-vey submitted with the application. Mr Downey stated that if there was a 4% or 5% difference in the amoint of Listing hardcover, it should not matter. Mabusth indicated that 4% or 5% would make a significant difference. councilm^er teviVw"*of "a^ application. oOVtten o*:-.* constructed the second story deck with no permit. ^ ^ ^ ^ e.u**. Mr Downev had indicated that the second Mabusth stated that Mr. Downey naa x garage. story deck was included in th PP . . reviewed thatMabusth informed the Council that she had revxe « application and it applied only to the garage. Mr. Downey added that it was his understanding that his - 4 - MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 9, 1990 ZONING PILE #1493-D> contractor had ott* the garage and the Y continued -1 of the necessary permits to construct Mabusth asked City Engineer Cook if the gravel area on the property would provide a sufficient turn around. Cook indicated that the turn around would almost have to be on Casco Point Road to be effective. Mabusth noted that the addition of the entry would only increase hardcover 30 s.f. because it is placed over existing sidewalk and a step area. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten to approve the hardcover variance in accordance with Planning Commission recommendation to maintain hardcover at 45%. Also, the boathouse is a non-conforming building and is subject to all pertinent ordinances. There was no second. Councilmember Nettles asked staff if they were satisfied with the present status of the second story deck, or would they prefer to explore that further. Mabusth replied that staff would proceed in accordance with Council direction. She commented that it is always difficult for staff to accurately evaluate an application without an updated survey. Mabusth suggested amending the Resolution to advise the applicant that an updated survey will be required for any future improvements to this property. Mr. Downey stated that he would be coming back to the City in one month to apply for a permit for retaining walls. Mr. Downey said that due to the improvements to the neighboring property, he now has serious erosion problems. Mabusth asked Mr. Downey if he would be willing to combine the retaining wall application with this variance application. Mr. Downey stated that originally he had intended to do that. In order that he might proceed as quickly as possible with the entryway project, staff advised him to submit separate applications. Mabusth suggested that this application be tabled and allow the applicant to submit a fully amended applic.**tion including a conditional use permit for land alterations. She asked Mr. Doimey to submit a fully updated survey with that application. Callahan noted that in light of adding the conditional uite permit, the application would have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. - 5 - % h }%■■■ MINUTES OF ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD APRIL 9, 1990 ZONING PILE #1493-DOWNEY CONTINUED seconded byIt was moved by Councilmember Nettles, seconaea oy Councilmember Peterson, to refer this matter back SSSfiiion pending the receipt of a with an updated survey. Hanson noted that the Planning rommission wuld approve of the recommendation. Bernhardson S?S^id that ?taff would review the second story deck issue and JSit the fee for the revised application would be calculated as thSSgh Mt. Downey had originally submitted a comprehensive application. Motion, Ayes-5, Nays-0, Motion passed. #1494 FRANCIS S. LIGHTLY 3585 FREDERICK STREET ((r. and Mrs. Lightly were present for this matter Bernhardson briefly explained the applicants* and revised proposal to construct an addition, a poox and patio. Mr. Lightly explained the two lines that have been drawn to depict the average lakeshore setback. Mayor Grabek asked if the neighbors 3565 Frederick Street) were still objecting to the Lightly proposal. Mr Liahtlv replied, "We discussed our original plan with them ^nd ild reached an agreement with them. If we placed landscaping along the lot line, we could overcome to seeing the structure itself. we have since revise p so that the structure is setback an additional 13 feet. Mayor Grabek asked if the neighbors were aware of the revised plan. Mr. Lightly stated that the neighbors have not seen the revised plan. Mbusth noted that only the pool and patio would encroach into the average lakeshore setback area. views of adjacent neighbors. She said that a pool would obst:rucfc ^ny views of the leke. It was moved by Councilmember Goetten, seconded by Councilmember Nettles, to give conceptual approval to allow 42.5% hardcover to exist in the 75-250' setback area and to PP . . average lakeshore setback variance, per staff recommendation. Motion Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. - 6 - 0 ;( OROHO COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 #1493 CBOCX OOMNET 2665 CASCO POINT ROAD VAtXABCB Mr. Downey was present Bernhardson provided a brief summary of Jeanne Mabusth s memo dated September 6, 1990. Bernhardson noted that the Plannino Commission has recommended approval of this application a ^3 to 2 vote. He said. "The two descending votes were based on opinion that the applicant should not pay a double fee for the after-the-fact portion of. the application." Mabusth added that the Planning Commission also reviewed Mr. Oowney*s Conditional Use Permit application. She said, "They recommended that the Variance application be separated from the project to his house. It will be necessary for Mr. Downey to comm back with a revised plan for the land alteratio.ia in the lakeshore yard. That application was tabled. The Planning Commission did act on the application for the hardcover Variances." Mr. Do%#ney noted that the resolution states that t.he front entry will be 11’ x 6' which is incorrect, it will be a 19 x 6 addition. Mabusth agreed that the resolution was incorrect and should read 19' x 6 '. Goetten stated that she would prefer to see hardcover, other -ViKwiy Toiii bring hardcover to 45% as originally approved. Callahan asked how much hardcover will be added by the ..and alteration project. Mabusth replied, "It is difficult to determine at this point. The specific areas where erosion exists are located in Se 75-250' setback area, and if retaining walls are to ^be installed, additional hardcover must be approved in that aiea. Goetten said, "I believe this is why we asked to look at property from a comprehensive view point." Callahan concurred with Goetten that the applications should not be separated. Hr. Downey said, "We are talking about hardcover in two n^p^rate areas. I don’t believe that the Planning Commission is going to approve anything that is excessive. The Planning - 13 - 0 I MiBanMai ji:' I t i'- |?J: oORONO COONCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 10, 1990 ZONING PILE #1493-DOWNEY CONTINUED Commission understood that I have been trying *P;» 48n-'‘.. v“/riv:trv then just landscaping plastic. The retaining done until spring. The erosion Problem stems on the neighboring property which the City of to do this addition the City in any way away, which is more wall wor)c cannot be from a project done Orono approved." Petersonr Nay. Motion failed. #1550 GERALD NELSON 1629 BOHNS POINT ROAD VARIANCE RESOLOTXON^#286#d crabek, seconded by Callahan, to adopt Resolution #2866, granting a Hardcover Variance to construct a closet addition at 1629 Bohns Point Road. Motion. Ayes-5. Nays-0. Motion passed. #1561 CHRISTINE BECK 3820 CHERRY AVENUE VARIANCE RESOLUTION #2867 Mrs. Beck and her son were present .ppx noted that the Planning Commission had recommended approval. It was moved by Mayor Grabek, seconded by Callahan, to adopt ».«olution *2867, granting a hardcover Variance to construct a deck at 3820 Cherry Avenue. Notion* Ayes-5, Nays-O. Motion passed. #1572 GUENTHER AND GERTRUD NOELTING 1060 TONKANA ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARXANCE *****iS^^nd^Mrs . Noelting were present with their Architect, tiz Nell Neber. - 14 - Vos Dotos Snbjocts Planning Conmission Chairman Kelley Orono Planning Cononisaion Members City Administrator Bernhardson Jeanne A. Mabusth» Building & Zoning Admin February 13, 1991 #1609 Alice L. Brock, 2780 Shadywood Road - After-the-fact ( Proposed Variances - Public Hearing Pertlaent Ordinances - Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 (A) - 75-250' setback area. A) After-the-fact portion of application involves the net increase of 104 s.f. for a lakeside deck reconstructed without the benefit of a building permit (former deck 10'x28' or 280 s.f., current deck 12'x32* or 384 s.f.) B) Proposed variance portion of application involves a 4*x48* second story deck/catwalk providing connecting link to lakeside deck. List of Bxhibits - Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit A - Application B - Property Owners List C - Plat Map Dl-2 - Applicant's Written Ccsnments El-2 - Neighbors* Acknowledgement 6 Comments P - Deck Plans 61-2 - Assessor's Records, 1971 B - Photo of Former Deck Z - Applicant's Site Plan J - Staff's Amended Site Plan ■swisii of Bsxdooeor Pacts - 1.0-75* setback area - 9,675 s.f. Existing ■ approximately 150-200 s.f. of landscape area underlain with deteriorating patches of plastic It appears to be in such a deteriorated state that it would be permeable to runoff. PI flib. Commission members are of staff's inspection. asked to confirm the 2.75-250* setback area - 17,544 s.f. - 1,030 s.f. of access serving residence to east for a net area of 16,714 s.f. drive )V i;. Zoning File 11609 February > ^991 Page 2 of 4 AlloWid Hardcover » 4,178.5 s.f. or 25% , ^ Exist,i®%*^Bardcover * 5,093 s.f. or 30.4%* ‘ Propoi^ Hardcover ■ 5,392 s.f. or 32.2% An increase of 299.2 s.f. or 1.79%*^ *1 House ■ 1,376 + 145 s.f. * 1,521 s.f. Garage • 612 s.f. Drive “ 1,058 1,260 • 2,318 s.f. Former Deck ■ 280 s.f. Deck Steps ■ 52 s.f. Front Steps • 42 s.f. Landscape Area • 84 + 112 + 72 • 268 s.f. *2 Eaves at 4' width above proposed deck not included in hardcover calculation as City has never made final determination for eaves in excess of l*j' width. The second story deck (4*x48.8*) * 195.2 s.f. The new deck (12*x32'} results in a net increase of 104 s.f. of hardcover. Plaase review Exhibits D1 through D2. The applicant's written comments will help to provide Members with background on the after-the-fact aspect oc this application. As with many penalty applications, the owner is left to resolve the unfortunate actions of a contractor. Review Exhioxts G and H, the original 10*x28* deck recorded In the assessor's records and the real estate photo of the lakeside of the house -onfirm the existence of the deck at approximately 10'jfli8*. Note the 1971 date of the assessor's records confirms that the deck was constructed prior to the lakttshor# ra^ulatlons o£ the City# The deck was replaced with a new deck measuring 12'x32'. All but 3 of the footings are considered new construction. In reviewing aerial maps of the area and upon a site inspection, there appears to be no problem with an average lAkeshore setback. The second phase of this application Involves the applicant's request for a second story deck or the east side of the residence. The catwalk deck would link to the second story lakeside deck providing a secondary access from rsAr sscond story bodroon (rsviow Exhibit J)# Applicant is concerned that if fire comes up the centrally located staircase, only available egress from the second floor rear bedroom is at the patio doors leading to lakeside deck. As in the factual findings, the 4' overhang has not been included in the hardcover calculations. I Zoning File #1609 February 13, 1991 Page 3 of 4 The 4' deck/catwalJc would result in 195.2 s.f. of additional hardcover within the 75-250* setback area. The comprehensive variance application would ask for approval of an increase of 299.2 s.f. or 1.79% of additional hardcover (104 net increase for new deck, 195.2 for proposed second story deck). Planning Commission members are asked to inspect the landscape area in the front yard. It would appear that the majority of the plastic underneath the landscape/rock area is in a deteriorated state and would appear to allow permeation of surface runoff. If Members classify landscape area as hardcover based on recent directions from Council, the plastic must be removed. Please review staff's sketched (Exhibit J), the slashed area around the southern portions and western portions of the house are landscape or rock areas underlain with plastic of a more recent installation consisting of 268 s.f. of hardcover. Options of Action - 1. Denial. If the application is to be denied, please refer to the necessary findings in Section 10.08; or 2. 3. Approval as proposed; or Approval subject to applicant providing equal or greater removals of existing hardcover. If removal is to be equal and retain hardcover at existing 5,093 s.f. or 30.4%, applicant must remove 299.2 s.f. of existing hardcover. The only option available to applicant would be non-structural hardcover such as landscape area underlain with plastic (268 s.f.). The additional 31 s.f. can come from the section of the paved drive not included within the easement area (see darkened area on Exhibit J). Approval may be based on one or more of the following findings (review Exhibit Dl): 1. The second story deck/catwalk will provide a secondary egress from the rear second floor bedrooms. 2. The second story deck/catwalk at a 4* minimum width will be constructed with spaces between the boards. The deck will be installed over a grassed lam area. 3. The existing lakeside deck was in a serious deteriorating condition and needed to be replaced to maintain safety. 4. The second level lakeside deck provides a secondary means of egress from the split level residence. ^ > I M Zoning File *1609 February 12, 1991 Page 4 of 4 5» The proposed construction meets all required setbacks* and does not result in restricting the lake views of the adjacent residences. 6. There is no additional lands available for applicant to acquire in order to support the excesses of hardcover in the 75-250* setback area. Mditlonal Oo March 5, 1991 its and Planning tndations - Mditionnl Bshibits - Exhibit K - Staff's Sketch Exhibit L - Applicant's Letter of 2/25/91 The entire Planning Coirr5s<sion accepted the 12'x32' deck that replaced the original deck along the lakeside of the house as long as hardcover was maintained at the existing percentage. The approving majority voters could not accept Ms. Brock's request for the catwalk and advised that if an exit from the rear bedroon area was needed that this could be done with the installation of a staircase. The minority opinion felt that the spaced wooden deck at a 4* width would not interfere with runoff and that the structure at this given elevation above existing grade would meet the intent of the hardcover ordinance. With the original inspection of the site* staff calculat€M3 the landscape area underlain with plastic along the west and south side of the residence at 268 s.f. These original ■easurenents were based on an averaging of the cantilevered second floor and the eaves along the roof edge. The actual landscaped area measured 8* in depth. Staff subtracted the 2* for the cantilevered second story, excluding the area of the eaves at 17'-20* in height above grade and determined the hard­ cover area with the landscaped area to be at 376.2 s.f. Hard­ cover facts are amended to read as follows: 75-250* setback area: Allowed Hardcover “ 4*178.5 s.f. or 25% . Existing Hardcover ■ 5*201.2 s.f. or 31.7%* Proposed Hardcover ■ 5*500.4 s.f. or 32.9% Increase of 190.8 s.f. or 1.14% House ■ 1*521 s.f. Garage - 612 s..f Drive ■ 2*318 s.f. Former Deck ■ 280 s.f. Deck Steps ■ 52 s.f. Frcmt Steps “ 42 s.f. Landscape Area: foHMr calculations revised calculations 84+112-t>72 - 268 s.f. 120-M83.6+72.6 - 376.2 s.f. 'Zoning File #1609 March 5( 1991 Page 5 Applicant proposes the removal of all landscape areas underlain with plastic to compensate for structural improvements requested. The following are non- structural and structural improvements existing and proposed within the 75-250* setback area. Existing Structural • 2#507 s.f. or 14.9% Proposed Structural ■ 2,806.2 s.f. or 16.7% Existing Non-structural ■ 2,694.2 s.f. or 16.1% Proposed Non-structural ■ 2,318 s.f. or 13.8% The 4'x48* spaced wooden deck will be approximately 6-7>i* above existing grade. The 4* eaves along the roof line above this catwalk averages 1S'-16* above existing grade. Please review Exhibit L, applicant has asked for special consideration concerning the penalty fees associated with variance application and building permit as applicant is attesg>ting to remedy problems created by bankrupt contractor who failed to obtain necessary permits. The enclosed approval resolution has been drafted approving the after-the-fact variance application as recommended by the entire Planning Ccsunission. Options of Action Regarding the Catwalk for Proposed Portion of Varianoe Application - A. Planning Coemission recommendation - installation of access stairs from the second story. Hardcover to remain at existing percentage at 5,201.2 s.f. or 31.7%. Increase of 104 s.f. of structural hardcover (plus hardcover created with stair structure). This will require the removal of 1044* s.f. of existing non-structural landscape area; or B. Per applicant's request - approval of 4'x48* catwalk resulting in a total of 299.2 s.f. of structural hardcover and the removal of 376.2 s.f. of landscape area underlain with plastic resulting in proposed hardcover of 5,124.2 s.f. or 30.6%. This would be consistent with current considerations of the Council to require removal of land ­ scape areas underlain with plastic where excessive amounts of hardcover exist. Applicant's addendum notes the following hardships: i. Catwalk is needed for emergency exit needs from second story. ii. Drainage from roof area is directed via gutters to grassed area of yard. ■ ‘■hiI I :?■ I; -I !■ f;1: y- Zoning File #1609 Harch 5, 1991 Page $ ill. Proposed deck will existing grade. be elevated 6~7>j' above iv. Deck is located under a 4* ea</e and will not extend beyond the eaves. The enclosed approval resolution will be amended to include Council's final action on the catwalk portion of the variance application. j:' te M'’fir' l.-jV..'.-, . , A BBSOLUnOH GRAMTiaG J» Ai'imA^MB-PACT VAKlAaCB TO NDHCIPAL lOlilMG CODS SBCTIOa 10.22, SOBDIVISIOa 2 (A) PILB #1009 WIBABA8, Alice L. Brock (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 2780 Shadywood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as Tract B, Registered Land Survey #1196, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and the applicant has applied to the City for an after-the-fact variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 (A) to pernilt a 12'x32* deck at 384 s.f. that replaced a former 10'x28* deck at 280 s.f. resulting in a net increase of hardcover of 104 s.f. where 31.7% hardcover already exists within the 75-250* setback area where only 25% is allowed. The second phase of the variance application involves a request Applicant for a 4*x48* second story deck along the east side of the house at a total of 195.2 s.f. of additional hardcover within the 75-250* setback area. The comprehensive application involves approval of an increase of 299.2 s.f. or 1.79% of structural hardcover within the 75-250* setback area. ■09, TBSKBPORB, BB IT RBSOLVBO by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: PIBDIBGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning Pile #1609. 2. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring 1 acre in area for each residential lot. The property consists of 17,544 s.f., exclusive of 1,030 s.f. for an access drive serving adjacent residence for a net area of 16,714 s.f. 3. 5,201.2 s.f. or 31.7% hardcover exists within the 75- 250* setback area. Structural and non-structural hardcover is detexmined as follows: Page 1 of 6 Existing Structural ■ 2,507 s.f. or 14.9% Existing Non-structural ■ 2,694.2 s.f. or 16.1% 4. The currant application involves the request for an incraass of structural hardcover at 299.2 s.f. or Applicant proposes the removal of 376.2 s.f. or 2.25% or non-structural hardcover resulting in a net reduction of 1.1% hardcover within the 75-250* setback area. 5. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on February 19, 1991, and recommended approval of the after- fxct variance based upon the following findings: A) The reconstructed deck meets all the required setbacks. It does not restricting the lake views of the adjacent residences, nor does it encroach the average lakeshore setback line. B) The second level lakeside deck provides a secondary moans of egress ttom the split level residence. C) The proposed improvement will not result in an increase of hardcover within the 75-250* setbac^ area as applicant must remove an equal amount of non- otructural hardcover within the 75—250* setback area. The Planning Commission denied the request for the 4 x48 second story deck along the east side of the residence finding that applicant had not provided acceptable hardships to support approval of the additional variance. 6. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this soning district: that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hasard or other danger to neighboring property: would not merely conv#nl#iic# to tho applicantp but io necessary to alleviate a daaonatrabl. hard.hip or difficulty) 1. n.e...«ry to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant: and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 6 I an OP OROMO - vrriarcb application Initial Application Fee $175.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Ranawal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) #1609 r^r \ rr ‘OU’H nOPIRTT LOCATION O'Hj SUA-hyc<^c6L^ l^vrSite Address .-L-rTr <T2 - r # : •'"Ce **»’f*> ?V» VI v ’WtVV ^ 7C > Artufa.irM -7 wA*/V' VW t • • I wv Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Attach legal description to application if not included on requireu survey. i? 1 - c 0 • r*. r,v> i Zs' f rr» u • ■I II ■■ V a • U* —V r V / *<.4 //7 3^3 3 ¥ cc^l ^ APPLICANT Name Address: Phone (home) L' f L ' ^ If' 0-^ Cr *S Phone (work) S>^- ^ Zip: (if different th^in applicant)thai 4^ i I j Nui. J-tOXA. ,A_.b(-/Xri^ i*''i-' “ pate Property Acquired Phone (home) C? ' V 7*^ ' / *^ * _ - - - - -7 / , " _ _ Phone (work) o ( ' a'I (<=10 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (month/year) I (do) C^donot )y also own the adjacent parcels of land tmm mm0t^ W NV ea» mm mm mm mm mm mm ^m ^m ^m^m^m ^m mm mm eM mm ^m ^m mm ^m ew mm SM mm mm ^m mm mm mm mm t IT OSB OP PNOPBRTT Present Zoning District Present Use of Property .^.^sidential Other (sped fy) ON OP RBQDBST Estimated Construction Cost $ ^ itLo/^o Describe request in detail: C P dd-CkL ^ 4b b?&C0A^ 7 <9 Lot Area Setback Variances ( Other Lot Width Front V- H,Hardcover Side Rear) 6' ■MOSBIP , r 3D6scribe undue hardship or practical enforcement of zoning regulations:3T 4 OBSCXIPnOH OF OBOSUAL PROPERTY COMDITIOHS PQScribe unusual property conditions preventing compliance with zoning Code Requirements_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ /i V i/ 9 e- ' ¥. 6. 7. t. _SUBNITTMiS ^ Completed Application Form /’ ~ ^ - . . Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150' (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County DepartmentFinance A-603 Govt Cent« 348-3271) . /V '• f ^5 r > Plat Hap (obtained with property owners list). Certificate of survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) to include hardcover calculations as required (provide one (1) copy 8>j''xll" for reproduction). B^K29^aphic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed (provide one copy 8*!"xii";. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide 1 copy 8Jj"xll"). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested bv city staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please resiead}er that voor variance application is not complete—if—the above ***■ been included. AFFLZaUR*8 8I6HAT0RB The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff tiaie not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and ceitifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her know^ledge. Applicant's Signatuf?\x ~s \‘-Ul OMDOtS 8Z6HATDRB The owner hereby ackowledges and agrees to this application and further authorises reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Coosnission members, and Council members for purposes of investiga­ tion and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Lu Date /^ -y-Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 day^^ the ed If an applicant is Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings ^ third Monday of each month. Applicants must be P'***®t ul^ ncn^u^ lew meetings of the Planning CoMissioo and Council unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorised agent attend in your place and to^dvise the Building a Zon g Office of this change prior to the meeting. } / mm' ;i. .ji; I'lt!!:; f' m; n-ii M77ir i Wiitmion J t N;njnCtM«CKfR JOKM F iFlIZSCNHMKEII MB MMi imMunnc rutaa«ucKtii NfMCFZN COUNTY FROFCOTV INFOOmTION SYSTfH FROFCRTY OMCRS UST SO 2i>ii7-u M eess ooosa AOORCSS UNASSXONiO J F t N N STEWIN5 JCFFRfV F STEWINS 274S SHMYICOO RO ORONO rtl 5SSS1 21*117-2S M 0(N2 02000 SNAOVHOOO RO R N'nOCLOFS t J 0 ROCLOfS RONALO N ROEL0F8 2000 SNAOyiRIOr RD. C)<CEI.S10li HN 5S551 SO 21-117-2S 2<> 0065 02700 SHAOYHOOO RO ELAINE T TAGONIS ELAINE T PA60N1S 2700 SNAOVHOOO RO ORONO MN 55SS1 » i REFORT NO. FtOSCOOl FACE 22 SO 21-117-21 20 0000 02760 SHAOVNOOO RO HULIAH A NUIIAN A ANDERSON 2760'SHAOYHOOO RO pCELSIOR ttl 5SSS1 SO 21-117-2S 20 0050 02705 SHAOVNOOO RO T J CASEY ISO CASEY THOHAS J CASEY 2785 SNAOY HOOD RO EXCELSIOR m 653S1 SO 21-117-21 11 0002 02795 SNAOVNOOO RO J P A N H STEROINl JEFFREY F STERUNS 2795 SHAOYNOOO RO ORONO ft! 55S11 F * \ • Z CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REFRESENTEO ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATZON OF INFORHATION AS IT APPEARS THIS OATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HETtCPIN COUNTY DEPART}CKT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO WE OEST OF NY RNONLEDGE AND RELIEF ARITCia J/Msse J 9-1-11 GOVT LOT 4 / / 7^ GOVT lot 3 it M- ‘’ih-:'! r , I wh L-- f: i- mm November 20, 1990 1 City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Mn.55323 RE: After-the-fact Hardcover Variance for property located at 2780 Shadywood Road. Dear Planning Commission and City Council: Enclosed, please find my application for an after-the-fact hardcover variance for my property. At this time, I would like to state that my position in applying for this variance is to comply with the city codes that require me to do so. However, after consulting with several landscape professionals, a civil engineer, and a member of the Watershed Commission, I must question the legality of our current Hardcover Ordinance. I do not feel the above after-the-fact hardcover variance is recessary due to the following objections: 1. PREEXISITING CONDITIONS- When this property was purchased,the hardcover was 29.1%. The replacement of the rotten deck created 29.7": hardcover,due to the extension for a catwalk area which would lead to the rear area of home. tat >o 2. DECKS ARE NOT HARDCOVER- decks should not be classified as hardcover. They do not impede, or increase the run off of water. Only the cement slabs, or permanent impervious surfaces underneath a deck should be calculated as hardcover. 3. UNDUE HARDSHIP- the extension for a catwalk to the rear of the home is necessary for safety reasons* The home is a split level home, and there is no exit from the rear of the home on this level, which is a main living area. The catwalk will be under the eaves of the home, with lawn directly underneath, thus creating no addtional hardcover. I would like to thank you in advance for considering the above Information, not only in my particular situation, but also for future property owners in Orono. Cur Hardcover Ordinance should be reviewed and ammended in the very near future. Sincerel 0-' - t r.- k b- November 19,1990 Jeanne Mabusch City of Orono Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 RE: After the fact Deck Permit & Hardcover Ordinance Dear Ns. Mabusth: First of all, I would like to thank you for the time you spent with me on the telephone on November 15, answering and directing my questions and concerns in the above matter. In the past thirteen weeks, you are the only person to listen with concern and give me logical suggestions for soLu'"ion. As you requested, I will attempt to chronicle what has occured beginning August 1, 1990, the date I moved into my home at 2780 Shadywood Road, Orono, Mn. On August 2,1990, Kelmers-Ryan Inc.Contractors began the replacemnt of my Lakeside windows, which we found out were dry-rotted. Along with replacement of the windows, the bid included replacement of any rotten boards on the existing deck and replacement of a portion of the cracked cedar shakes on my roof. As the contractors got into the deck portion of the bid, I was informed that the entire deck was rotton, including the stairs and many of the support beams. At that time, Mr. Mike Ryan, Prsident of Helmers- Ryan gave me another quote to reolace the entire deck, except for the existing footings. I agreed to the bid, and Instructed them to go ahead with the project. Unfortunately, Helmers-Ryan Inc. filed for bankruptcy on August Id,before the project was completed, and no one has been able to locate anyone involved with the company. Two friends of mine, who are carpenters helped me finish the project. I,nor the carpenters who helped me, even thought about a permit to finish replacement of the deck. I have since discussed this matter with them, and they told me that the contractors should have taken out a permit, but since no one can locate the contractors, I can’t even ask them why nothing was filed. I also had to have a friend of mine,who o«ms a roofing company, come in to replace the defective cedar shakes,which were originally supposed to be done by Helmers-Ryan. After weeks of frustration, sore muscles, and depletion of my bank account, I was finally ready to enjoy my new home. Then, in October, I received a letter from Lyle Oman, and the City of Orono, notifying me that a permit for a NEW deck and roof was never taken out for my property, that I should fill out the enclosed forms, and apply for an after-the-fact permit. I immediately went to and Citv Kail, and sooke w-_h Mr. Crian. F-.s. • . . - -- “orr-s, anamethat I had recisvec che wrong ,ve T.2 » • — % m' correct fores J°;S ?r.e Ibcve'eLct^^.sfi MgfrdlSg my home; I also cold him I would bring in Che listing ohItograSh from the Realtor, showing that in fact there was rdeck oh the home when I purchased it. i then ,h™«. and tried to understand and complete Che hardcove. i^rm, and necessary paperwork for Che pernit. I returned to City Hall about three days later with oape^ork and photo of the deck, and spoke with Mr. M.chae. Gaffron. He informed me that I had not completed Che hJrdlover form correctly, and chat someone would come out to my property,inspect it, and notify me of their findings. When I returned home from one of my many road for a living), I had received a letter from Mr. Garrro stating that mv permit was denied because or an increase in hardcover in the 75-250!zone, when hardcover in chat zone already exceeded the 257. limit. He stated chat the pre- exlsltng deck was 10'x28'and the new deck is 12 ^<32, In expaSsion of 0.67.. First of all, I,don’t l^now what size the pre-exisiting deck was, and since I wa. ^Owd by the City of Oronp that there never was a pre-exist.ng de.k, the first time I spoke with Mr. Oman, I do not know if this calculation is correct, i only know that the ori^ino. cement Slab iSder the deck is 27’1C” x 9”9”. Mr. Gaffron inrcrmea me that I had two options for resolving this matter. 1. remove enough hardcover to leave 07, in 0-75 zone and no more than 257.in 75-250 zone. 2. apply for an after Che fact hardcover variance with a application fee of $175,plus after the fact investigation fee of $175. for a total of $-50. As you can imagine, when I received this notice, it only added to my frustration and my feelings of being victimize as a new single homeowner. Between Che now bankrupt contractor Ild m^varioSs visits with the city. I was ready Co give up. As I told you on the telephone, John Metz suggested i speak directly with you to resolve this matter. ^ enclosed a separate letter to accompany my application for a variance. It is with sincere desire and concern a this matter be taken care of as soon as possible, as I win be .:ravellng with my job for the next four months. Thanks again, for your time and advice. Sincerely, L. Binck 'X Adjacent Property ^ers* Ac3cnowledgement Fora I (wc) ^ Imprint ^ame {s) J / lorint address] . ^ »>,. -'ara for the orooosed improvement or proposed use of the P*r:;.rVy Vt Application No. e..-.* 4-K.4. <n executina this acknowledgement, I (we) an I (w.) »»^«‘Vecl.re .pprovel «' «>e property or use (are) not asked to dec PP council that I (we) am (are) aware of ^S:r.rr-.renrpV«.^“^d^^!.^rhe=rrrp;t^ nei,hhor.s project or use requires Council approval. Date //. f>rs^_ _ _ _ Pr'operty Owner Date I (we) [print name(s)] _(print address ' ^ j 4-Kem «i*n« for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the al»o referred to as Lend Use Application No. I (-.) understand that in (are) not aeked „ councVl'^that I (we) am (are) aware of r-rr«vel:n?Vu” ana «Vh aL^ raquiras Council approval# / '' Proparty Ownar Date n 609 Property Owner Date I£ you have any information that may assist tha j^^®Buiiaing*** ^"1.^“ 10 4.% prior to the eoh*Jul«l ...tin, dete. t 1 ft 309 Ob*i.v«JL fh/uuM :<y\) A/F^. ^a&iu i _£W*iW4»-, -................. . - .. - --------- _______cs<jav ^ „ _-(ShSL OL&.pwT-.’*^ I>^-J&0 ■SWi^««ioa__fiSiv oi 'iiO- ' _ <3^._ . fiLtfcSc£- (U^oSiH (yt\^ T^nJL ^KK/ OuicO CVt^ __^._ pikS. pUfcSc£- (U^<3^^ O^UA^hl _ V.. -T^a. oftiiid <3i /(vSl - a^e^.-•■ " 0Lrv&. 02^. Ql, SSiPvX __UiitL 7^ Tfcwt ^ OtZlMiA^Y 4- _^_sSa^ ^ngCs^-gj^ «.ul t!-^ ‘ .» ^■5. •*: I > ‘•rs. ’t-<u fc, .1 i . i ; ^W 't '-^^-w7^ ilT-% • r ; • • • . . k ••,i (^> :t) ^W5 iJv, • ^►j^rl « 7*. ».l»•iVl |» ' ‘ik ! V} »t ♦ % -V- ;T V ? / >#!’i ■>'i f < > Ji» :• y A*:. * i-'. • • f t !t>v» V' I »► * I ! v'J C', i i it ■i i ii I' -It t ••- (•> t; ' I I • '• I > ^ \V '' \ li ^ r ‘ v7-^H , X > ■- ! , iA- %• K t I <sa % «^'i I (mm _ >1^-1- ?? ■ SHSnilf . At I MUST---------♦ •.•.■•.•>»*•• * **'‘’*^ ■ - p*pm . _ . --fM* * i,W••• •»** - 4 > • ' ■.•■ mt•.•• M. .f V- i j*«*.***-«* 4 p ••ii. • ?«rt J Win#-t±-^*ncrt?5^ - . I -' wjii n.—•.—«. n« Tiuio 'H tVfc*»l«r _:_:iniicngAi^^ ^ X 4V.-.4ifi^ ^-Sf ♦»/—_—---------'— — iot« tMt mmm T «— * fli I’l DIvd nWCMM OtlVuiliMNCS ntB* i» wW *BAv«»f r '^y «^cH^ _____ i \i ! T’T ^. J.....-4 4/,vy C\ 3 Vi' 1 m • « « « "\ 1 1 i i #^ •i 1 1rry r^..% ^wmt. s^H\ IB^UXI <r/i» ^ #1 A ““4i«7r -•* • V • ____ -• _7.:ro # •• ■■■■ ^:’ ^ iT '*■■■■ ■ outvtMiv "" !I'J IIttt9 ta«it> 2a4»«f }!«••? • • — JM »«^«««^< ■ »»4##» 7;' ■•—‘ - ^ , . • m4 • 'V ... . / / ■ '1 ' Mj.fr 7>f>3> i!i©S^ r.^' -/ «• V ,.«« • • ^ •• • V- » • * »•. • f c^» ’T"'* • '• / • • .• .* '•. • • ; » ••*'* I» f *<• J . W* ** ■* • • '; V. • ; •: r. ^ •I . ' - — »« • ♦ «« ^ •• .• 4' • >;«r ,'x,r-vvi,\. .* a: *i^( • * ••• J V . .* *■•.,•, i • I I * . •«*. *•- " •• » ..-»*• . . .. • J, « . *• .•• ••' .• >«4V • •» 4 ■*.••' * • • # ' W’ * •' ** • »'.•*• • ^ ^ - •••%.».' *1 • - . f ' -4 , . • - • • •• ' .. >. ^ . , tm — 4j • ■tjti.'V’.sn*'. •***«^>.,*. .V.' 4 •^ - .'<• • •• .* r»*• ♦ *« * • . ••. .. . •• • 4 ‘ • • 9 * ^ Z 4 4. . »« • ^ •v:-*r •• - Presenting St: I miimgm Lake Living at its Best Edina Realty I I . I -• ..* * ^ . ■ J . « . ^ /Sl^r.JI S/ vv3/'//y . »■ I • •' .1; ITT. V ;S.;-.v*:. ’ 4*4 •»• « »44. - • . »• 1 INCH. 4. _________________________________________________ -PLAT OF SURVEY -.; •< :_,,^ :.qp "^OPEHTY of • - ^A/yr:^r^--------------------------------------__!_: - vVV^—— ——— i fi-r*' • • »N - '"* -‘"“f .'i' - --9^:. -a-i^.. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ M. - — &_____^ IS A& mucf*fs...^dLS£^^^y_Tv •• '^OC» /V<^. 263 % «• ^ 'JSl'*-. »r-a.‘ i i -- . - - _. r '> » >. X. / 3 V *•'/ i\ '» N if r w^ / 2**^ \ • ^ ^ 9 W ‘- c' ^ ^ Hcn^£‘ /M /-: . • \ • cT;, X- It SI SCAUL* 1 tNCH..s ► -PLAT OF SURVTY rw.ywt. —:.. .-y ^J^y7* •^■i^ii^inirjii- ■ mhatmnmtm t mt t m PBOMmAAiOLL/aws y^'cr^J^ -I Vjfll -■• ^ . - - - - y- It-y' *. !S: [■ ' 5* * »~ ". ■^i»f I tSI ' .V-. : •-r-~—- ----------^ - .TT.-. *• J| • •* *«k ^ M / / / •. * i ^ \ 1/ ti *• # / / ‘. v<.- ^ .. .♦' >?r-. ~ J .\m ^ ^ iMP BUU^ING- * -—CSBTIFIlLiTS'^i^ SUSVKC^^S^^^: __1 » »* "• • T > • »1 ‘ *• ' •" ••_■••- ••—•-, .. . - - ■•^. ^JSNwyw «iid« w Ofliy ApH^ AdH^n^X^B^Sv^H^Br* .. t -/ -r 1 INCH._____________ iiSSMIS« jOF- SUR'V'FY ■ --.r^>- 'P :; 53T1 ---------•. —* :« '* , r - .----- V A !i V-... ^A/'7r^'T.-------------------------------------------------------I:-:ir_— Si^)m ^ ^OF PflOPEHTY OF I a --------^ 0-~ • • 4 i»AiM ---Z—...s . ^ W**l y>v,—— ->-j^ ^ ^ ^ m • ~ » • • t| /ttwaows ;:^|. '^cc> 263 • «. • ... •-B • • -««.« Si. O 7^ jf*! / ^ 7 _ — ^V^3:^:W-rr:.-.-^.-. s-f5riw-r-^4-r'« ••j/ * ..“ J . -A— fc«j»ca i INNOVATIVE /MICROGRAPHICS DUE TO THE POOR CONDITION OF THE PRECEEDING DOCUMENT WE CANNOT PRODUCE AN ACCEPTABLE MICROFILM IMAGE. u.- 1^,.J abruarv 25.1991 City of Orono City Council P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Mn.55323 Re: City Planning Commission's aoDroval of After-the- fact portion of application tor deck at 2,3C Shadywood Rd. and their disapproval of the proposed portion of the variance for a <4'x48’ second story catwalk which would provide safe exit from the master bedroom and living Quarters in the rear half of the home by linKinc Co the lakeside deck. Dear City Council: FirsC, I would like to address the penalty involved with Che approval of the after-the-fact portion of the variance for ray deck. Please refer to my letter of November 19. 1990 Co Ms. Jeanne Mabusth explaining the circumstances that led up Co my needing to apply for an ifter-the- fact variance. Also, please review the letter and addendum I submitted to the Planning Commisi'ion on Nov. 20,1990. While Caking Chat information into consideration. I would Chen reauesC that you waive the penalty of S175.00 for Che variance and for the after-the-fact permit I will need to procure. I will assume responsibility for the cost of Che regular variance and building permit,since the contractor who began the job has since gone bankrupt,and I cannot prove he assured me he had taken out the necessary permits. Regarding Planning Commission's disapproval of Che catwalk which would connect to Che deck. I would like Co ask you to review this before I come before you on March 12,1991. I am willing to remove Che plastic under Che landscape area stated in Jeanne Mabusth’s letter of Feb.13,1991. This would be a CaCal of 268 s.f. I also discussed with Ms. Mabusth that I would also remove Che 24s.f. of plastic under landscaping by rear stairs to bring Che total to 292 s.f. of removal of hardcover. The proposed catwalk eouals 195.2 s.f. This catwalk is important to me from a safety point only, as it provides Che only access from my master bedroom in case of a fire. Ac the planning meeting, one of Che members suggested that I could exit through my window. This is totally absurd, given the fact Chat my bedroom windows only measure 21" in width, and there is an 8 foot drop to Che ground. Even if I would be able to squeeze my 5’10" frame out Che window, it is more Chan likely I would break my leg or back upon reaching the ground. Furthermore, I would be very concerned if my 80 year old mother, or relatives were Co be forced to do the same. I truly believe that this catwalk should be approved from not only an undue hardship point, but also by removal of existing hardcover. I" 'r ' i - • IV p. •■ W Tbs Dfttes Subject s Mayoi Peterson and Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Admini March 5, 1991 1991 Joint Use Dock Licenses % ^ VAttached are applications and proposed resolutions for 1991 Joint Use Dock Licenses for the following organizations: Applicant (Contact) Poxhill Honeotmers (Wayne Gustafson) No. of Slips 13 Date Appl. Received 2/7/91 LMCD Temporary Dock Extensions X Mtka Power Squadron (BayIon Loosbrock) 45 2/14/91 (transient) X Walters Port (Charles Garrity) 5 2/4/91 Sandy Leach (B.R. .’.uc)unan) 7 1/23/91 Victoria Estates (Paul Ranssen) 6 2/27/91 Rhode/Bnlow/Lindah1 (Jack Rhode) 3 2/22/91 Forest Arms (Jim Lange) 14 2/6/91 X Navarre Cove (Dan Lindsay) 6 1/29/91 ' of these renewal applications indicate no chanfes from previous numbers of slips approved. There have ^een no cooiplai.''t8 filed regarding any of the joint use docks di ring the past year. Due to low waterr 3 of the applicants have been granted tesiporary dock extensions by the LMCD. The City has received no cosrplaints regarding these specific extensions, however, the 1991 aroroval resolutions have been drafted with the condition that these applicants comply with all LMCD requirements. The 1990 LNCD licenses for these three are attached, and indicate the following conditions: 1. The extension is temporary for the low water period during which the Lake level is below 928.0* and declared by the LMCD Board. 1991 Joint Use Dock Licenses March 1991 Page«2* of 2 ✓ V •», % 2. TemporaiV extensions must be renewed annually. 3. There must be no navigation hazard to your temporary dock extension. The Water Patrol will serve to assure this condition is maintained. 4. All temporary extensions utilize seasonal docks. 5. No additional or larger watercraft are allowed beyond which you are licensed or permitted by the L^*CD Coder as described in your application material. Staff recooimends approval of the eight 1991 Joint Use Dock Licenses per the attached resolutions. Note that the license application forms sent out in 1990 incorrectly stated the renewal license base fee as $50,00 instead of $20.00r hence some of the applicants are receiving credits on their 1991 application fees. Proposed Motions Moved by___r seconded by___, to approve the Joint Use Dock License for the 1991 license year for: Foxhill HOBieowners* Associationr Minnetonka Power Squadronr Walter's Port Homeowners' Association# Sandy Beach Shores# Victoria Estates Homeowners' Association# Rhode/En1ow/Lindahl# hjrest Arms Homeowners' Association# and Navarre Cove Homeowners' Association per the resolutions drafted by staff. Ayes ___# nays ___. t;- fe:' CITY OF ORONO P.O. BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY, MN 55323 473-7357 LICENSE YEAR 19 (association) rc?X///^t— «d > ..•# .ci*Vr*T» '*W A > ' U » u? < -.W4. c'i irv i 4 7<f 4.U-.iHi ANNUAL JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION Pursuant to Orono Municipal Code Section 5.42 V' C- V V 1 n\* X » i w* • I /-.T/r Vw/ V » .* > Date Form Sent by City Staff /^ /0~-^ ( Date Application Returned to City g.-7-9 j- - - - - - - Fee Recived $ 10 ^_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _®Y Employee^^^^^\. section 5.42 Subdivision 2. LICENSE REQUIRED - It is unlawrul for any (group or association of persons or families, more than two in nu^er, whether incorporated or not) to engage or participate in,..]omt use (of any lakeshore property) without first having obtained a license therefor from the City. MARCH 1 OF THE LICENSE YEAR. ASSOCIATION INFORMATION 1. Association title or name (if anv) f^D:<.U/L/. 2. Lake/!^///'yy^7-/Jjf/A<A________Bay ----------------------------------------- 3. Person responsible for this application: Name- - - - - -- Mailing Address //]Q() Relationship to a33Qciation>^^/^^Z^g4<^i^^ ^0£-At'- - Page 1 of 5 r| ■r It. Associaticn is (check arnliccble iCarj): 6. 8. uaicccrrcrctsd hcr:ec*.T.er'3 arcu-. inccrcorcced 3or.ec’<c:er's Asscciacicr.. unincorcorated club or recreecion group. Incorcorated cl'it or recreation group. 5. rrincipai purpose of Joint use docic is (cnec.< applicable ites:s): provide "boat ncoring and lake access for residential property. ___provide svlaming access > beaca, or offshore doc.<. provide a club or association gathering place for activities Dock is located on (checjc applicable item): one r.enber'3 pri*/ate property. ^2^easeaiBat cr outlot ovned in comziion. _ _ property leased by the group/association. property ovned by the group/association. List Dock location and ovnersnl? information: street address /^/ legal property description PIO # listed property o«ner(s) Names cf abutting lakeshore property owners: (N<jrth,*'West) /J^J/il'/: */ (Name + Afldress) (South/East) /? (Nadne '+ Address) N£unes of other affected property owners: (Nsune + Address) (attach sheet if necessary) 2 of 5 9 isurance Coverage . 'The Joi::-.!/ -ised doci is insured by one cf -ne fnllovin*: property ovner's hOTsecvner's policy, ^^^eoarste group/acsociation svned po-icy. lisx ’he following ia^'orrM’iion: namg of insured / '~/7'/ natmt of insurance carrier n<nqi» of Insurance agency ^ policy no. ZrXr ^/P7Z^p^/" effective date of coverage ~ f/_ aaount of coverage; Public liability, per person, per occurence ^//^/y^ 10- Piiblic liability, per occurence $ /Z)f//i^/'?Ay. Security and policing of the Jointly ’used doch and property is provided by (check applicable items): fencing. security lighting property owner's presence. contract security service, other (specif:,') DOCK IHPORMATION 11. List Dock Use Area Specifications: Width of shoreline; Length of aain dock from shore; Dock setbacks from side property lines at shore; r^/7 ft. and ^^ ft. ft. 12* Dock Construction (check applicable Items): ^—seasonal dock (relocated or replaced each year). permanent piling with seasonal deck. qC^ vDoden decking. _metal deckl :g. permanent piling and decicing 13.List Dock Accessories: Humber of fire extinguishers available at the dock Huniber of life preservers available at the dock nyy _ _ _ 1 *.List number of slips in each category ("slips” includes boat lifts) Transient (day use only) ullpa Permanent moorage sllpa /JP . Trans if. at (day use) off-shore buoys Permanent moorage off-shore buoys __ Dry storage (rack) slips ^Maximum nu.,d}er of boats at the deck X.7 15.List nund>er of off-street parking spacea available for users of the Joint use dock. Parking, if provided must not be separated from the dock by any public road. {Q spacea. 3 of K r h‘-i: EROSION AMD SSDIMglT.ajIOrr CC??r?.OL 16, Shorsline is protected by (cteci app-iceb_e ite:r:s;; X. stoae rip rap. ___ -'ccd oea»-a.retal teavall.’.Crete seswail. grass ftnfi vegetation only- other (speci-y) 17.Depth of water at snoreiine is /) ft; at 50 ft. cut is Q. at 100 ft. out is _/ REQUIRED ATTA TS The followiinj must accompany this application : A. DOCK PLAN - ALL APPLICATIONS A dock plan, drawn to scale, showing the shoreline widtn of this prcperty, the side property lines and the location, layout and dime.nsions of all docks, slips and buoys. If off-street parking, dry storage or other on-land functions are intended, these also should be shown on the plan. B.UNINCORPORATED GROUPS OR ASSOCIATIONS 1. A list of the names and mailing addresses of all members and/or slip users. 2.A certified copy of the by-laws or agreement for joint use. Note: This copy is not required if the applicant initials and certifies the following statement: "This is a renewal application and our joint use dock is to be operated under the same by-laws or agreement originally made in oF (state year) and on file with the City." Applicant' s initials C. INCORPORATED CLUBS OR ASSOCIATIk. 'S 1. A list of the names, mailing addresses and titles of all corporation officers. 2.A Statement as /V' members. to the total number of members in the club or association. 3.A certified copy of the articles of incorporation and by-laws of the corporation. Note} These copies are net required if the applicant initials aind certifies the following stateme.nt: "This is a renewal applicatici and our joint use dock is to be operated under the same articles of incorporation and/or by-laws as originally made or last amended in (state year) and on file with the City." Appliqj t's initials //SS~ //5^0 r Pace 4 of 5 % 1^ D. ANNUAL LICENSE FEE - ALL APPLICATIONS Joint Use Dock License Application fee according to the current City Fee Schedule Initial Application Fee Renewal Joint Use Fee, per year $ $ZO - Plus Slip Fee for each permanent moorage slip, lift, dry stack, or buoy )^ slips @ $2.00 each TOTAL DUE THIS APPLICATION LATE FEE - Renewals $ S - 7 6? - ^ o cro f(^ ^ tOiT^ .'VPUC irthe renewal license applications received after Mar^ 1 unxes^ the application is accompanied bv a late fee of $25♦Q0_^ REVIEW PROCEDURE When a complete appl: will be reviewed by th or unusual application Marina Committee, application after compl - received, the application . ' 1 and, in the case of new / Planning Commission and icil will pass upon the 2W. THE SUBJECT DOCK MAY BE INSTALLED AND/OR OPENED FOR USE ONLY UPON APPROVAL OP THE LICENSE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code, the applicant hereby requests the Orono City Council to review this Joint Use Dock License Application, and agrees and authorizes the City of Orono and the City’s employees and agents to enter upon the property at any reasonable time to perform safety and code compliance inspections. S loned a.Dated Page 5 of 5 A LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 402 EAST LAKE STREET WAY21ATA. MINNESOTA 55391 TELEPHONE 612/473-7033 EUGENE R. STROMMEN. EXECUTIVE OIRECTOFI May 1, 1990 David H. Cochran. Chair Foxhill Association Albort a Vic# Chair O Subj: 1990 Multiple Dock and Mooring Area License John taawnan. l^Maurar MiwnairlaMi OouglM e. BaMocic Spring Rarii Marvin BMhM N. Qralhwol JoSllan L. Hurr Cfono John Q. MaNnha Victoria K. Ptiiabury Mlnnatonha Thomaa W. Roosa Robart S. Sloeum Woodland 0 *, > ■ fr EK •• ; V. ^ lifniiililBirinr The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board of Directors has approved your multiple dock license for the 1990 season. The license with stipulations is enclosed. Any change will require a new license* We are also pleased to confirm approval of your application for a temporary dock extension. The details of your dock extension approval are as presented on the approved site plan, enclosed. Considerations which went into your temporary dock extension are< The extension is temporary for the low water period during which the Lake level is below 928.0' and declared by the LMCD Board. 2. Temporary extensions must be renewed annually. 3.There must be no navigation hazard to your temporary dock extension. The Water Patrol will serve to assure this con dition is maintained. 4. All temporary extensions utilize seasonal docks 5.No additional or larger watercraft are allowed beyond which you ars licensed or permitted by the LMCD Code, as described In your application material* Sincerely, LAKjyilNNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Eugene Director enci license, site plan c/enci municipality DNR LMCD Inspector 90-20 $ 3'^0»00 29 WSU 13 BSU Units MULTIPLE DOCK AND MOORING AREA LICENSE LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT County of Hennepin, Slate of Minnesota ss. I(Hh?TrcasureI"ot Mid LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT as required by the Ordinances of said District and complied with all the requiremems of said Ordinances necessary for obtaining this License : Three Hundred Forty & No/100's DOLLARS NOW, THEREFORE, By order of the Board of Directors of said District and by virtue hereof, the said Foxhtll Association______________________________is hereby licensed and authorized to operate a multiple dock subject to existing and future density policies and regulations adopted by the District s Board of Directors. for the period of the ending 19 ~ subject to ail the conditions and provisions of said Ordinances. Aliy special event requires a special permit. Violations of the provisions of are punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days or imposition of a fine of not more than $700. or both./liiiasaaaiwaue a#/ ---------------------------------------------- Given under my hand and the corporate seal of the LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISFRICT this . - day A.D. 19 7 // Exeenfive Director Eugene R. Strommen Dayld__H;_Cochran !■ RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO ISSUE A JOINT USB DOCK LICENSE TO FOZBILL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS NOTED HEREIN FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 1991 TO DECEMBER 31, 1991 NHBRBAS, the City of Orono, hereinafter "City" is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota and has the authority and responsibility under Minnesota Statutes, State Statute 412, et. seq. and State Statute 462, et. seq., to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City and other members of the public within the City; and WHEREAS, the City shares concurrent jurisdiction over the primary harbor limit of the City of Orono with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the Department of Natural Resources of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the regulation of the navigable waters involves an exercise of police power of the State, LMCD, and the City of Orono, all of which have adopted rules to ensure to all equal enjoyment of the public rights and equal protection from activity on or near the public waters and on the land wit**:.n the City which, if unregulated, may be detrimental to the public healrn, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, the regulations of the DNR, LMCD, and the City of Orono regulate the property rights of the riparian owners both as to residential o%mers and the commercial marina owners to the extent prohibiting any interference with the public waters adjoining their property. The LMCD, DNR and City of Orono must fulfill their trusteeship over the public waters by protecting against interference by anyone, including those who assert the conmonlaw rights of riparian owners, whether or not they be commercial marinas or residential ovmers; WHEREAS, as to Lake Minnetonka, a mutual right of enjoyment exists between and is shared by riparian owners and the public generally, no one riparian owner has exclusive privileges over Lake Minnetonka. The only additional private right that any riparian owner may have over the public generally is to construct one dock to the navigable depth of the public waters. There can be no dispute but that the public generally and each riparian owner to Lake Minnetonka has the right to use the entire surface area of Lake Minnetonka for all suitable purposes in common with all other riparian owners. This right is a right not only to members of the public but the right to each riparian owner. Page 1 of 2 This mutual right of enjoyment which is shared by riparian owrers and the public generally includes the recreational benefits of the lake such as boating and fishing therein; the riparian owner has no exclusive privileges to these rights; and NHBRBAS, Lake Minnetonka is capable of substantial beneficial public use only as long as all riparian users of the lake are regulated in such a way as to ensure there is no abuse of the limited riparian rights; and NHBRBASy the City has adopted reasonable regulations regarding the construction and use of lakeshore and dock facilities when such facilities are used and maintained by three or more familiesr which regulations include the annual licensing of Joint Use Docks pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code; and NHBRBASf the purpose of this Resolution is to set forth the above noted general conditions and concerns and the following special conditions as they relate to an application for an annual Joint Use Dock License described on Exhibit A attachedr NONr THBRBFORB, BB IT RBSOLVBD, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby directs the Staff to issu'-i a Joint Us«8 Dock License according to the facts and conditions noted on Exhibit A at;t<!iched. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono at their meeting on the 12th day of March, 1991. Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me on this 11th day of March, 1991, by Barbara A. Peterson 6 Dorothy M, Hallin, Mayor 4 City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 2 of 2 *- CITY OF ORONO EXHIBIT A RBSOLOTIOM NO. CONDITIONS OF ISSUANCE FOR ANNUAL JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE I. LICENSEE: Foxhill Homeowners Association Dock Address: 1801 Shoreline Drive Agent: Wayne Gustafson Address: 1000 Heritage Lane# Wayzata, MN 55391 Licensee is:unincorporated homeowner's group incorporated homeowner's association unincorporated club or recreation group incorporated club or recreation group other License Period - January Ir 1991 to December 31, 1991 II. BOAT DENSITY The number of in-place boat slips, lifts and buoys shall not exceed the number shown on the attached plan. Exhibits B-1 thru B-3, and in accordance with Resolution 938, in no case shall the number of authorized boat slips, lifts, or buoys exceed the number permitted in the prior year's license. Authorized Boat Density per attached plan: Bay Smith's Transient (Day use only) Slips Permanent Moorage Slips Boat Lifts Sub-Total: Slips at Dock Offshore Buoys Maximum Boats in Water Maximum Boats per prior license MAXIMUM BOAT DENSITY — :f^ % i,. ■b Exhibit A Resolution No. Page 2 Exceeding this naximum boat density# or exceeding the number of permitted slips# lifts or buoys is a violation of this license subject to revocation and/or prosecution for violation of Section 5.42 Subdivision 2 of the Orono Municipal Code. Ill• DOCK LAYOUT The dock structure or layout authorized by this license shall be as shown on attached Exhibits B-1 thru B-3. Any changes in this layout shall be subject to prior review and approval cf the City Council. IV. SPECIAL CONDITIONS required for compliance with the ordinance of the City and/or the LNCD. The issuance of this license is subject to full conpliance with these conditions. Failure to comply with these conditions is cause for license revocation and/or prosecution by the City. 1. The maximum number of slips or moorings to be licensed in the future shall not exceed 16 provided that for any given year, the license shall be issued for no more than 1 boat per residence in the Poxhill Subdivision according to the findings set forth in the Resolution 1042 adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on the 12th day of June, 1979. 2. Winter storage of dock parts and sections shall be permitted on Outlot #1 between the time the dock is removed from the lake in the fall and June 1st of the following year. 3. Temporary dock extensions shall comply with all LMCD requirements. V. Nothing in this license shall confer upon any person for the benefit of any property any vested right to use Lake Minnetonka or the premises in a manner permitted by this resolution, but the use of Lake Minnetonka and the premises shall remain subject to such regulations and ordinances as the City and other competent regulatory authorities shall deem necessary from time to time in the public Interest. i ® • 1 • 1 r • ••t / fi*2*4726^ \\/L\62,?9 • % 1 •• QO.UNTY RD, ■■l■»i !. •;. — (.u<j •••» I /52 •, R>,2f<.0T l*M <2 C.U9 a< A/55 ‘02' JO f a?2 CB2.e5 A*yjriB'NO. -15 t*/? fO \ OK O.0.U, *.33V — 293 05 r»7fX3 ttfjffflv .-.xo r^a • I , t{l..vf • 3/0 *\1 /•?rs f-ff iiTsr r</w PlRMANtNT ObS; ctac»*(r9 irp3 • /.‘gh/ • • * J/a/ .. i"i- i \ ^*'• ••••*! I ; ~ cr.jrl- \ i •; I ixv* AiiVt4C9 -I :.v if.v.'f.v* •f I .vncvi. rfioAJ iof 8' • * k/. '3< Mill 4rSOO. :corr J4.\X; 1 —^.4 • • ..•; /• «?j fviis . ouTLor I MINNETONKA ’» 90 • / • •• * • •!* ^ / • '-.Vv •C'*Jrf- 7J \ SW/WS • bAY . I, , • funoiac • • X^'MbS • J 1:t £■•• /•• 42.66 • 1 1 ,-.1.1 ./2 3 -1/3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 V.A' 166.00 20' itIN. CAStHCur •■'•vis usr ^✓ N 20 ’////V c4CfA/fivr r/|0M .• /•noM wfsr cocx or r/iopos€o fAsrcRfi TfiAcr *“ 5 /%• - C# VD S I. c. nr rrnM rn^r #i*nn/irrn t ' iteiMiitii S: r- V-' 6-.‘- f ■• r K C'v; ,‘f >-.■' A A-'; ' ■ ^ tr> t lS-:2 •j 9 J :i I I ^a/DO^ ___L / I I hl-toPT* t^EA J P^2.L CAAEti. T—I J J 3 Of i 1 1-1 JAt^'Cs: % • \ S.)<i*tB>rf' ®’'* Per*-. lioeJi U^oucr’ f"OKMi*-C. DOCI^ 4'1^/C<JT’ . M !rt - / 3 f*« /f9 O rtiTiinfiii ^. lit! ! ! .1 'll > i I I • • i i I t I 1 lUZ •I 1 i ■a ■ CITY OF OP.ONO P.O. BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY, MN 55323 473-7357 LICENSE YEAR 19 9/ (association) tA ANNUAL JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION^ Pursuant to Orono Municipal Code Section 5.42 Date Form Sent by City Staff fI Date Application Returned to City P / Fee Recived $ \A c ;Bv EmoloveeA ^ ^ Section 5.42 Subdivision 2. LICENSE REQUIRED - It is unlawful for any (group or association of persons or families, more than two in number, whether incorporated or not) to engage or participate in...joint use (of any lakeshore property) without first having obtained a license therefor from the City. PLEASE COMPLETE ALL ITEMS AND SUBMIT SIGNED APPLICATION, REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS, AND LICENSE APPLICATION FEE TO THE CITY CLERK BY MARCH 1 OF THE LICENSE YEAR. ASSOCIATION INFORMATION 1. Association title or name (if any )/l'inVNts v» 2. Lake Bay ^L.e^ cu'cf ^ 3. Person responsible for this application: Name C-coCtSi/cctc_____Phone G^/ Mailing Address 6 6 Su'ATe-i AVS. A'q . Uy Relationship to association / Page 1 of 5 iibiB i!' (' pi' - EROSION AMD SSDIMglTATION CO??rROL 16. Shorsline is protec-ed by (checic applisaoxe i^eas); X stone ri? rap. ___wed seaa-l. ____ tetal sea-.-ail.ccnciir?^? -€?9.vsi.i grass and vegetation only, o^hsr (specify) Depth of water at shoreline is 3_ f*; ati 50 -‘‘i- is —, /<• "/vjiVAat 100 ft. out is ^ ♦ 7/y/i /X BEQfTTPg^ ATTACHMENTS The following must accompany this application: A. DOCK PLAN - ALL APPLICATIONS B. A dock plaAf drawn to scales showing the shoreline width of this property* the side property lines and the location, layout and dimensions of all docks, slips and buoys. If off-street parking, dry storage or other on-land functions are intended, these also should be shown on the plan. UNINCORPORATED GROUPS OR ASSOCIATIONS 1. A list of the names and mailing addresses of all members and/or slip users. 2.A certified copy of the by-laws or agreement for joint use. Note: This copy is not required if the applicant initials and enrtifies the following statement: "This is a renewal application and our joint use dock is to be operated under the same by-laws or agreement originally made in _ _ _ _ _ _ (state year) and on file with the City." Applicant's initials C. INCORPORATED CLUBS OR ASSOCIATIONS 1. 2. \ Hat of the naates, mailing addresses and titles of all corporation officers. A Statement as to the total number of members in the club or association. members. A certified copy of the articles of incorporation and by-laws of the corporation. Note: These copies are not required if the applicant initials and certifies the following statement: "This is a renewal application and our joint use dock is to be operated under the same articles of incorporation and/or by-laws as originally made or last amended in (state year) and on file with the City. Applicant's initials Page 4 of 5 r- ■ KK f ■ '•*. ■ ?:• M f D. ANNUAL LICENSE FEE - ALL APPLICATIONS Joint Use Dock License Application fee according to the current City Fee Schedule Initial Application Fee Renewal Joint Use Fee, per year $ $2:0 Plus Slip Fee for each permanent t^.oriicu s TOTAL DUE THIS APPLICATION LATE FEE - Renewals C (tetii'r TT> /llz. Ar<*^*ac..a *>- /o '■ c iietoi-rTTj /T1Z. I Applications for renewal of licenses shall be made no later than March 1 of the license year. The City sha 11 not accept renewal license applications received after March 1 unless the application is accompanied by a late fee of $25.00. REVIEW PROCEDURE When a complete application is received, the application will be reviewed by the City Council and, in the case of new or unusual applications, also by the Planning Commission and Marina Committee. The Council will pass upon the . application after complete review. THE SUBJECT DOCK MAY BE INSTALLED AND/OR OPENED FOR USE ONLY UPON APPROVAL OP THE LICENSE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code, the applicant hereby requests the Orono City Council to review this Joint Use Dock License Application, and agrees and authorizes the City of Orono and the City's employees and agents to enter upon the property at any reasonable time to perform safety and code compliance inspections. Sianed/f'-^v^/^Dated Page 5 of 5 uiAeiu ii'e» i —.—-— 1MCS PAV ‘0IRANSFER CNUff£( Lwu 80 669 CEORGE B.HICK£Y.AUUilOR HCNMffNN OMNrV. MINN. siejisr^ REGISTERED UUiL JUHVET NU. ][ g A HSKHEFIM COUl.'TX, MIMNESOTA ^ r«<F;s pavabuc in ttf ON WITHIN ocscniaco PnOPEIITY ARF- paid C. Ci isa^ id' ^•s*“ '.A. r C !4k*i -Eat! tm0 of Ttaef C 7E: B. LOT 2 i 3Piv: OFGoy l£ iN 3FC.2£ fTN R.e3lV iy:'I mf £atf 4B7,^l iTir/ ///»# of Gcv f Lof Jp ^chon 2Z, TU7Np /?/JAV ZZ4 74 J20f4 •c 109}r - " -o STREATER'S COVE (r* = 100') it C#r Htnn Co tmth tron \ » ■■I J, .• i y:- LAKE MINNETONKA r MINNETONKA POWER SQUADRON Officers elected January 12. 1991 Commander;Gary Nissen £721 Tartan Curve Eden Prairie, MN 5534G Executive Officer:Dennis G. Peterson 175S Essex Hoad Minnetonka, MN 5o34i Educational Officer;Rodert Stierna 193M Snoreline Drive Wavrata, MN S5391 Administrative Officer: Julia Hossini 1114(3 uDton Ave. So. Bloornindton, MN dinGi r- : w Secretary: Treasurer: Linda Golle 1S45 Watertown Road Lone Lake, MN 55356 BayIon F Loosdrock 6341 Sumter Ave. No. 0«v«d H. Cochran. Chair Oiaonwood Albert a Vico Chair Jan BoowHiOfOl. Socratary John Lowmon. Itooaoror Minnotrtaf Oougloa 6. Sobcocic Spring Pork MOfvin Bloriin 1bnko Bay Jamaa N. OrathiMOi Cjcolaior joSNor* C. Hurr Orono John Q. Mollnko Victeha Thomaa Moitinaon Woyaaia Hobart K. PiHabury MInnoionka Shofowood Thomaa W. Raaaa Hobor?e ”*Siocum Wbodlartd i ^»; LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT WAY2ATA. MINNESOTA 55391 TELEPHONE 612/473-7033402 EAST LAKE STREET EUGENE R. STROMMEN. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR May 30, 1990 Minnetonka Power Squadron Subj: 1990 Multiple Dock and Mooring Area License The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board of Directors has approved your multiple dock license for the 1990 season. The license with stipulations is enclosed. Any change win requlrB b new license. We are also pleased to confirm approval of your application for a temporary dock extension. The details of your dock extension approval are as presented on the approved site plan, enclosed. Considerations which went into your temporary dock extension are: 1. The extension is temporary for the low water period during which the Lake level is below 928.0' and declared by the LMCD Board. 2. Temporary extensions must be renewed annually. 3.Th.r. »u.t b. no navigation hazard to your temporary dock extension. The Water Patrol will serve to assure this con dition is maintained. 4 5 All temporary extensions utilize seasonal docks. Ho additional or larger watercraft are allowed beyond which you are licensed or permitted by the LMCD Code, as describ in your application material. TU..I. you for your cooperation and care as you use your extension during this year's lou water emergency period. Sincerely, lake J^NNETONKA jajNSERVATION DISTRICT iugeneI^sfe?omiBien , Executive Director P.S. The Board requests that you submit a more definitive site plan of your temporary extension, to Include dock dimensions and extensions from the 929.4 shoreline. enct license, site ^ c/enc: municlpality^0tr»« DHR LMCD Inspector 90-50 tMCO S 995.00 94^1 WSU 45 BSU Units MULTIPLE DOCK AND MOORING AREA LICENSE LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota ss. WHEREAS, MINNETONKA POWER SQUADRON c/o Bradley Herman, 6221 Mallory Lane, Eden Prairie, MN 55346 has paid the sum of Hundred Ninety Five & NQ/1QQ*S .DOLLARS 10 cheTYeasurer of said LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT as required by the Ordinances of said District and complied with all the requirements of said Ordinances necessary for obtaining this License: NOW, THEREFORE, By order of the Board of Directors of said District and by virtue hereof, the said _______________Minnetonka Power Squadron is hereby licensed and authorized to operate a multiple dock subject to existing and future density policies and regulations adopted by the District's Board and to temporary low water variance granted 3/28/90- - - - - --of DirectoR. for the period of the 1990 Dock season and ending Deeemb^g 31 19 90 subject to all the conditions and provisions of said Ordinances. An» seedci evem requires a tpedei permit. Violations of the provisions of the District’s Code of Ordinances are punUiable by Imprisonment for not more than 90 days or imposition of a fine of not more than $700. or tx)tn. Given under my hand and the corporate seal of the LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT this 19 J52- _ /y / CaDlre(«OT"^u8*o^Strommenchairman Devld H» Cochran / _ ---------------------- - '-...ooi.ei •• 6ai3t * N0» .. ‘ •* _ - —^ %• rit: MOT fo*. i^Jff___ ^ccKS^iV.iT? ™/9o' ^CK ^ To #7r' I .Js’u/Aa>|^ Oreittn^K, ifM TeMFoCARy e«TtMS(oA» R^uer . 'ji*c*h INTERFSETATIVE DRAWING OF BIG ISIAIID FACILITl RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO ISSUE A JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE TO MINNETONKA FONER SQUADRON SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS NOTED HEREIN FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 1991 TO DECEMBER 31, 1991 IfHBRBASf the City of Orono, hereinafter "City" is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota and has the authority and responsibility under Minnesota Statutes, State Statute 412, et. seq. and State Statute 462, et. seq., to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City and other members of the public within the City; and NHERBAS, the City shares concurrent jurisdiction over the primary harbor limit of the City of Orono with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the Department of Natural Resources of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the regulation of the navigable waters Involves an exercise of police power of the State, LMCD, and the City of Orono, all of which have adopted rules to ensure to all equal enjoyment of the public rights and equal protection from activity on or near the public waters and on the land within the City which, if unregulated, may be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, the regulations of the DNR, LMCD, and the City of Orono regulate the property rights of the riparian owners both as to residential owners and the commercial marina owners to the extent prohibiting any interference with the public waters adjoining their property. The LMCD, DNR and City of Orono must fulfill their trusteeship over the public waters by protecting against interference by anyone, including those who assert the common law rights of riparian owners, whether or not they be commercial marinas or residential o«mers; WHEREAS, as to Lake Minnetonka, a mutual right of enjoyment exists between and is shared by riparian owners and the public generally, no one riparian o%mer has exclusive privileges over Lake Minnetonka. The only additional private right that any riparian owner may have over the public generally is to coni£.tru7t one dock to the navigable depth of the public waters. There can be no oispute but that the public generally and each riparian owner to Lake Minnetonka has the right to use the entire surface area of Lake Minnetonka for all suitable purposes in common with all other riparian owners. This right is a right not only to members of the public but the right to each riparian owner. Page 1 of 2 111 IL> i, (- This mutual right of enjoyment which is shared by riparian owners and the public generally includes the recreational benefits of the lake such as boating and fishing therein; the riparian owner has no exclusive privileges to these rights; and WHSRBAS# Lake Minnetonka is capable of substantial beneficial public use only as long as al 1 riparian users of the lake are regulated in such a way as to ensure there is no abuse of the limited riparian rights; and NBBRBAS, the City has adopted reasonable regulations regarding the construction and use of lakeshore and dock facilities when such facilities are used and maintained by three or more families, which regulations include the annual licensing of Joint Use Docks pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code; and IIHBRBASf the purpose of this Resolution is to set forth the above noted general conditions and concerns and the following special conditions 1^8 ^hey relate to an application for an annual Joint Use Dock License described on Exhibit A attached. HOWt THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby directs the Staff to issue a Joint Use Dock License according to the facts and conditions noted on Exhibit A attached. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono at their meeting on the 11th day of March, 1991. Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 11th day of March, 1991, by Barbara A. Peterson & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor 4 City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 2 of 2 e s^' !r.: ..t-* r ?■■ CITY OP ORONO BZBIBIT A RBSOLDTION NO. CONDITIONS OF ISSUANCE FOR ANNUAL JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE I. LICENSEE: Minnetonka Power Squadron Dock Address: Big Island, Record Lot #5 Agent: Baylon F. Loosbrock Address: 6341 Sumter Ave N, Minneapolis, MN 55428 Licensee is:unincorporated homeowner's group Incorporated homeowner's association unincorporated club or recreation group incorporated club or recreation group other License Period - January 1, 1991 to December 31, 1991 II• BOAT DENSITY The number of in-place boat slips, lifts and buoys shall not exceed the number shown on the attached plan. Exhibits B and C, and in accordance with Resolution 938, in no case shall the number of authorized boat slips, lifts, or buoys exceed the number permitted in the prior year's license. Authorized Boat Density per attached plan: Bay Lower Lake Transient (Day use only) Slips Permanent Moorage Slips Boat Lifts Sub-Total: Slips at Dock Offshore Buoys Maximum Boats in Water Maximum Boats per prior license MAXIMUM BOAT DENSITY 1- r • L ■tl Exhibit A Resolution No. Page 2 Exceeding this maximiim boat density# or exceeding the number of permitted slips# lifts or buoys is a violation of this license subject to revocation and/or prosecution for violation of Section 5.42 Subdivision 2 of the Orono Municipal Code. Ill. DOCK LAYOUT The dock structure or layout authorized by this license shall be as shown on attached Exhibits B and C. Any changes in this layout shall be subject to prior review and approval of the City Council. IV. SPECIAL CONDITIONS required for compliance with the ordinance of the City and/or the LMCD. The issuance of this license is subject to full conpliance with these conditions. Failure to comply with these conditions is cause for license revocation and/or prosecution by the City. 1. Temporary dock extensions shall comply with all LMCD requirements V. Nothing in this license shall confer upon any person for the benefit of any property any vested right to use Lake Minnetonka or the premises in a nuinner permitted by this resolution# but the use of Lake Minnetonka and the premlses shall remain subject to such regulations and ordinances as the City and other competent regulatory authorities shall deem necessary from time to Lime in the public interest. J • ^ «• 1 • / . . • / • # • •• r:r \ %• \ , • • .* • * •• , • * • • • .\ •• *. • * /\ ' • • N • • Sain/ifip : . DrflifiAg^ DitcK ^ rn * 01 >s t ^ 5 I S tji I .o —I I- s i 1 •I ALVER COUNTr HENNEF]i (Nunttnc \ i R lA C 3 W I m lHTERP.RETATIVh*DRAWING OF DIG ISLAND FACILITY •Scalo r* - 200* ‘ • • ■* • f(U^ •-: . ••• • r / p lifla't I \ I - '■••fOOB.Sl •- 6JZ3/iZJ. 7o 1294 I f 0«. \^tt Suif^Atyf^ Dp8lflA3^ ^ r\-+ L ?EMOU£ DOCIC5 f| ^***#*^ \\ ' T>ecKS 3.*/,4T:7 to/90' __________^ 'Mck ^ TO i7y/ TCM7olEAl^y &vcTEM5(0Ai i^eOue. ^ INTERPRETATIVE DRAWING OF BIG ISLAND FACILITY #P^ r flv.‘ »t- L CITY OF ORONO P.O. BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY, MN 55323 473-7357 LICENSE YEAR 19 (association) ANNUAL JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION Pursuant to Orono Municipal Code Section 5.42 Date Form Sent by City Staff Date Application Returned to City Fee Recived $ (AiaMe^ ______ By Employee Section 5.42 Subdivision 2. LICENSE REQUIRED - It is unlawful for any (group or association of persons or families, more than two in number, whether incorporated or not) to engage or participate in...joint use (of any lakeshore property) without first having obtained a license therefor from the City. PLEASE COMPLETE ALL ITEMS AND SUBMIT SIGNED APPLICATION, REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS, AND LICENSE APPLICATION FEE TO THE CITY CLERK BY MARCH 1 OF THE LICENSE YEAR. ASSOCIATION INFORMATION 1. Association title or name 2. Lake /IfI ______ (if anvl Vl/ftl-LeS/ftlnf impTotJurwM llffi rtrejunAii____________Bay 3. Person responsible for this application: Name Phone /?• Mailing Address ^C//y ^ Ai Relationship to association Page 1 of 5 -—---- F- ^ M: ;tV h. 5. 8. Association is (checic anplicacle itens): vninccrrcrntad hor.ec*..r.sr's ^rcuo. incorcorsLad Honecvner’s Assoc_?^icn. unincorporated club or recreation group incorporated club or recreation group Principal purpose of Joint -ose dock is (check applicable itass): )/ provide boat nooring and lake access for residential property. provide sviaming access, beach, or offshore dock. provide a club or association gathering place for activities. 6. Dock is located on (check applicable item): one r.en:.‘tr'3 pri ’/ate property ^ easement or outlot owned in common. property leased by the group/associaticn. property owned by the group/assooiation. List Dock location ar.d ownersnip information: street address _ _ _ _ _ _ __ legal property description PID # listed property owner(s) Names of abutting lakeshore property owners: (North/West)____________0^ O (South/East)IMkv (Name Address) j^eeAjL 2-70 } kvft-liioa iXXtlANJl. (Name + Address) Names of other affected property owners: (Name + Address) (attach sheet if necessary) 2 of 5 in H-II J i'. 3.Insurance Ccverage - The Jointly used doci is insured 'ey cna o;' zzs fsilou-ln^; propemy evner's hon:ecvner's policy. separate ^roup/associaticn cvr.ed policy. list tne following ini’omation: name of insxired C• ^ name of insurance carrier name of insurance agency f^CT^/A^ ^ policy no.effective date of coverage f Public liability, per occurence 3 $ih $/l^) 10.Security and policing of tne Jointly used iocic and property is provided by (check applicable items): fencing. )/ security lighting. propeity owner's presence. contract security service, other (specifjO 1X)CK IttttTION 11. List Dock Use Area Specifications: Width of shoreline; _ ft. ,v>i Length of aaln doc.k from shore; .Dock setbacks from side property lines at shore; 12* Dock Construction (check applicable items): ft. and __ seasonal dock (relocated or replaced each year). _ permanent piling with seasonal deck. \/ wooden decking. _metal decking. permanent piling and decking. 13. List Dock Accessories: number of fire extinguishers available at the dock NiOBber of life preservers available at the dock _ _ _ _ /» 14. List number of slips in each category ("slips" Includes boat lifts): Transient (day use only) slips . Transient (day use) off-shore buoys Pexnanent moorage slips ^_ _ _. Permanent moorage off-shore buoys Dzy storage (rack) slips 15. Maximum number of boats at the dock List number of off-street parking spaces available for users of the Joint use dock. Parking, If provided must not be separated from the dock by any public zoad. spaces. 3 of 5 ft. ft. r r-'. f- r ■ ' EROSION AND SSPIMEMTATIOM CONTBOL 16. Shorsline is protected by (checic app^-icable iters): stoas rip rap. j£_ ’•rood seavail. retai seavall.concrs-^ sesvall. grass and vegetation only, other (specify) / 17. Depth of vater at shoreline is 50 ft. cut is at 100 ft. out is . REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS The following must accompamy this application; A. DOCK PLAN - ALL APPLICATIONS B. .U A dock plan, drawn to scale, showing the shoreli.ne width of this property, the property lines and the location, layout and dimensions of all docks, slips and buoys. If off-street parking, dry storage or other on-land functions are intended, these also should be shown on the plan. ^ UNINCORPORATED GROUPS OR ASSOCIATIONS '' ^ 1. A list of the names and mailing addresses of all member/and/or slip users. 2.A certified copy of the by-laws or agreement for joint use. Note: This copy is not reguired if the applicant initials and certifies the following statement: "This is a renewal application and our joint use dock is to be Qp^xated under the same by-laws or agreement originally made in ivi Y (state year) and on file with the City." C. INCORPO _ Applicant's initials CLUBS OR ASSOCIATIONS 1. 2. list of the names, mailing addresses and titles of all corporation officers. statement as to the total number of members in the club or association, members. 3.A certified copy of the articles of incorporation and by-laws of the corporation. Note: These copies are not required if the applicant initials and certifies the following statement; "This is a renewal application and our joint use dock is to be operated under the same articles of incorporation and/or by-laws as Qj^iginally made or last amended in (state year) and on file with the City." Applicant's initials Pace 4 of 5 D. ANNUAL LICENSE FES - ALL APPLICATIONS Joint Use Dock License Application fee according to th current City Fee Schedule Initial Application Fee Renewal Joint Use Fee# per year $ S o- Flus Slip Fee for each permanent moorage slip# lift# dry stack# or buoy S slips @ $2.00 each $ TOTAL DOE THIS APPLICATION $ LATE FEE - Renewals 10 OO - 30 Ooe^f Ay'/neAjT ” Applications for renewal of licenses shall be made no later than March 1 of the license year. The Citv shall not accept ' renewa1 license applications received after March ^ unless the application is accompanied by a late fee of $25.00. REVIEW PROCEDURE When a complete applicar.ion is received, the application will be reviewed by the City Council and# in the case of new or unusual applications# also by the Planning Commission and Marina Committee. The Council will pass upon the • application after complete review. THE SUBJECT DOCK MAY BE INSTALLED AND/OR OPENED FOR USE ONLY UPON APPROVAL OP THE LICENSE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code# the applicant hereby requests the Orono City Council to review this Joint Use Dock License Application# and agrees and n A f"A U t 6L 7. ^//y V?±fSi/_ • •• 4t« la-h //$/•>- _ ^ 7(" /At V7/a‘(S9 \. Z7<ji- l/l^/J^^V 7/ Ui^ S cj 3 y?/ -o7tfo, • • l*t v: K. . .i . I ;• • • •I! -EbUd. W-• V» »• • • • • • • m « V RZ3CLUTI0N .^ -367 .1.-. ". Sy e M • • • • ••* •• m • r* #••• UPwC>.ooK^ CooTuoT Ooc-K . Up*M out a e4L&: R\P f\Kp Wl»a^ !'.■ VALTER'S PORT (Morch)t subject to Order o£ A-25-84 /90ft *5*0 - / <? 8C^ - ;?> • - Sf- • •• ^ • e • 0 • • Suxp \ ^ ^ L UoT ^ 3l 3 Vor \ - <5iu A H' . '-err \ au \ . t-* .. ^ • "S vor s • e • *• •1 • • .• •au I iH- ^i / f rr-- ro IcfBlo-S'^ /<ie7-S!t> • m* •. V Pftv op \-0-t \ C«k(v.t^Ko“'QAs NN^VC'rtTI RBSOLDTION DIRECTING STAFF TO ISSUE A JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE TO HALTER'S PORT MAINTSNAHCE « IMPROVBIBIIT ASSOCIATION SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS NOTED HEREIN FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 1991 TO DECSffiBR 31» 1991 WHBREASr the City of Orono» hereinafter "City" is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota and has the authority and responsibility under Minnesota Statutes, State Statute 412, et. seq. and State Statute 462, et. seq., to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City and other nembers of the public within the City; and NHERBAS, the City shares concurrent jurisdiction over the primary harbor limit of the City of Orono with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the Department of Natural Resources of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the regulation of the navigable waters involves an exercise of police power of the State, LMCD, and the City of Orono, all of which have adopted rules to ensure to all equal enjoyment of the public rights and equal protection from activity on or near the public waters and on the land within the City which, if unregulated, may be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, the regulations of the DNR, LMCD, and the City of Orono regulate the property rights of the riparian owners both as to residential owners and the commercial marina owners to the extent prohibiting any interference with the public waters adjoining their property. The LMCD, DNR and City of Orono must fulfill their trusteeship over the public waters by protecting against interference by anyone, including those who assert the coromonlaw rights cof riparian owners, whether or not they be commercial marinas or residential owners; WHEREAS, as to Lake Minnetonka, a mutual . ight of enjoyment exists between and is shared by riparian owners and the public generally, no one riparian owner has exclusive privileges over La>.e Minnetonka. The only additional private right that any riparian owner may have over the public generally is to construct one dock to the navigable depth of the public waters. There can be no dispute but that the public generally and each riparian owner to Lake Minnetonka has the right to use the entire surface area of Lake Minnetonka for all suitable purposes in common with all other riparian owners. This right is a right not only to members of bhe public but the right to each riparian owner. Page 1 of 2 r , •• ft- This mutual right of enjoyment which is shared by riparian owners and the public generally includes the recreational benefits of the lake such as boating and fishing therein; the riparian owner has no exclusive privileges to these rights; and WHBRBAS* Lake Minnetonka is capable of substantial beneficial public use only as long as all riparian users of the lake are regulated in such a way as to ensure there is no abuse of the limited riparian rights; and NHBRBASf the City has adopted reasonable regulations regarding the construction and use of lakeshore and dock facilities when such facilities are used and maintained by three or more familiesr which regulations include the annual licensing of Joint Use Docks pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code; and WBBRBASt the purpose of this Resolution is to set forth the above noted general conditions and concerns and the following special conditions as they relate to an application for an annual Joint Use Dock License described on Exhibit A attached. HOW, THBRBPORB, BB IT KBSOLVBD, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby directs the Staff to issue a Joint Use Dock License according to che facts and conditions noted on Exhibit A attached. Adopced by the City Council of the City of Orono at their meeting on the 11th day of March, 1991. ATTEST: Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) 8S. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 11th day of March, 1991, by Barbara A. Peterson 6 Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor 4 City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 2 of 2 CITY OP ORONOEXHIBIT A RBSOLDTION NO. 3 the ?h as Leges cial 9d in rhtsj ding such hich It to hove lions ense City ense ting CONDITIONS OF ISSUANCE FOR ANNUAL JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE I. LICENSEE: Waltei*s Port Maintenance & Improvement Association Dock Address: 2699/2701 Kelly Avenue Agent: Charles E. Garrity Address: 2701 Kelly Avenue, Excelsior, MN 55331 Licensee is:unincorporated homeowner's group incorporated homeowner's association unincorporated club or recreation group incorporated club or recreation group other License Period - January 1, 1991 to December 31, 1991 II. BOAT DENSITY The number of in-place boat slips, lifts and buoys shall not exceed the number shown on the attached plan. Exhibit B, and in accordance with Resolution 938, in no case shall the number of authorized boat slips, lifts, or buoys exceed the number permitted in the prior year's license. Authorized Boat Density per attached plan: Bay Transient (Day use only) Slips Permanent Moorage Slips Carman Boat Lifts 11th ^r & said f- Sub-Total: Slips at Dock Offshore Buoys Maximum Boats in Water Maximum Boats per prior license MAXIMUM BOAT DENSITY 't V ■■ • if' Exhibit A Resolution No. Page 2 Exceeding this maximum boat density, or exceeding the number of permitted slips, lifts or buoys is a violation of this license subject to revocation and/or prosecution for violation of Section 5.42 Subdivision 2 of the Orono Municipal Code. Ill• DOCK LAYOUT The dock structure or layout authorized by this license shall be as shovm on attached Exhibit B, Any changes in this layout shall be subject to prior review and approval of the City Council. IV. SPECIAL CONDITIONS required for compliance with the ordinance of the City and/or the LMCD. The issuance of this license is subject to full compliance with these conditions. Failure to comply with these conditions is cause for license revocation and/or prosecution by the City. 1.Variances granted for 1991: a) West property line (extension of west line of Lot 2, Block 2, Walter's Port) - 10* required, zero setback proposed b) Southeast property line (extension of southeast line of Outlot 2, Walter's Port) - 10' required, zero setback proposed 2. The five slips are approved for use by the following properties located in the plat of Walter's Port: Slip 1 - Lot 2, Block 2 Slip 2 *■ Lot 2, Block 2 Slip 3 - Lot 1, Block 2 Slip 4 o Lot 1, Block 1 Slip 5 *■ Lot 5, Block 3 (part of Lot 1, Carman Bay Heights) 3. City must be notified immedlately of any change in use or configuration of the dock. 4. All boats permanently moored at this joint use dock must be registered to the applicant property owners. 5. Lot 5, Block 3 (part of Lot 1, Carman Bay Heights) is allowed four boats maximum (1 of lagoon, 3 at outer lakeshore). V. Nothing in this license shall confer upon any person for the benefit of any property any vested right to use Lake Minnetonka or the premises in a manner permitted by this resolution, but the use of Lake Minnetonka and the premises shall remain subject to such regulations and ordinances as the City and other competent regulatory authorities shall deem necessary from time to time in the public interest. i r * ••• • • • • > • RE3CLUriCN.«_____ eyni-e^'n—g • • • • •• • s •w • • — V x.*» %•• • \** •• • • «■» « V P ----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------- - - ■ — XSKC^OOhl CooTuoT Ooc-K . '-J'.MouT • • «• • WI. ‘6. CITY OF ORONO P.O. BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY, MN 55323 473-7357 LICEMSS YEAR 19 9/: (association)rrrv rc r.r.rtm u t » i. Af^^rz . .r*r»'Tcu u*iUl r xLm ♦ 7 ? 1 7/»rViMwvv ANNUAL JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION LTVUl 4.i\9 4,'X r -r^«r,r_*r: urt-* vm# I MmVM IWV Pursuant to Orono Municipal Code Section 5.4^,cool kOl no: ,'ii VJL/ 4.^/ Date Form Sent by City StafEf 1 Date Application Returned to City // - c_ Fee Recived $7 By Employee Section 5.42 Subdivision 2. LICENSE REQUIRED - It i , unlawful for any (^roup or association of persons or families, more than two in number/ whether incorporated or not) to engage or participate in...joint use (of any lakeshore property) without first having obtained a license therefor from the City. PLEASE COMPLETE ALL ITEMS AND SUBMIT SIGNED APPLICATION, REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS, AND LICENSE APPLICATION FEE TO THE CITY CLERK BY • MARCH 1 OF THE LICENSE YEAR. ASSOCIATION INFORMATION 1. Association title or name (if any) 2. Lake ftlwnctbnkt_ _ _ _ Bay_ _ _ _Arm_ _ _ _ _ _ 3. Person responsible for this application: Name _ _ _ _ _Phone u>.an-^0^ h. Mailing Address SSM03 Relationship to association OtonCt* Page 1 of 5 au u A I I % A -T. rI:'- >: h. /•o. 8. Association is (checs applicable itans): % r^xT\\\ uninccrpcratsd ncr.ec*..T:er’s incorcora'csd Eomecwner ’s Asso-iacion uoincoirporated club or recreation ^roup incorcorated club or recreation group 5, Principal purpose o? Joint use dccic is (cnecs appuicaoue i>»ec:s); provide boat mooring and laice access for residential property orovide sviamiing access, beach, or offshore dock. orovide a club or association gathering place for acuiviv*es. Dock is located on (check applicable item): a uL I__i'tv.. ‘y pri-/ate property. easement or cutlot owned in common property leased by the group/association. property owned by the group/association. List Dock location and ownersnip i.nfomaticn: street address legal property description n»\n n ft. i>tz_ _ _ , PID # >0.w. fate).-S s ^ w «n H8«5 listed property owner(s)U.RiaV\arA 7.ucV«*>^m Names of abutting lakeshore property owners: (Morth/west) a.V>ftr ^6as (Name'’+ Address) fW«.A lt.^S s-t-. (Name + Address) Naioes of other affected property owners: (Name + Address) (attach sheet if necessary) 2 of 5 J r fp 1.h V- ir-K'.' « ■ ‘•I.. s rzsurance Ccver^se - Ths Jciz-ly '^ei doc> is insured sy ona of the fsllo-^n*: property cvner’s honecvner's policy. X separate group/associoticn ovnsd policy. list the foilcwlng inr'orr.ation; name of insured name of insiirance carrier lAa»v»*psV»\^g. Usor^nAC^ Co name of insurance agency policy no.effective date of coverage A—| amount of coverage; Public liability, per person, per occurence $^^|OoOjOOp Public liability, per occurence $ OflOiftgB Security and policing of the Jointly used dock and property is provided by (check applicable items): fencing, ji security lighting.property ovner's presence. contract security service, other (specify) DOCK IHPORMATION ll. List Dock Use Area Specifications: Width of shoreline; ft. Length of main dock from shore; ft. Dock setbacks from side property lines at shore; SC> ft. and 30 ft. 12* Dock Construction (check applicable items): a seasonal dock (relocated or replaced each year). _ _ permanenn piling with seasonal deck. jlC wooden decking. metal decking. permanent piling and decking. 13. Llat Dock Accessories: tfunber of fire extinguishers available at the dock \ Number of life preservers available at the dock 14. List number of slips in each category ("slips'' Includes boat l^fts): Transient (day use only) slips Q . Transient (day use) off-shore buoys O . Pemaaent moorage slips _____T Pennanent moorage off-shore buoys O Dry storage (rack) slips CL Maximum number of boats at the dock 15.List number of off-street parking spaces available for users of the joint use dock. Parking, if provided must not be separated from the dock by any public road. spaces. 3 of 5 W'p- 1^'.. h\ I' f.- < ■■ EBDSIOS AHD SEDIMgrTATION CC??TH)L 16. Siiorsline is protected oy (ccscic applicao-e itesis); stone rip rap.•■ocd seava 1 •~etal seawall.coacrese seawall. grass and vegetation only, other (specify) Depth of water at snoreiine is 50 ft. cut ^s _^j[-, at 100 ft. out is . IRED ATTACHMENTS The following must accompany this application: A. DOCK PLAN - ALL APPLICATIONS B. C. A dock plan, dra%m to scale, showing the shoreline width of this property, the property lines and the location, layout and dimensions of all docks, slips and buoys. If off-street parking, dry storage or other on-land functions are intended, these also should be shown on the plan. UNINCORPORATED GROUPS OR ASSOCIATIONS 1. A list of the names and mailing addresses of all menbers and/or slip users. A certified ccpy of the by-laws or agreement for joint use. Note: This2. copy is not re^uire^ if the applicant initials and certifies the following statement: "This is a renewal application and our joint use dock is to be operated under the same by-laws or agreement originally made in \So D (state year) and on file with the City." 4^Applicant's initials INCORPORATED CLUBS OR ASSOCIATIONS 1. A list of the names, mailing addresses and titles of all corporation officers. A statement as to the total number of members in the clxib or association.2. members. 3.A certified copy of the articles of incorporation and by-laws of the corporation. Mote: These copies are not required if the applicant initials and certifies the following statement: "This is a renewal application and our joint use dock is to be operated under the same articles of incorporation and/or by-laws as originally made or last amended in (state year) and on file with the City." Applicant's initials Pace 4 of 5 i.>«•1 ■P::- r ‘■r-’ D. ANNUAL LICENSE FEE - ALL APPLICATIONS Joint Use Dock License Application fee according to the current City Fee Schedule Initial Application Fee Renewal Joint Use Fee, per year $ $ CrO Plus Slip Fee for each permanent moorage slip, lift, dry stack, or buoy *7 slips @ $2.00 each TOTAL DUE THIS APPLICATION LATE FEE - Renewals $ $_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ AJC-r t>uc Applications for renewal of licenses shall be made no late than March 1 of the license year. The City shall not accept renewal license applications received after March 1 unless the application is accompanied by a late fee of $25.00. REVIEW PROCEDURE When a complete application is received, the application will be reviewed by the City Council and, in the case of new or unusual applications, also by the Planning Commission and Marina Committee. The Council will pass upon the • application after complete review. THE SUBJECT DOCK MAY BE INSTALLED AND/OR OPENED FOR USE ONLY UPON APPROVAL OF THE LICENSE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code, the applicant hereby requests the Orono City Council to review this Joint Use Dock License Application, and agrees and authorizes the City of Orono and the City's employees and agents to enter upon the property at any reasonable time to perform safety and code compliance inspections. Signed Dated i * Page 5 of 5 • '* ■ I • 4 PROPOSED OOCK PLAN 1^1 f SANDt beach M WCHAW» ZOCKMAN SCALf r c 20' r- RBSOLDTION DIRBCTIIIG STAFF TO ISSUE A JOINT USB DOCK LICBNSB TO SANDY BBACH PLACE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS NOTED HEREIN FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 1991 TO DBCOfBER 31, 1991 WHEREAS, the City of Orono, hereinafter "City” is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the la*>s of the State of Minnesota and has the authority and responsibility under Minnesota Statutes, State Statute 412, et. seq. and State Statute 462, et. seq., to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City and other m^nbers of the public within the City; and WHEREAS, the City shares concurrent jurisdiction over the primary harbor limit of the City of Orono with the Lake Minnetonka Conservatior. District and the Department of Natural Resources of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the regulation of the navigable waters involves an exercise of police power of the State, LMCD, and the City of Orono, all of which have adopted rules to ensure to all equal enjoyment of the public rights and equal protection from activity on or near the public waters and on tho land within the City which, if unregulated, may be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, the regulations of the DNR, LMCD, and the City of Orono regulate the property rights of the riparian owners both as to residential owners and the commercial marina owners to the extent prohibiting any interference with the public waters adjoining their property. The LMCD, DNR and City of Orono must fulfill their trusteeship over the public waters by protecting against interference by anyone, including those who assert the commonlaw rights of riparian owners, whether or not they be commercial marinas or residential owners; no one riparian owner has exclusive privileges over Lake Minnetonka. The only additional private right that any riparian owner may have over the public generally is to construct one dock to the navigable depth of the public waters. There can be no dispute but that the public generally and each riparian owner to Lake Minnetonka has the right to use the entire surface area of Lake Minnetonka for all suitable purposes in common with • 11 other riparian owners. This right is a right not only to members of the public but the right to each riparian owner. Page 1 of 2 This mutual right of enjoyment which is shared by riparian owners and the public generally includes the recreational benefits of the lake such as boating and fijhing therein; the riparian owner has no exclusive privileges to these rights; and NBBRBASv Lake Minnetonka is capab.e of substantial beneficial public use only as long as all riparian users of the lake are regulated in such a way as to ensure there is no abuse of the limited riparian rights; and WHBRBASf the City has adopted reasonable regulations regarding the construction and use of lakeshore and dock facilities when such facilities are used and maintained by three or more familieSf which regulations include the annual licensing of Joint Use Docks pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code; and WHBRBAS, the purpose of this Resolution is to set forth the above noted general conditions and concerns and the following special conditions as they relate to an application for an annual Joint Use Dock License described on Exhibit A attached, MOW# THBRBFORBf BB IT RBSOLVBD, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby directs the Staff to issue a Joint Use Dock License according to the facts and conditions noted on Exhibit A ' ached. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono at their meeting on the 11th day of March, 1991. Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST; Dor^:**vV H. Hallin, City Clevk STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing inst. 'ent was acknowledged before me on this 11th day of March, 1991, by Barba.d A. Peterson 6 Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor 6 City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said .nstrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 2 of 2 t- CITY OP ''ROHO P ■ i'.. ■ i-.' EXHIBIT A RBSOLOTION NO. CONDITIONS OP ISSUANCE FOR ANNUAL JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE f- ' ^I. LICENSES: Sandy Beach Place Dock Address: 3995 North Shore Drive Agent: H. Richard Zuckman Address: 1819 Dupont Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55403 License Period - January 1, 1991 to December 31, 1991 XI. BOAT DENSITY lir:;' The number of in-place boat slips, lifts and buoys shall not exceed the number shown on the attached plan. Exhibit B, and in accordance with Resolution 938, in no case shall the number of authorized boat slips, lifts, or buoys exceed the number permitted in the prior year's license. Authorized Boat Density per attached plan: Bay West Arm Transient (Day use only) Slips Permanent Moorage Slips Boat Lif otal: Slips at Dock Offshore Buoys Maximum Boats in Water Maximum Boats per prior license MAXIMUM BOAT DENSITY ■ - - - - - - - - - - - -- h Exhibit A Resolution No. Page 2 Excdlng this maxinuiii boat density, or exceeding the p^tted’.lips, lifts or buoys is a license subj.ct to revocation a..d/or prosecution for violation of Section 5.42 Subdivision 2 of the Orono Municipal Code. Ill. DOCK LAYOUT The dock structure or layout aathorized by SSSj^ct " o* priS$®revi^w \Vd aWro^^ City Council. IV. SPECIAL CONDITIONS required for compliance with the ordinance of the City and/or the LMCD. The issuance of this license is full compliance with these conditions. Failure to comply with t conditions is cause for license revocation and/or prosecution by the City. 1. The seven approved slips are for the exclusive use of the residents/renters of Sandy Beach Shores. 2, City may require written approval from abutting and affected property owners for each annual license review. V. Nothing in this license shall confer upon ary ^5® benefit of any property any vested right to use Lake .- ' ° premises in a manner permitted by this resolution, but the Minnetonka and the premises shall remain subject to such ^®9ulations and ordinances as the City and other competent ^«9ulatory authoritie shall deem necessary from time to time in the public interest. gv . m ^r i'i' h r ■ CITY OF ORONO P.O. BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY, MN 55323 473-7357 LICENSE YEAR 19 'll FEB 2 7 1991 (association) l/fCTP»^iA A^SC>C. . ANNUAL 70INT USE DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION Pursuant to Orono Municipal Code Section 5.42 c:rr cf or<(M} Date Form Sent by City Staff CT'^iA-^rc r*crrrcI ^MrTii^4. wi I Ayu Date Application Returned to City ^ \.' i oiuT •sJ^Tv Ti •• fh^i. c VV Fee Recived S ^3y s.ttoloyee ^A^^ ^ i. _ A « i m! ^ n I h V7YI•» r»M?\ iwv •r.ii 111 'tf." • i/*-.' •- # / section 5.42 Subdivision 2. LICENSE REQUIRED - It is unlawful for any (9TOup or association of persons or families, more than two in number, whether incoroorated or not) to engage or participate in...joint use (of any lakeshore property) without first having obtained a license therefor from the City. PLEASE COMPLETE ALL ITEMS AND SUBMIT SIGNED APPLICATION, REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS, AND LICENSE APPLICATION FEE TO THE CITY CLERK BY MARCH 1 OF THE LICENSE YEAR. ASSOCIATION INFORMATION 1. Association title or name (if anv) M V* 2. Lake _ _ _ _ _ _ __3ay__ M 3. Person responsible for this application; Name V Phone _____ SF3.0 )-J, ^C. Ralationship to association Page 1 of 5 h. iiiiiiiiliii'iiViiiflli wvw»»jnnk.i I f.:: f r ■ li. 5. o. 8. Association is (checic applicable itens;* ’jn'^nccrrcrctsd hocieovner's group. incorporated Homeovner's Association, unincorporated club or recreation group Incor ' ated club or recreation group. ^5'^ncipal nurtose of joint use does is (checic applicable itess): vide boat scoring and laie access for residential property, provide sviaming access, beacn, or off snore docs. provide a club or association gathering place for acti'/ities. Dock is located on (check applicable item): one member's pri'/ate property, ^^^eaaenent or outlot ovned in common. property leased by the group/asscciation. ■orooerty ovned by the group/association.. List Dock location and ovnersr.it information: street address kJx legal property description t—_ _— PID # _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ V ( Names of abutting lakeshore property owners: fNorth/West)hi . (Name + Address) (South/East)—> (Name + Address) Names of other affected property owners: LName Address)(attach sheet if necessary) Vi.-A S' 2 Of 5 ^- t I- S.' r,. f-' S . Insurance Coverage - The ^‘ointly used doclc is insured hy one of the folloving: property ovner's nosecvner's policy, eparate group/association owned policy. list the following ini’omaticn: nam» of iDSUTed *0 rmtiM* of insurance carrier __ nmwm of insurance agency ( policy no. ~ ^— .. \sf effective date of coverage *T " (^P* amount of coverage; Public liability, per person, per occurence Public liability, per occurence 0-Security and policing of the Jointly used dock and property is provided by (check applicable items): fencing. security lighting. ^<Cproperty owner's presence. contract security service, other (specify) COCK I5F0BMATI0N 11.List Dock Ifee Area Specifications: (c^ ft. and ft. 12* Dock Construction (check applicable items): seasonal dock (relocated or replaced each year). permanent piling with seascual reck. iS^peimaaent piling and decking wooden decking.metal deck .ng. 13. List Dock Accessories: Humber of fire extinguishers available at the dock Humber of life preservers available at the dock _ 14. List nuoiber of slips in each category ("slips" includes boat lifts): Transient (day use only) slips . Transient (day iwe) off-shore bwys Permiient ocorage slips (C-. Permanent moorage off-shore buoys ^ Dry storage (rack) slips____________.Maximum nuniber of boa*t8 the dock c. 15.List number of off-street parking spaces available for users of the Joint use dock. Parking, if provided must not be separated from the dock by any public road. spaces. 3 of 5 EHQSIOa Aim SEnTMfflTCATIDW COIfTROL 16. Sborsllne is protected by (check applicable iteas); atone rip rap. ___"«cod seavall. ------seawa^^.coacre-e aeavall. ^^^rasa and vegetation only, other (specify) - - - - - - - Depth of water at ahoreline is ft? at 50 ft. out is _[ at 100 ft. out is r‘ ATTA ITS The following oi'it accompany this application: A. POCK PLAN - ALL APPLIO^TIONS B. A dock plan, drawn to scale, showing the shoreline width of side property lines and the location, layout and dimensions of all docks, slips and buoys, if off-street parking, dry storage or other on-^d functions ar intended, these also should be sho%m on the plan. OtHNCORPORATED GROOPS OR ASSOCIATIONS 1. A Uat of the names and mailing addresses of all members and/or slip users. A certified copy of the by-laws or agreement for joint use. Note: This2. operated under the same by-laws : r agreement originally made in \ \ —_ e yaar) and on fila with the City- ^ _ _ Applicant's initials C. n»wt?RPOR?TED CLUBS OR ASSOCIATIONS 1. 2. A list of the names, nailing addresses and titles of all corporation officers. a • A statement as to the total number of members in the club or association. 4? members. 3. AA certified copy of t.he articles of incorporation and by-laws of ^.e cor^ratlon. Note: These copies are not required if the applicant initials and certifies the following statement: "This is a renewal application and our use, __ _ __V axid/or bV~l^WS &8ti'^’ope^ated under the same arti^le^c^ incorporation and/or by-laws as - ' ■> ) (state year) and onoriginally made or last amended in file with the Citgi." Applicant's initials Pace 4 of 5 lx ■—W D. ANNUAL LICENSE FEE - ALL APPLICATIONS Joint Use Dock License Application fee according to the current City Pee Schedule Initial Application Fee $. Renewal Joint Use Fee, per year $ Plus Slip Fee for each permanent moorage slip, lift, dry stack, or buoy C? slips § $2.00 each $ TOTAL DUE THIS APPLICATION $, LATE FEE - Renewals I z. - Applications for renewal of licenses shall be made no later than March 1 of the license year. The City shall not accept renewal license applications received after March ^ unless the application is accompanied by a late fee of $25.00. REVIEW PROCEDURE When a complete application is received, the application will be reviewed by the City Council and, in the case of new or unusual applications, also by the Planning Commission and Marina Committee. The Council will pass upon the application after complete review. THE SUBJECT DOCK MAY BE INSTALLED AND/OR OPENED FOR USE ONLY UPON APPROVAL OF THE LICENSE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code, the applicant hereby requests the Orono City Council to review this Joint Use Dock License Application, and agrees and authorizes the City of Orono and the City's employees and agents to enter upon the property at any reasonable time to perform safety and code compliance inspections. Sianed-^^* ■■Dated ( Page 5 of 5 .•5 • I= 1 r t: (, i • !•« I i !I ii Oullot C • •j ' I k I • EXISTING CHANNEL ucn 180' 22* Sedan 24* Cruiser 14’ SunfisiK- • V%* * ■ ■■t't ‘ ■■ 4' CATWALK OVER WETLANDS TO SHORE. !ii'i!l'i|w|lil|l|||!l|iilfe 4’ BOAT DOCK x 180 ’ LONG. Outlot B -o O I \4 I I ^ ' t I I I I BOAT DOCK LOCjA^Oy ^ NO SCALE tf 3 l»< ^ / *L.M.C.O, I ? f ^ 1 Plat of Victoria Estatel 7 . cs o Oo 0 1 c ~s .155 -\L - a K) .U RBSOLOTTOH DIRECTING STAFF TO ISSUE A JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE TO VICTORIA ESTATES BOMBOIIHBRS ASSOCIATION SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS NOTED HEREIN FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 1991 TO DECSIBER 31, 1991 WHEREAS, the City of Orono, hereinafter "City* is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota and has the authority and responsibility under Minnesota Statutes, State Statute 412, et. seq. and State Statute 462, et. seq., to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City and other members of the public within the City; and WHEREAS, the City shares concurrent jurisdiction over the primary harbor limit of the City of Orono with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the Department of Natural Resources of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the regulation of the navigable waters involves an exercise of police power of the State, LMCD, and the City of Orono, all of which have adopted rules to ensure to all equal enjoyment of the public rights and equal protection from activity on or near the public waters and on the land within the City which, if unregulated, may be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, the regulations of the DNR, LMCD, and the City of Orono regulate the property rights of the riparian owners both as to residential owners and the commercial arina owners to the extent prohibiting any interference with the public waters adjoining their property. The LMCD, DNR and City of Orono must fulfill their trusteeship over the public waters by protecting again* t interference by anyone, including those who assert the commonlaw rights of riparian owners, whether or not they be commercial marinas or residential owners; WHEREAS, as to Lake Minnetonka, a mutual right of enjoyment exists between and is shared by riparian owners and the public generally, no one riparian owner has exclusive privileges over Lake Minnetonka. The only additional private right that any riparian owner may have over the public generally is to construct one dock to the navigable depth of the public waters. There can be no dispute but that the public generally and each riparian owner to Lake Minnetonka has the right to use the entire surface area of Lake Minnetonka for all suitable purposes in common with all other riparian owners. This right is a right not only to members of the public but the right to each riparian owner. Page 1 of 2 t'- L. This mutual right of enjoyment which is shared by riparia*. owners and the public generally includes the recreational benefits of the lake such as boating and fishing therein; the riparian owner has no exclusivp privileges rights; and WRBRBAS* Lake Minnetonka is capable of substantial beneficial pOt» - ^c u only as long as al 1 riparian users of the lake are regulated in such a way as to ensure there is no abuse of the limited riparian rights; and NHBRBASr the City has adopted reasonable regulations regarding the construction and use of lakeshore and dock facilities when such facilities are used and maintained by three or more familiesr which regulations include the annual licensing of Joint Use Docks pursuant to Section 5*42 of the Orono Municipal Code; and NBBRBASf the purpose of this Resolution is to set forth the above noted general conditions and concerns and the following special conditions as they relate to an application for an annual Joint Use Dock License described on Exhibit A attached. MON, THBRBPORB, BB IT RBSOLVBD, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby directs the Staff to issue a Joint Use T-cck License according to the facts and conditions noted on Exhibit A attached. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono at their meeting on the 1. :h day of March, 1991. ^ ATTEST; Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Dorothy^. Hallin, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 11th day of March, 1991, by Barbara A. Peterson & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minne ' municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the Notary Public Page 2 of 2 CITY OF ORONO EXHIBIT A RBSOLDTION NO. CONDITIONS OF ISSUANCE FOR ANNUAL JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE I.LICENSEE:Victoria Estates Homeowners Association Dock Address: 540 North Arm Drive Agent: Paul Hanssen Address: 520 North Arm Drive, Mound, MN 55364 Licensee is:unincorporated homeowner's group incorporated homeowner's association unincorporated club or recreation group incorporated club or recreation group other License II. BOAT DEN t.-uary 1, 1991 to December 31, 1991 The number of in-place boat slips, lifts and buoys shall not exceed the number shown on the attached plan. Exhibit B, and in accordance with Resolution 938, in no case shall the number of authorized boat slips, lifts, or buoys exceed the number permitted in the prior year's license. Authorized Boat Density per attached plan: Bay Transient (Day use only) Slips Permanent Moorage Slips North Arm Boat Lifts Sub-Total: Slips at Dock Offshore Buoys Maximum Boats in Water Maximum Boats per prior license MAXIMUM BOAT DENSITY Exhibit A Resolution No. Page 2 Exceeding this maximum boat density, or exceeding the number of permitted slips, lifts or buoys is a violation of this license subject to revocation and/or prosecution for violation of Section 5.42 Subdivision 2 of the Orono Municipal Code. III. DOCK LAYOUT The dock structure or layout authorized by this license shall be as shown on attached Exhibit B. Any changes in this layout shall be subject to prior review and approval of the City Council. IV. SPECIAL CONDITIONS required for compliance with the ordinance of the City and/or the LMCD. The issuance of this license is subject to full compliance with these conditions. Failure to comply with these conditions is cause for license revocation and/or prosecution by the City. 1. Six slips are approved for Victoria Estates Homeowners Association for 1991 subject to the stipulations set forth in Resolution #962 dated December 18, 1978. 2. All boats permanently moored at this Joint Use Dock must be registered to the applicant property owners. V. Nothing in this license shall confer upon any person for the benefit of any property any vested right to use Lake Minnetonka or the premises inr a manner permitted by this resolution, but the use of Lake Minnetonka and the pifemises shall remain subject to such regulations and ordinances as the City and other competent regulatory authorities shall deem necessary from time to time in the public interest. « « : • CITY OF ORONO P.O. BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY, MN 55323 473-7357 T -,-r'TC^ v=*iO 1 Q 7 I (association) ^AC.K- f~- fC^cPf^ A L- r-1 Tc ANNUAL JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION_ Pursuant to Orono Municipal Code Section 5.42 ^ ^ Date Forn Sent by City Staff / - /O ~ ^ /_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1931 Date Application Returned to City ___________ Fee Recived $ -----'icr i* ■ By Employee_fj^*^M^;^ Section 5.42 Subdivision 2. LICENSE REQUIRED - It is unlawful for any (group or association of persons or families, more than two in number, whether incorporated or not) to engage or participate in...joint use (of any lalceshore property) without first having obtained a license therefor from the City. PLEASE COMPLETE ALL ITEMS AND SUBMIT SIGNED APPLICATION, REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS, AND LICENSE APPLICATION FEE TO THE CITY CLERK BY MARCH 1 OF THE LICENSE YEAR. ASSOCIATION INFORMATION 1. Association title or name (if any) /\Joa/6z 2. Lake _ _ _ _ _Bay C/^VSTy^ 3. Person responsible for this application: Name /< Phone __ _ Mailing Address S/S^S^ /\/cfi^7:^ S^<Sr SS'S9/ Relationshio to association Page 1 of 5 a, rtSSOC 5. o. ia^ior. is (chec:< anplicacle i's-s): ^ 2 ITTc TC.*1.2 — r.cn0C*"n.2r * 3 incor^or3'C0d Hor.ec ’vner* s Associs -icn. unincorporated club or recreation ^rcun. incorporated club or recreation group. Frinciral oumose oi* Joint *U3e ccci is (onecr.. arp^icao —e «w3!ns)i ^ provide boat nccring and la'iie access for residential prcpertv [}i^vide svimiiiiig access^ beach• or ofi*3hore doc.*c. ■^jTOvide a club or association gaor.ering place -or act^v.^^es D ock is located on (cnecK applicable iten): one r.esber's pri'.'ate property, easement or outlet owned in common. crocerty leased by the group/asscciation. nronerty owned by the group/association. List Docjc location and ovnersnip iniomation: s-.r==-. =dJr^ss yff/t/S-SS9/ legal property description pID # o9 S3 00<:2^/ listed property ovner(s)XT 8. Names of abutting lakeshore property owners; t s!>MfeA^v -^/^r ^^ (Name + Address) Cc/!^ (Name + Address) Names of other affected property owners: (Name + Address) (attach sheet if necessary) v|/ C72)/9 aJ ^ 2 of 5 o-/Ir.sur3r.ce Zzverz.ze -The Jcincl ’ usei ioci is ir^sur?! zy ore ci •-a *Wk. w — —' — 10- property c’-ner's 'nor.ecvner*s po-i?y. separ3t3 grc'.:r/?s20ci3"i-3 ovr.ed "c_icy lisx "ne foiicwin:; iai'orna’ion: of insured —/^. _ _ _ __ _e of insurance carrier ) name of insurance agency X I policy no. effective date of coverage '/^J/9'' I anioimt of coverage; Public liability, per person, per occurence Public liability, per Security and policing of the Jointly 'cned (c.deck applicable items): occurence _______ dock and property is provided by fencing.security lignting. X property owner's presence. contract security ser’-'lce. other (specify) DOCK IIIPCRMATION ll. List Dock Use Area Specifications: 12. Width of shoreiirjj; X^C> ft. Length of main dock from shore; ft. Dock setbacks from side propeixy lines at snore; 9- /X. s/^ s. S/^e Dock Construction (check applicable items): X seasonal dock (relocated or replaced each year). _ _ permanent piling vita seasonal deck. _ _ permanent piling and decking. y wooden decking. _ _ metal decking. ^4.X u • 13. List Dock Accessories: Number of fire extinguishers available at the deck Number of life preservers available at the dock / 14. List number of slips in each categor;/- ("slips" Includes boat lifts); Transient (day use only) slips _____. Transient (day use) off-shore buoys ______. Permanent moorage off-shore buoysPermanent moorage slips Dry storage (rack) slips Maximum number of boats at the dock 15.I,i8t number of off-street parking spaces available for users of the Joint use dock. Parking, if provided must not be separated from the dock by any public road. O spaces. 3 of 5 2R03io:r a :id szDi?grrATicN cc:?t?.ol 16. Shoreline is prctec-ed by (cneol app^-ioao-e ->^ens): 17. /^TC Y ify y stone np ra?v-ccd seavnll. =ei:al sea-.rail.conore ’^e seavail. ^ bt#oue *iiw* -■ --------- '■ ^ 'Cation only, ocner (s^ec-^y) ft. cue is 7* . Depch of wacer ac snoreiine is ac pO - - - zV/iT oSways^Y at 100 ft. out is /^y U/^aA/ ' REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS The following must accompany this application! A. DOCK PLAN - ALL APPLICATIONS A dock plan, drawn to scale, showing the shoreline width of this property, the side property lines and the location, layout and dimensions of all docks, slips and buoys. If off-street parking, dry storage or other on-land functions are intended, these also should be shown on the plan. B.UNINCORPORATED GROUPS OR ASSOCIATIONS 1. A list of the names anr ^ailing addre-^sps of all tiuaber^^ ,ind/nc.slip u.^P.rs. A certified copy of the by-laws or agreement for joint use. Note: This copy is not required if the applicant initials ana certifies the following statement: "This is a renewal application and our joint use cock is uO be operated under the same by-laws or agreement originally made in __ _ _ __ (state year) and on file with the yjy Aoolicant's initials INCORPORATED CLUBh OR ASSOC-. r'C’JS /t 'tl 1. A list 'Of the names, mailing addresses and titles of all corporation officers. A statement as to the total number of members in the club or association.2. 3. members. A certified copy of the articles of incorporation and by-laws of the corporation Note: These copies are not required if the applicant initials and certifies the following statement: "This is a renewal application and our joint use dock is to be operated under the same articles of incorporation and/or by-laws as originally made or last amended in __ _ _ _ _(state year) and on file with the City." Applicant’s initials zmcjc.SATjr S/^sT ^ /^OG Paae 4 of 5 If D. ANNUAL LICENSE FEE ~ ALL APFLICATICNS Joint Us6 Dock License Applicnticn fee according - current City Fee Schedule c the Initial Application Fee Renewal Joint Use Fee, per year S S 20 — Plus Slip Fee for each permanent moorage slip, lift, dry stack, or buoy 3 slips 3 $2.00 each TOTAL DUE THIS APPLICATION LATE FEE - Renewals S $ - 3 0 - Applications for renewal of licenses shall be nu' than March 1 of the license year. The City shall ^ renewal license aoplications received after March x the application is accompanied bv a late fee of $25.00 REVIEW PROCEDURE When a complete application is received, the application will be reviewed by the City Council and, in the case of new or unusual applications, also by the Planning Commission and Marina Committee. The Council will pass upon the application after complete review. THE SUBJECT DOCK MAY BE INSTALLED AND/OR OPENED FOR USE ONLY UPON APPROVAL OF THE LICENSE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Munictpax Code, the applicant hereby requests the Orono City Council to review this Joint Use Dock License Application, and agrees and authorizes the City of Orono and the City's employees and agents to enter upon the property at any reasonable time to perform safety and code compliance inspections. Signed Dated ^ Page 5 of 5 2600 n&8 3 s>->'°s 3, 3 %i-n>s np,'^ - 3 -i-'*’' RESOLUTION DIRECTING STAFF TO ISSUE A JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE TO THE OfINERS OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3155 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, 3185 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, AND 1406 BOHN'S POINT ROAD SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS NOTED HEREIN FOR THE PERIOD OP JANUARY 1, 1991 TO DECEMBER 31, 1991 WHEREAS, the City of Orono, hereinafter "City" is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota and has the authority and responsibility under Minnesota Statutes, State Statute 412, et. seq. and State Statute 462, et. seq., to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City and other members of the public within the City; and WHEREAS, the City shares concurrent jurisdiction over the pri:.i«:.ry harbor limit of the City of Orono with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the Department of Natural Resources of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the regulation of the navigable waters involves an exercise of police power of the State, LMCD, and the City of Orono, all of which have adopted rules to ensure to all equal enjoyment of the public rights and equal protection from activity on or near the public waters and on the land within the City which, if unregulated, may be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, the regulations of the DNR, LMCD, and the City of Orono regulate the property rights of the riparian owners both as to residential owners and the commercial marina owners to the extent prohibiting any interference with the public waters adjoining their property. The LMCD, DNR and City of Orono must fulfill their trusteeship over the public waters by protecting against interference by anyone, including those who assert the commonlaw rights of riparian owners, whether or not they be commercial marinas or residential owners; WHEREAS, as to Lake Minnetonka, a mutual right of enjoyment exists between and is shared by riparian owners and the public generally, no one riparian owner has exclusive pri\ - leges over Lake Minnetonka. The only additional private right that any riparian owner may have over the public generally is to construct one dock to the navigable depth of the public waters. There can be no dispute but that the public generally and each riparian owner to Lake Minnetonka has the right to use the entire surface area of Lake Minnetonka for all suitable purposes in common with all other riparian owners. This right is a right not only to members of the public but the right to each riparian owner. Page 1 of 2 This mutual right of enjoyment which is shared by riparian owners and the public generally includes the recreational benefits of the lake such as boating and fishing therein; the riparian owner has no exclusive privileges to these rights; and WHBRBASr Lake Minnetonka is capable of substantial beneficial public use only as long as all riparian users of the lake are regulated in such a way as to ensure there is no abuse of the limited riparian rights; and HHERBAS, the City has adopted reasonable regulations regarding the construction and use of lakeshore and dock facilities when such facilities are used and maintained by three or more families, which regulations include the annual licensing of Joint Use Docks pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Oronc Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Resolution is to set forth the above noted general conditions and concerns and the following special conditions as they relate to an application for an annual Joint Use Dock License described on Exhibit A attached. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby directs the Staff to issue a Joint Use Dock License according to the facts and conditions noted on Exhibit A attached. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono at their meeting on the 11th day of March, 1991. Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 11th day of March, 1991, by Barbara A. Peterson & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 2 of 2 CTfY OP ORONO EXHIBIT A RBSOLOTION NO. CONDITIONS OF ISSUANCE FOR ANNUAL JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE 1. LICENSEE: Property owners of 3155 North Shore Drive, 3185 North Shore Drive and 1406 Bohn's Point Road Dock Address: 3155 North Shore Drive Agent: Jack F. Rhode Address: 3155 North Shore Drive, Wayzata, MN 55391 Licensee is:unincorporated homeowner's group incorporated homeowner's association unincorporated club or recreation group incorporated club or recreation group other License Period - January 1, 1991 to December 31, 1991 II. BOAT DENSITY The number of in-place boat slips, lifts and buoys shall not exceed the number shown on the attached plan. Exhibit B, and in accordance with Resolution 938, in no case shall the number of authorized boat slips, lifts, or buoys exceed the number permitted in the prior /ear's license. Authorized Boat Density per attached plan: Bay Transient (Day use only) Slips Permanent Moorage Slips Crystal Boat Lifts Sub-Total: Slips at Dock Offshore Buoys Maximum Boats in Water Maximum Boats per prior license MAXIMUM BOAT DENSITY Exhibit A Resolution No. Page 2 Exceeding this maximum boat density, or exceeding the number of permitte/slips, lifts or buoys is a violation of this license subject to revocaticn and/or prosecution for violation of Section 5.42 Subdivision 2 of the Orono Municipal Code. Ill. DOCK LAYOUT The dock structure -r layout authorized by fhis license shall be as SSfaj^ct "to*Frio^®review^^^^^^ approvaI'^orthe^ cYty Council. IV SPECIAL CONDITIONS required for compliance with the ordinance of th4 Citrand/or the LMCD. The issuance of this license xs subject to full compliance with these conditions. Failure to conditions is cause for license revocation and/or prosecution by the City. This license is granted subject to the findings and conditions set forth in Resolution #1212 of the City Council, summarized as follows: a) The three properties to which this Joint >;se Dock License is granted are described as follows: i. (P.I.D. #09-117-23 33 0001) -That part of Gov t Lot 1 lying East of the West 442.93 feet thereof and North of the South 1058.3 feet thereof and South of Registered Land Survey No. 269" (3155 North Shore Drive) ii. (P.I.D. #09-117-23 33 0015) "Tract I and feet of Tract H, Registered Land Survey No. 269 (1406 Bohn's Point Road) iii. (P.I.D. #09-117-23 33 0016 ) "Tract G and that part of Tract H lying East of the West 28.5 feet thereof. Registered Land Survey No. 269" (3135 North Shore Drive) b) There shall be only one dock allowed on the Rhode ^.I.^. 09-117-23 33 0001) which dock shall be no greater than 100 feet in length, and which dock must be constructed in ^ccoraance with all applicable City and LMCD ordinances, and which doc)c is intend^ed to serve only the owners and their successors of th properties described in above. there may not be at ary time more than three watercraft, as defined by the LMCD, either docked, moored, or stored. Exhibit A Resolution No._ _ _ _ Page 3 d) The three watercraft allowed may be owned only by the owners of the properties decribed in a) above. V. Nothing in this license shall confer upon any person for the benefit of any property any vested right to use Lake Minnetonka or the premises in a manner permitted by this resolution, but the use of Lake Minnetonka and the premises shall remain subject to such regulations and ordinances as the City and other competent regulatory authorities shall deem necessary from time to time in the public interest. V • • t• • •^3 su«»®s _ _ _ CITY OF OP.OMO P.O. BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY, MM 53323 473-7357 LICEMS YEAR 19 9 (association) FEB 6 ANNUAL JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE APPLICATIQM^ ,-T-v r.f r,r.r>\j,l Vi • •-rrrrr ^ V W I W ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ — 1 ^ Pursuant to Orono Municipal Code Section 5.42 i 7 • V=" WA U i *rfw- V V'VVV- i roaV ± t£tJt i i_ 45.» Date Form Sent by City Staff J-/0~‘^/• r • r i/V* v/11lui Date Application Returned to City / V' W'V'i. • j " . /U V'*L.* VU*/ / - Fee Recived $By Emplovee/^/<f^L\ Section 5.42 Subdivision 2. LICENSE REQUIRED - It is unlawful for any (group or association of persons or families, more than two in number, whether incorporated or not) to engage or participate in...:oint use (of any lakeshore prooerty) without first having obtained a license therefor from the City. PLEASE COMPLETE ALL ITEMS AND SUBMIT SIGNED APPLICATION, REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS, AND LICENSE APPLICATION FEE TO THE CITY CLERK BY MARCH 1 OF THE LICENSE YEAR. ASSOCIATION INFORMATION * t1. Association title or name (if any) 2. Lake >>/ - L-!■ lie._ _ _ _Bay ^ 3. Person responsible for this application: Name / rT » ^ • Phone V / ^ - *-f/LA.S > Mailing Address_v / t. Relationship to association_j2l •^71 Page 1 of 5 k JrfBo tni. lii*. -1 ^ ■ 5. O. it. Assccia-icr. is {chec> an^lic-’cle iis-rs;- v/ uninccrr r::*:2d r.cr.ec^r.sr ’ 2 o — "* ^<^0 ^*^03 c Hor!3cwn31* * s As sc 3 23 210 n • unincorT:or3ied duo or rocrostion group incorooro'ted olu'c or r^crosiion group. rrincipal n'orpose of joint -ase icc£ is (ohecic arplicable itens): ^ arovide bcaa Toocring and lais access for resicenaiai propercp. provide sviaining accessj beaebt or of-.shore dock, pro'/ide a cinb or association gat-cering place for acti'/lties. Dock is located on (cnec:c applicable item): one member's pri'/ate property. V easement or outlet ovned in common. property leased by the so^’-ip/ssscciation. property ovned by the group/association. List Dock location and ovnersnip information: street address w ^-f^rir h P,- legal property description 4..-i IS -2 ' A U-, .Jc 'k> PID # listed property ovr.er(s) 8. Names of abutting lakeshore property owners: (South/East)V<~ c jpr^ n ^ II (Name ^ Address) Names of other affected property owners: _________iVA ________________ (Name + Address) ' (attach sheet if necessary) 2 of 5 S .Insurance leverage - The Joinnly usei loch is insured cy cne e • w • J >*.V •, - property cvner’s hor.ec'.roer'3 policy. enarate 'roup/asscciaticn evned policy. lisn ehe follc*«'ing inc’oiracicn: name of insured r*j' i s f* ^r fi - i.c ~ c: nainp» oi' insurance carrier r^wmp of insurance agency ____^ policy no. ~7 cT ~ hT ^ 7u<-i. Il /I ^ ... •. / / effective date of coverage ^ i^ ^ - 7/ amount of coverage; Public liability, per person, per occurence $ C- <-c, 10* Public liability, per occurence 3_ Security and nolicing of the Jointly used doex and property cro*j.%^ed dj (check applicable itenis): fencing. security lighting. __property owner's presence. contract security ser-'lce. other (specify) DOCK IIIPORMATION 11. List Dock Use .\rea Specifications; Width of shoreline; n h O ___ ft. Length ot nain dcc.c froia shore; /XU* Dock setbacks from side property lines at shore;ft. and ■y ft. 12. Dock Construction (cneck applicable items): __Seasonal dock (relocated or replaced each year). permanent piling with seasonal deck. ___ permanent piling and decx.ng. t^.-'dSooden decking.cetal decKing. 13. List Dock Accessories: Number of fire extingxilshers available at the dock / 0 Jhmber of life preservers available at the dock n P 14. List number of slips In each category ("slips" includes boat lifts): Transient (day use only) slips . Transient (day use) off-shore buoys __ Permanent moorage slips /H Permanent moorage off-shore buoys ______ / VDry storage (rack) slips _ _ _ _ _ _ _. Maximum number of boats at the dock / 15.List number of off-street parking spaces available for users of the Joint use dock. Parking, If provided must not be separated from the dock by any public road. soaces. 3 of 5 SPOSION AND SSDLMSITATION CC^iTF.OL 16. Shoraline is projected by (cbeclc applicable iter.s): stcss rip rap.vcod ceaval-.zecal seava.i_.ccr r*S03VSJ.J. 17. grass and vegetation only, other (specify) Depth of water at snoreline is — at ^0 ; at 100 ft. out is ♦ REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS The following must accompany this application: A. DOCK PLAN - ALL APPLICATIONS C. A dock plan, drawn to scale, showing the shoreline width of this property, the side property lines and the location, layout and dimensions of all docks, slips and buoys. If off-street parking, dry storage or other on-land functions are intended, these also should be shown on the plan. B. UNINCORPORATED GROUPS OR ASSOCIATIONS 1. 2. A list of the names and mailing addresses of ail members and/or slip users. A certified copy of the by-laws or agreer.ient for joint use. Note: This copy is not required if the applicant initials and certifies the following statement: "This is a renewal application and our joint use dock is to be operated under the same by-laws or agreement originally made in / 9 ^ > (state year) and on file with the City." 0 Applicant's initials INCORPORATED CLUBS OR ASSOCIATIONS 1. 2. 3. A list of the names, mailing addresses and titles of all corporation officers. A statement as to the total number of members in the club or association. ! y members. A certified copy of the articles of incorporation and by-laws of the corporation Note: These copies are not required if the applicant initials and certifies the following statement: "This is a renewal application and our joLnt use dock is to be operated under the same articles of incorporation and/or by-laws as originally made or last amended in ^ (state year) and on file with the City." Appliccuit's initials 7 Page 4 of 5 I* .nwF ■ D. ANNUAL LICENSE FEE - ALL APPLICATIONS Joint Use Dock License Application fee according to the current City Fee Schedule Initial Application Fee Renewal Joint Use Fee, per year Plus Slip Fee for each permanent moorage slip, lift, dry stack, or buoy /^ slips 9 $2.00 each TOTAL DUE THIS APPLICATION LATE FEE - Renewals L- e c * f •* Applications for renewal of licenses shall be made no later than March 1 of the license year. The Citv shall not accept renewal license applications received after March unless the application is accompanied by a late fee of $25.00. REVIEW PROCEDURE When a complete application is received, the application will be reviewed by the City Council and, in the case of new or unusual applications, also by the Planning Commission and Marina Comr..ittee. The Council will pass upon the application after complete review. THE SUBJECT DOCK MAY BE INSTALLED AND/OR OPENED FOR USE ONLY UPON APPROVAL OF THE LICENSE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code, the applicant hereby requests the Orono City Council to review this Joint Use Dock License Application, and agrees and authorizes the City of Orono and the City's employees and agents to enter upon the property at any reasonable time to perform safety and code compliance inspections. Signed Dated ^ - y ~ 9 / / 7 Page 5 of 5 i* .!■ i.AT* LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 402 EAST LAKE STREET WAYZATA. MINNESOTA 55391 TELEPHONE 612/473-7033 EUGENE n STROMMFN EXECUTIVE Dlf^ECTOH iOARD MEMBERS David H. Cochran. Chair Qraanwood Albart O. Fosiar. Vica Chair Oaaphavan Jan BoswvtnKal. Sacratary Mlnnafonka Baach John Lawman. IVaasurar Minnairtaia Douglas E. Babcock Spring Park Marvtn B)ort«n Tonka Bay Jamas N Grathwol E*coii»or JoEMen L Hurr OroMO John Q. Mnlinka Victoria Thomas Martinson Wayzma Robart K Pillsbury Minnolonkn Roban Rnscop Shorawood Thomas W Raasa Mound Robart E Siocum Woodland Forest Arms Association Subj: 1990 Multiple Dock and Mooring Area License The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board of Directors has approved your multiple dock license for the 1990 season. The license with stipulations is enclosed. Any change will require a new license. We are also pleased to confirm approval of your application for a temporary dock extension. The details of your dock extension approval are as presented on the approved site plan, enclosed. Considerations which went into your temporary dock extension are: 1. The extension is temporary for the low water period during which the Lake level is below 928.0' and declared by the LMCD Board. 2. Temporary extensions must be renewed annually. 3. There must be no navigation hazard to your temporary dock extension. The Water Patrol will serve to assure this con­ dition is maintained. 4. All temporary extensions utilize seasonal docks. 5. No additional or larger watercraft are allowed beyond which you are licensed or permitted by the LMCD Code, as described in your application material. Thank you for your cooperation and care as you use your temporary dock extension during this year's low water emergency perio Sincerely, LAKE JIINNETONI^CONSJI^TION DISTRICT „ —is- igen^^lt/^S trb enc: license, site plan c/enc; municipality DNR LMCD Inspector toF No. $ 290.00 2^ WSU BSu L'niis MULTIPLE DOCK AND MOORING AREA LICENSE LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Countv of Hennepin, State of Minnesota ss. WHEREAS. FOREST ARMS ASSOCIATION NOW, THEREFORE, By order ol the Board of Directors of said District and by virtue liercof. the said Forest Arms Association ________________________ is hereby licensed and authorized toForest Arms Association__________________________ ...v—^ a muUipl, dock subject .o cis.ing and lu,u„ densuy policies and ,c8ula„uns adopted by ,he Deane, s Boa,d and to Tpmoorarv Low Water Extension Variance granted to of Directors- - - - - - --- - - --- - - - -- ;; , on 4-25-90 for; Slips I to 5 = x 24^- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - --- - - --— blips 6 C3 t"C3 “ I ^ Slips II to for the period of ihc 1990 dock season and ending Decenihor 31 19 90 subject to all the conditions and provisions of said Ordinances. Attes VJ - ------------ Give, .rnder .n, hand and .he co,po,a,= seal ol .he LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION UCT RICT Ihis . ^ 7^' <7 V- • {'// ed / P^'2ni,^if, K/h''ei^=?nci,.,.,inan PdVid H. Cochran RBSOLDTION DIRECTING STAFF TO ISSUE A JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE TO FOREST ARMS COUNTRY CLUB ADDITION BONEONNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS NOTED HEREIN FOR THE PERIOD OF JANUARY 1, 1991 TO DECOffiER 31, 1991 WHEREAS, the City of Orono, hereinafter "City” is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota and has the authority and responsibility under Minnesota Statutes, State Statute 412, et. seq. and State Statute 462, et. seq., to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City and other members of the public within the City; and WHEREAS, the City shares concurrent jurisdiction over the primary harbor limit of the City of Orono with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the Department of Natural Resources of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the regulation of the navigable waters involves an exercise of police power of the State, LMCD, and the City of Orono, all of which have adopted rules to ensure to all equal enjoyment of the public rights and equal protection from activity on or near the public waters and on the land within the City which, if unregulated, may be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, the regulations of the DNR, LMCD, and the City of Orono regulate the property rights of the riparian owners both as to residential owners and the commercial marina owners to the extent prohibiting any interference with the public waters adjoining their property. The LMCD, DNR and City of Orono must fulfill their trusteeship over the public waters by protecting against interference by anyone, including those who assert the commonlaw rights of riparian owners, whether or not they be commercial marinas or residential owners; WHEREAS, as to Lake Minnetonka, a mutual right of enjoyment exists between and is shared by riparian owners and the public generally, no one riparian owner has exclusive privileges over Lake Minnetonka. The only additional private right that any riparian owner may have over the public generally is to construct one dock to the navigable depth of the public waters. There can be no dispute but that the public generally and each riparian owner to Lake Minnetonka has the right to use the entire surface area of Lake Minnetonka for all suitable purposes in common with all other riparian owners. This right is a right not onl>* to members of the public but the right to each riparian owner. Page 1 of 2 bicu This mutual right of enjoyment which is shared by riparian owners and the public generally includes the recreational benefits of the lake such as boating and fishing therein; the riparian owner has no exclusive privileges to these rights; and NHBRBAS, Lake Minnetonka is capable of substantial beneficial public use only as long as all riparian users of the lake are regulated in such a way as to ensure there is no abuse of the limited riparian rights; and WHBRBASr the City has adopted reasonable regulations regarding the construction and use of lakeshore and dock facilities when such facilities are used and maintained by three or more families, which regulations include the annual licensing of Joint Use Docks pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orcpo Municipal Code; and WHBRBAS, the purpose of this Resolution is to set forth the above noted general conditions and concerns and the following special conditions as they relate to an application for an annual Joint Use Dock License described on Exhibit A attached. HOW, THBRBFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby directs the Staff to issue a Joint Use Dock License according to the facts and conditions noted on Exhibit A attached. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono at their meeting on the 11th day of March, 1991. Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )c o • COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 11th day of March, 1991, by Barbara A. Peterson & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 2 of 2 CITY OP ORONO EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF ISSUANCE FOR ANNUAL JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE I. LICENSEE: Forest Arms Country Club Addition Homeowners Associationr Inc. Dock Address: 4245 Forest Lake Drive Agent: C. James Lange Address: 970 Forest Arms Lane, Mound, MN 55364 Licensee is:unincorporated homeowner's group incorporated homeowner's association unincorporated club or recreation group incorporated club or recreation group other License Period - January 1, 1991 to December 31, 1991 II. BOAT DENSITY The number of in-place boat slips, lifts and buoys shall not exceed the number shown on the attached plan. Exhibits B & C, and in accordance with Resolution 938, in no case shall the number of authorized boat slips, lifts, or buoys exceed the number permitted in the prior year's license. Authorized Boat Density per attached plan: Bay Transient (Day use only) Slips Permanent Moorage Slips Boat Lifts Sub-Total: Slips at Dock Offshore Buoys Maximum Boats in Water Forest Lake Maximum Boats per prior license MAXIMUM BOAT DENSITY same W.All'll Exhibit A Resolution No. Page 2 Exceeding this maximum boat density* or exceeding the number of permitted slips, lifts or buoys is a violation of this license subject to revocation and/or prosecution for violation of Section 5.42 Subdivision 2 of the Orono Municipal Code. III. DOCK LAYOUT The dock structure or layout authorized by this license shall be as shown on attached Exhibits B & C. Any changes in this layout shall be subject to prior review and approval of the City Council. IV, SPECIAL CONDITIONS required for compliance with the ordinance of the City and/or the LMCD. The issuance of this license is subject to full compliance with these conditions. Failure to comply with these conditions is cause for license revocation and/or prosecution by the City. 1. The Purchase Agreement by and between the City of Orono and the Forest Arms Country Club Addition Homeowners Association, Inc. will permit a maximum of 14 slips. The City will approve 14 slips for this license year based on the number of developed interior lots within the subject plat. 2. Temporary dock extensions shall comply with all LMCD requirements. V. Nothing in this license shall confer upon any person for the benefit of any property any vested right to use Lake Minnetonka or the premises in a manner permitted by this resolution, but the use of Lake Minnetonka and the premises shall remain subject to such regulations and ordinances as the City and other competent regulatory authorities shall deem necessary from time to time in the public interest. • »v/ >- 0 C; f\23^ l' ■Vt-" '«>) f C f^esou . A'o- £:;cH^fAfT S ji^C^ I ^ Sikc^-C. j<^^0-H C>. /^f9• /?S& /V------- CITY OF ORONO P.O. BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY, MN 55323 473-7357 LICENSE YEAR 19 9/ (assocjation) A!A\!Cot/g ^ ANNUAL JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION Pursuant to Orono Municipal Code Section 5.42 Date Form Sent by City Staff /~ ^ ~ ^ I f I w'l U' kUIUi/ w/ r Ai.4. *T* • Tr K»#yV»A VV-VV* Date Application Returned to City . f- - Fee Recived $ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ By employee i .‘ui « * w' •. • • T“ A.*.-• — « y\* — ij ••if\ • ww “ " i A ^ * •< 01;:' section 5.42 Subdivision 2. LICENSE REQUIRED - It is unlawful for any (group or association of persons or families, more than two in nuintar^ whether incorporated or not) to engage or participate in...^oint use (of any lakeshore property) without first having obtained a license therefor from the City. PLEASE COMPLETE ALL ITEMS AND SUBMIT SIGNED APPLICATION, REQUIRED ATTACH^IENTS, AND LICENSE APPLIC.^TION FEE TO THE CITY CLER.^ BY MARCH 1 OF THE LICENSE YEAR. ASSOCIATION INFORMATION 1. Association title or name (if Navarre Cove Homeowner*s Assn^ 2. Lalce MinnetonJca Bay Carman ’s Bay 3. Person responsible for this application; Name Daniel T. Lindsay Phone 612/339-9500 Mailing Address 100 S. 5th St., Suite 2500, Minneapolis, MN 55402_ Relationship to association President. Page 1 of 5 B r>-r h. 5. Associa^io^ is (check applicable icar^}: uni—corT'crcCed honsovner's oCCup» X incorporated Horcecwner ’s Association. unincorporated club or recreation group. incoroorated club or recreation group Principal purpose of joint -.ise deck is (check applicable itens): X provide boat mooring and la^e access for residential property. provide svimming access, beach, or offsnore dock. provide a club or association gathering place for ecti'/ities Dock is located on (check applicable iten): one r.ember*s p’-f.'ate property easement or outlet ovned in common property leased by the grout/asscciaticn. X property o*.med by the group/association. List Dock location and ovnersnip infortaticn: street addo^ss Kellv Cove legal property description 20-117-23 12 Outlet A, Navarre Cava. PID # listed property ovner(s) Daniel T. Lindsay, Thomas R. Dahl D. D. Savage _____ 8. Names of abutting lakeshore property owners; (North REFER TO PREVIOUS APPLICATION (Name + Address) (.South/^REFER TO PREVIOUS APPl (Name + Address) CMotO Names of other affected property owners : REFER TO PREVIOUS APPLICATION (Name + Address") (attach sheet if necessary) 2 of 5 S . lasurance Coverage - The used do si: is Insured =« r ^ A ^J W.aCT • Q X* ^ ^ • property owner's hoaecwner's policy. X separate group/sssociation owned policy, list the following infomaticn: name of i* sured Navarre Cove Hcmeovmer' s Assn nniMi of insurance carrier General Casualty Ccrrpar.v — . — yinwiA of Insurance agency Rooke> Johnson and Renslow __ , policy no. r.imnci1fi-qo effective date of coverage»-i-9Q-9 1 amoimt of coverage; Public liability, per person, per occurence S 500,000 10- Public liability, rer Security and policing of the Jointly' (checJt applicable items): 1 $500,000 $500,000 en occurence doci: and property is provided by fencing. ___ security lighting. pitperty owner's presence. contract security ser’.'i.ce. other (specify) DOCK niPORMATION 11.List Dock Use Area Specifications: Width of shoreline; 80 length of nain dock from shore; Dock setbacks from side property lines at shore; 20 ft. and 12.Dock Construction (check applicable items): seasonal dock (relocated or replaced each year). _ _ permanent piling with seasonal dec::. X permaae.nt piling and decking wooden decking. _ _ metal decking. 13. List Dock Accessories; Number of fire extinguishers available at the dock 0_ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ Number of life preservers available at the dock _ _ _2 XU* ft. 14. List number of slips in each category ("slips" includes boat lifts): Transient (day use only) slips O Transient (day use) off-shore buoys _0_ Fermanient moorage slips 6 • Permanent moorage off-shore buoys 0 Dry storage (rack) slips p_________. Maxinnsn mmiber of boats at the dock 6 15. List number of off-street parking spaces available for users of the Joint ^e dock. Pari:lr»gy if provided must qot be separated frtm the dock by any public road. 0 spaces. 3 of 5 SROSIO?! AMD SEDIMENTATION COJTTHOL 16. Shorsline is protected by (cneci: appxicabie iters;: stone rip rap VDcd seava.retal seavail.concrete seavall* X grass and vegetation only, other (spectfj') 17. Depth of vater at shoreline Is A ft; at 50 ft. out i.. _ 1 I at IGO ft. out is 4* . REQUIRED ATTACHMENTS The following must accompany this application: A. DOCK PLAN - ALL APPLICATIONS B. A dock plem, drawn to scale, showing the shoreline width or this property, ^e side property lines and the location, layout and dimensions of all docks, slips buoys. If off-street paurking, dry storage or other on-land functions are intended, these also shoxild be shown on the plan. NO ATTACHMENT - SAME AS BEFORE UNINCORPORATED GROUPS OR ASSOCIATIONS 1. 2. A list of the names and mailing addresses of all members and/or slip users. A certified copy of the by-laws or agreement for joint use. Note: This copy IS not reauir^ if the applicant initials and certifies the following statementl "This is a renewal application and our joint use dock is to be operated under the same by-laws or agreement originally made in - - - - (state year) and on file witii the City." Applicant's initials C. PER TO EVIOUS PLICATION INCORPORATED CLUBS OR ASSOCIATIONS 1. A list of the names, mailing addresses and titles of all corporation officers. :he club or association.A statement as to the total number of members in 4 mesibers. 3.A certified copy of the articles of incorporation and by-laws of t.he corporation. Note: These copies cure not required if the applicant initials and certifies the following statement: "This is a renewal application and our joint use dock is to be operated under the same articles of incorporation and/or by-laws as originally made or last amended in 1980 __(state year) and on file with the City." V ^0/J f IL.VJApplicant's initials Paae 4 of 5 D. ANNUAL LICENSE FEE - ALL APPLICATIONS Joint Use Dock License Application fee according to the current City Fee Schedule Initial Application Fee Renewal Joint Use Fee, per year $ $t J — Plus Slip Fee for each permanent moorage slip, lift, dry stack, or buoy slips 8 $2.00 each TOTAL DUE THIS APPLICATION S $ /2- LATE FEE - Renewals Applications for renewal of licenses shall be made no later than March 1 of the license year. The City shall n^ accept renewal license applications received after March 1 unless the application is accompanied by a late -ee o^ $25. uu. R7.VIEW PROCEDURE When a complete application is received, the appxication will be reviewed by the City Council and, in the case of new or unusual apvlications, also by the Planning Commission and Marina Comm,ittee. The Council : 1 1 pass upon the application alter complete review. THE SUBJECT DOCK MAY BE INSTALLED AND/OR OPENED FOR USE ONLY UPON APPROVAL OF THE LICENSE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. Pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code, the applicant hereby requests the Orono City Council to review this Joint Use Dock License Application, and agrees and authorizes the City of Orono and the City's employees and agents to enter upon the property at any reasonable time to perform safety and code compliance inspections. Signed 1 Dated // Page 5 of 5 » . • 07J080 GO SDVmi^ • ®'?r ii3: '^nl 9-^ Cr^/: S /^re-C l/r/c/'i'^-T/c rH/" - yo ( ■?7‘’ /-»/♦- /,;=/' /<tf« - - /f/V- /ff7- /fy^- ' 4. 'C. ^ iO (,D . CO • CO CD 4J> RESOLOTION DIRECTING STAFF TO ISSUE A JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE TO NAVARRE COVE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS NOTED HEREIN FOR THE PERIOD OP JANUARY 1, 1991 TO DECQ!BER 31, 1991 WHEREAS, the City of Orono, hereinafter "City" is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota and has the authority and responsibility under Minnesota Statutes, State Statute 412, et. seq. and State Statute 462, et. sea., to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City and other members of the public within the City; and WHEREAS, the City shares concurrent jurisdiction over the primary harbor limit of the City of Orono with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the Department of Natural Resources of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the regulation of the navigable waters involves an exercise of police power of the State, LMCD, and the City of Orono, all of which have adopted rules to ensure to all equal enjoyment of the public rights and equal protection from activity on or near the public waters and on the land within the City which, if unregulated, may be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, the regulations of the DNR, LMCD, and the City of Orono regulate thi property rights of the riparian owners both as to residential owners and the commercial marina owners to the extent prohibiting any interference with the public waters adjoining their property. The LMCD, DNR and City of Orono must fulfill their trusteeship over the public waters by protecting against interference by anyone, including those who assert the commonlaw rights of riparian owners, whether or not they be commercial marinas or residential owners; WHEREAS, as to Lake Minnetonka, a mutual right of enjoyment exists between and is shared by riparian owners and the public generally, no one riparian owner has exclusive privileges over Lake Minnetonka. The only additional private right that any riparian owner may have over the public generally is to construct one dock to the navigable depth of the public waters. There can be no dispute but that the public generally and each riparian owner to Lake Minnetonka has the right to use the entire surface area of lake Minnetonka for all suitable purposes in common with all other riparian owners. This right is a right not only to members of the public but the right to each riparian owner. Page 1 of 2 This mutual right of enjoyment which is shared by riparian owners and the public generally includes the recreational benefits of the lake such as boating and fishing therein? the riparian owner has no exclusive privileges to these rights; and WHBRBAS, Lake Minnetonka is capable of substantial beneficial public use only as long as all riparian users of the lake are regulated in such a way as to ensure there is no abuse of the limited riparian rights; and WHBRBASy the City has adopted reasonable regulations regarding the construction and use of lakeshore and dock facilities when such facilities are used and maintained by three or more families, which regulations include the annual licensing of Joint Use Docks pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Orono Municipal Code; and NHBRBAS, the purpose of this Resolution is to set forth the above noted general conditions and concerns and the follc'wing special conditions as they relate to an application for an annual Joint Use Dock License described on Exhibit A attached. HOW, THBRBFORB, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby directs the Staff to issue a Joint Use Dock License according to the facts and conditions noted on Exhibit A attached. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono at their m'^eting on the 11th day of March, 1991. Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 11th day of March, 1991, by Barbara A. Peterson & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instr'jment was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 2 of 2 L CITY OP ORONO EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. , CONDITIONS OF ISSUANCE FOR ANNUAL JOINT USE DOCK LICENSE I.LICENSEE: Navarre Cove Homeowners Association Dock Address: 2505 Kelly Avenue Agent: Daniel T, Lindsay Address: 100 South 5th Street# Suite 2500, Minneapolis, MN 55402 Licensee is:_ _ _ unincorporated homeowner's group XX incorporated homeowner's association _ _ _ unincorporated club or recreation group _ _ _ incorporated club or recreation group other License Period - January 1, 1991 to December 31, 1991 II. BOAT DENSITY The number of in-place boat slips, lifts and buoys shall not exceed the number shown on the attached plan. Exhibit B, and in accordance with Resolution 938, in no case shall the number of authorized boat slips, lifts, or buoys exceed the number permitted in the prior year's license. Authorized Boat Density per attached plan: Bay Carman Transient (Day use only) Slips Permanent Moorage Slips Boat Lifts Sub-Total: Slips at Dock Offshore Buoys Maximum Boats in Water Maximum Boats per prior license same MAXIMUM BOAT DENSITY Exhibit A Resolution No. Page 2 Exceeding this maximum boat density, or exceeding the number of permitted slips, lifts or buoys is a violation of this license subject to revocation and/or prosecution for violation of Section 5.42 Subdivision 2 of the Orono Municipal Code. III. DOCK LAYOUT The dock structure or layout authorized by this license shall be as shown on attached Exhibit B. Any changes in this layout shall be subject to prior review and approval of the City Council. IV. SPECIAL CONDITIONS required for compliance with the ordinance of the City and/or the LMCD. The issuance of this license is subject to full compliance with these conditions. Failure to comply with these conditions is cause for license revocation and/or prosecution by the City. 'NONE V. Nothing in this license shall confer upon any person for the benefit of any property any vested right to use Lake Minnetonka or premises in a manner permitted by this resolution, out the use of Lake Minnetonka and the premises shall remain subject to such regulations and ordinances as the City and other competent regulatory authorities shall deem necessary from time to time in the public interest. b>/r^^7 CNoao Eo SDvniiA °'?i ZJ if/IT i^ME^ETo c.xtf/air S /<^7e-c i/r/c7-t'^T^76 /" - JO tH nif,,., 4 *( /<»/♦- fc liff-'l^ o t*il~ lO,^n ~ ' if O 93191.1 To: Froa Date Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director March 1, 1991 Subject: Change Order #2 - Pumphouse #3 Project Due to additional time to re■ ‘/e excessive amounts of sand from Well #3, the pumphouse proje<-* ■ te was not available to the contractor at the time specified ixi the contract, therefore a time extension is necessary. Reconendation - To extend the completion date for Pumphouse #3 from December 15, 1990 to May 15, 1991 for substantial completion and site grading and landscaping to be extended to June 15, 1991. Proposed Notion - Moved by _ _, seconded by _ _, to approve a time extension for completion date for Pumphouse 13 Project from December 15, 1990 to May 15, 1991 for substantial completion and site grading and landscaping to be extended to June 15, 1991. Ayes _ _, nays _ _. To: Pro Mayor Peterson and Orono Council Members Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato\|^^^ Forwarded recommending approval. JRG/tln CHANGE ORDERDATE: February 22, 1991PLACE: Orono, Minnesota FILE NO: 13950 PROJECT; Pumphouse No. 3 CONTRACTOR; Richr ir Construction, 7776 Alden Way, Fridley, MN 55432 BOND CO.t (United Fire fc Casualty) Alexander 4 Alexander, Attn: Meridith F. Shian, . CHANGE ORDER NO.: 2 PO 1360, Mpls., MN 55440 DESCRIPTION OF WORK; . • . , . • . . . . .. , - . . _ Unit _ Est’d _ __ Total _ Order Item ' Unit Price guantiti' j7 Amount '5 Ftlsf “Ikn^in’on'is appr^rd^~to the 1 aTe^c'SI^^^ion “ . of Well No.-3 which provided additional development and- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- * -;• delayed Richmar 106 days. The completion date is changed from Dec. 15, 1990 to May 15, 1991. This date is the substantial completion date at which time the Pumphouse will be operational and hydro­ pneumatic tanks will be insulated. Final completion of site grading and driveway is to be June 15, 1991. Completion date extension L.S. $0.00 1 ITEM B Provide additional spare brick to remain on site to be used to fill spaces of hydro-pneumatic tanks should the tanks be removed in the future. Extra brick I'-S- 265.00 1 265.00 ITEM C Provide Wallace & Tiernan chlorination equipment in lieu of/the specified Capitol Controls equip. L.S. 0.00 1 0.00 ITEM D Coat adjustment for brick. Pricing less " ' « than the specified allowance. L-S- -28.00 1 -28.00 TOTAL CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 $237.00 , . . .. . . . . X'tft*.-. - . % - « • l. .. . .... 4^. aMMaki tf | ^ -»•. « ....... ... - , - m, ^ %*' •. •• H !•>» nii^|a<i#nwTI(fnimTn>Mninrwif ~ri n :»..•* • ... ... e* m* « .......r* * ... . ............. - - - — ^ - - v-• - ' 13950C0 _______ _____ . ............ .......................-------------------- --------- V-, *. • ..V'is If; »»4 -a 'v . *• « * • .' • •- . j* .•.#.»%. .—V i • S • .t • •• t •». T-w - t ~ *• — -r .• x ^ ^ mi p* ismi^riuaTi naan—> *■ wi-i 1 * ~~ - - *•- •» * • v «•- ■%•>•>. «% wv ^ I'm* mi^aiTwrswuww^'u ^ ’III II HL4u 7mi ?\vm'^r,rin r.a:v . •aiigiaiiipiiiM i t i nupwim 11 r' ■ '* ---------------- wT t ■■ mh air mm mu a i«i ■■ ■ m£mmmmmmm^SSSSSSSSSKmmmoB3B ^ — ■■ xt jjaMuiiiMiM«aBBeaw3agc»ipBipwg ga«pgPwgKcayiv«rrj CHANGE ORDERDATE: PLACE: PROJECT: CONTRACTOR: BOND CO.: CHANGE ORDER NO.: FILE NO: 13950February 22. 1991 Orono, Minnesota Pumphouse No. 3 Rlchmar Construction. 7776 Alden Way. Fridley, MN 55432 (United Fire & Casualty) Alexander & Alexander, Attn: Meridith F. Shian, 2 PO Box 1360, Mpls., MN 55440 -*1*- A • 'iC t ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT PREVIOUS CHANGE ORDERS THIS CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 - ADD REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT f II iiin c ■ ^ I—■■iBfr ' T * r~ ~ $211,340.00 izX;:t:;‘:7,440.oo, 237.00 —....... $219,017,00 Recommended for Approval by: EONESTROO. RC3ENE. ANDERLIK i ASSOCIATES, INC. By ^- - - r ^ Approved by: RICHMi^R CONSTM^CTION COMPANY • gy ^ l^ys/ ^ Approved by: CITY OF ORONO, MN - - • . * -r ' .Mayor ' ' Distribution - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ Qity -- • " . Clerk • 1 - Bonding Co'. ;":;*' ^- - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - -- 1 - Contractor . .... . . . .. .... BRA -: ^ T:: Date:_ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ If,i nmtnrvm^~ 7 ... . 13950CO _ _ _ ___ _ _IIZI! • '- ' ' - _ - _^ ^ , ■ j., luiwr*—rwirr-*—tr— ■ .'■* “*— ‘ ‘T’T.*. V .^■m.timrn •ky*Ja.KiCOt«AA • ..W j • '- f" -aj ? .,,ru.» aa ■• v-f_ ; -1 -..a * ■-•_. ^ ■ -C -JS..— - • ^ ‘_—. _ _ _ _■ ..I .. . .I r.r^T^ •■! liat.* ■ JAi --- ^ ^ I II I — ‘ - '**-.*’—*!*■ •• . .. - . .~r*-%*• *~**flV * ** “ "7“'l^ .-_ - __ _. -- - - -- •> . i I m afawi,...t, ,., ^.■ar.^--"rvgY-^>:*2ssgi^T?7asrir-~;;z!^vrx-'?:?gi#^.‘-"^^ ' ,L To: Proa: Date: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator John R. Gerhardson# Public Works Director March If 1991. ^6) >1 Subject: Pay Requst #5 - Pumphouse #3 Project Attached for review and approval is Pay Request #5 for the Pumphouse #3 Project. The work has been completed according to the specifications. Recoaaendation - To approve Pay Request #5 for Well #3 in the amount of $5r225.00. Proposed Notion - Moved by ___r seconded by ___, to approve Pay Request #5 for Well #3 for an amount of $5,225.00. Ayes nays To: Mayor Peterson and Orono Council Members Proa: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato^S^^ Forwarded recommending approval. JRG/tln REQUEST FOR PAYHE!JT DATE:February 27, 1991 FOR PERIOD: PLACE:Orono. Minnesota From: Feb. 5, 1991 PROJECT:Pumphouse No. 3 SPECIFIED CONTRACT PROJECT NO.! CONTRACTOR: 9 FILE NO.: 13950 COMPLETION DATE: Richmar Construction ADDRESS:7776 Alden Way Fridley. MN 55432 REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO.:5 To; Feb. 25. I9P SUMMARY: 1. Original Contract Amount Change Order - ADDITION Change Order - DEDUCTION Revised Contract Amount Value Completed to Date Material on Hand Amount Earned Less Retainage 5 1 Sub-Total 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. $ $ 7,440.00 Less Amount Paid Previously AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO.: S S $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 211.340.00 218.780.00 158.840.50 0.00 158.840.50 7.942.03 150.898.47 145.673.47 5.225.00 Recommended for Approval by: BONESTROO. ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. By: OWNER APPROVAL: By_ _ _ _ _ _ By_ _ _ _ _ _ Date:Approved Rv; RICHMAR CONSTRUCTION Contractor By: 13950PR Wfrnr PROJECT : PLACE : Pumphouse Ho. 3 0rono. Minnesota CONTRACTOR: Richmar Construction PAYMENT MO.: FILE NO.:13950 DATE: February 27 1991 STATEMENT OF WORK Unit Est’d Quantity Amount Contract Item Unit Price Quantity To Date To Date BASE BID - PUMPHOUSE NO. 3 Mobilize & Bond L.S.$4,000.00 L S loor $4,000.00 Site Piping L.S.9,500.00 L S loor 9,500.00 Drain Manhole & Piping L.S.2.500.00 L S lOOZ 2.500.00 Site Grading (initial)L.S.2.500.00 L S 50Z 1,25).00 Site Grading (finish)L.S.1,500.00 L S Driveway L.S.5.500.00 L S Concrete i Masonry LS.33,890.00 L S 95Z 32,195.50 Door. Viudov & Hardware L.S.3,200.00 L S 90Z 2,880.00 Carpentry L.S 2.900.00 L S lOOZ 2.900.00 Roofing i Sheet Metal L.S.6,500.00 L S 80Z 5,200.00 Roof Hatch L.S.1,400.00 L S lOOZ 1,400.00 Precast Roof Plank L.S.4,100.00 L S lOOZ 4,100.00 Lab Cabinets & Sink L.S.3.800.00 L S Painting L.S.4,300.00 L S 502 2,150.00 Hydro-Pneumatic Tanks L.S.19,500.00 L S lOOZ 19.500.00 Air Compressor Ass'y L.S.6,100.00 L S 300Z 6.100.00 Process Piping L.S.8,500.00 L S lOOZ 8,500.00 Misc. Plumbing tr Air Piping L.S.4,800.00 L S 902 4,320.00 Pump & Motor L.S.18,500.00 L S loo;18,500.00 13950PR Page 1 PROJECT: Pumphouse Ho. 3 PAYMENT NO.:5 PLACE: Orono, Minnesota FILE NO. :13950 roMTRACTOR: Richmar Construction DATE : February 27. 1991 STATEMENT OF WORK Unit Esfd Quantity Amount Contract Item Unit Pr ire Quantity To Date To Date BASE BID, CONT’D. Flow Meter L.S.2.100.00 L S 1002 2,100.00 Check Valve L.S.2.600.00 L S 1002 2,600.00 Chem. Feed Equipt.L.S.7,000.00 L S 1002 7,000.00 Air Cond. & Ventilation > .S.7,250.00 L S 502 3.625.00 Electrical (rough-in)L.S.6,500.00 L S 1002 6,500.00 MCC 6 Controls L.S.31.200.00 L S 202 6.240.00 Elec. Fixtures & Finish L.S.6.800.00 L S 1,700.00 Install 4" topsoil, seed, fertilizer & mulch Acre 4,000.00 0.5 TOTAL BASE BID WORK $154,760.5C ALTERNATE NO. 1 Substitute preformed wall & roof panels in lieu of wood shakes on the mansard roof as ADD or DEDUCT TOTAL ALTERNATE NO. 1 L $$2,900.00 L S $0.00 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 PART A - SOFT START TYPE STARTER Revise motor starting equip, to a size 3 Allen Bradley soft start TOTAL PART A - ADD 139S0PR L.S.$3,360.00 Page 2 $0.00 mi Mft A ■pRdJEtT: PLACE: Pumnhouse Ho. 3 Orono, Minnesota CONTRACTOR: Richroar Construction STATEMENT CF UCRK Contract Item Unit Unit Price PART B - r.O-..n WEATHER CONDITION: Heat and cover for masonry wi>tk L.S. Additional labor for cold weather work I S. Temporary heating and equip, protet ■ ...n $2,930.00 650.00 500.00 TOTAL PART B - ADD PART A PART B TOTAL CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TOTAL tASE BID WORK TOTAL ALTERNATE BID TOTAL CHA2IGE ORDER NO. 1 TOTAL WORK COMPLETED TO DATE Page 4 13950FR PAYMENT NO.:_ _ _ _5 FILE NO.:_ _ _ _ _ll."50_ _ DATE: February 27. 1991 Est'd Quantity Amount Quantity To Date To Date 1 1 1 1 1 1 $0.00 080.00 $4,080.00 $154,760.50 0.00 4,080.00 $158,840.50 $2,930.00 650.00 500.00 $4,080.00 PROJECT PAYMENT STATUS CITY: PROJECT: FILE NO.: CONTRACTOR: Orono, Minnesota Pumphouse No. 3 13950 Richmar Construction ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT $211,340.00 TOTAL CHANGE ORDERS $7,440,00 REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT $218,780.00 DATE NO.rHANC.E ORDER DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 12-5-90 1 2 3 Revise motor staiter; Provide heat & labor for winter conditions $7,440.00 TOTAL CHANGE ORDERS - ADD PROJECT PAYMENT SUMMARY; TOTA« ,HENT TO DATE RETAINAGE FOR PAYMENT NO, TOTAL VALUE COMPLETED 5 $150,898.47 7.942.03 $158,840.50 13950PR $7,440.00 PAYMENT NO. PERIOD FROM TO PAYMENT THIS VOUCHER VALUE COMPLETED FCTAINAGE 1 8-1-90 10-31-90 $22,074.20 $3,043.00 $1,161.80 2 11-1-90 11-30-90 24,295.30 28,617.00 2,440.50 3 12-1-90 12-21-90 32.474.80 62,801.00 4,149.70 4 12-21-90 2-4-91 66,829.17 153.340.50 7.667.03 5 2-5-91 2-25-91 5.225.00 158,340.50 7.942.03 22S91 If Mayor and City CouncilTO; PR^M; Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate DATE: February 28, 1991 SUBJECT: Town Meeting / W \ ■ C/y ff Oj:/p % ISSUE - 1. Presentation to Council of place for the meeting. 2. Determine agenda, if any, the Council would desire for that. 3. Determine any desired attendance on the part of staff members. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's February 25, 1991 Council meeting they directed staff to establish the Town Meeting at the High School in either the auditorium or the cafeteria from 10 to noon on Saturday, April 6, 1991. DISCUSSION - Issue #1 - The cafereria has been obt ; led for that meeting and we have asked for coffee and cups for approximately 150 people. Issue #2 - Originally presented for a Town Meeting was the issue of an open forum to have the public state concerns they have regarding the City. Given the potential lack of interest in an open forum or the direction that such a format could take, it is suggested that a list of key topics be established. Strategic plan priorities may be appropriate listing of issues and that people would be allowed to bring up other issues later on in the agenda. Issue #3 - Type of format and topics together with Council's thinking about the matter would be instructive as to what staff members, if any, they would desire to have in attendance at that meeting or if they would prefer to have CounciImembers meeting with the public. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the information. 2. Establish an agenda. 3. Table until the March 25, 1991 Council meeting. 4. Outline what staff members, if any, they would like. 5. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council indicate what ■p format they would desire# if any# and staff members they would desire to have attend. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by Counci1 direct Staff regarding the Town Meeting currently scheduled for April 6# 1991 from 10 to noon. Ayes _# Nays _. 22891 TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administratd' February 28, 1991 SUBJECT: Breakfast Meetings with Commissions X /( Cf %0 ISSUE - Determination of dates that Council would like to breakfast with: Planning Commission Park Commission INTRODUCTION - At the Council's February 25, 1991 Council meeting they indicated a desire to have breakfast meetings similar to those that were held several years ago between Planning Commission and Council members. As discussed, because of a quorum of the Council, it would be prudent these would be posted as public meetings and at the invitation of the CounciImembers could be h(^ld at the Lafayette Club as was the practice several years ago. The purpose of this memo is to determine what dates Council would like to set for this, it may be appropriate given the work schedule that the meeting for Planning Commission be on a Saturday morning in April and the one with the Park Commission in May. It would additionally be helpful for Council to indicate what staff members, if any, they would desire to be in attendance at those meetings. ALTERNATIVES 1. Establish dates. 2. Table for further discussion. 3. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that Council establish dates they may desire so that those can be posted and further indicate what staff members, if any, they would like at each of the respective meetings. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, Council establish as the date for a breakfast meeting with Planning Commission and as the date for the Park Commission. Ayes __, Nays __. 3691.1 TO: FROM: DATE: .Mayor and City Councili’layvjL aiiw4 ^ Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administratt^^'N March 6, 1991 p"BJBCT: Planning Commission Applicants ^ ^9srOf %i\io Attachment: A. Advisory Board - Expiration of Terms Dated 12/7/90 B. Guidelines for Selection Dated 7/23/90 C. Letters of Application D. Draft Letter to Applicants ISSUE - 1. Present to Council letters of application received in response to ad placed in the paper on February 18, 1991. 2. Determine process for consideration. INTRODUCTION - Attachment A outlined upcoming vacancies for Planning Commission. Attachments C are in response to that ad. DISCUSSION - As outlined in Attachment 3 it would be appropriate to interview the new applicants plus any the Council would like to interview of existing members whose terms are up and are desiring to continue. It is anticipated that interviews would be held at the 3/25 meeting with a discussion either that evening or on 4/8. Mr. McMillan has advised that he will be unable to attend the Council meeting of 3/25. If Council agrees, we will reschedule his appearance before the Council at your 4/8 meeting. This would be in time for the 4/15 meeting of the Planning Commission. ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept applicants. 2. Table to interview. 3. Send letter outlining questions. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that Council accept the new applications for interview on 3/25 and direct a letter be sent outlining issues to be addressed by applicants. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by that Council interview the new applications on 3/25 and direct a letter be sent outlining issues to be addressed by applicants. Ayes _, Nays . cc: Charles Kelley Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator on TO: FBOM: DATE: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administratol December 7, 1990 SUBJECT: Advisory Board - Expiration of Terms The following terras expire in the first 3 months of 1991: Park Commission Richard Flint (Chair) Lee Erger James Gilbert Susan Wilson 12/31/90 12/31/90 12/31/90 12/31/90 All but Mr. Erger have expressed interest in continuing as Park Commission members. Planning Commission James Hanson At Large Ed Cohen At Large 03/31/91 03/31/91 Staff will advertise for the Park positions in the next couple weeks. For the Planning Commission it will be done early in February. Others expiring the end of 1991: Park Commission Alex Vongries 12/31/91 Philip Bradley 12/31/91 Lester Kellej 12/31/91 LMCD JoEllen Hurr 12/31/91 West Hennepir. Human Services LaDean McWilliams 12/31/91 /l-nTfO/Mfeijr CITY OF OROnO advisory board selection process GUIDELINES TO STAFF ADOPTED 7/23/90 The following represents an outline of a flexible appo i n uinen wS process that: the Council has adopted for guidelines to staff a^nd Ipplicants during the selection for vacancies or its various Boards. 1. When a vacancy occurs or when a term is to expire advertisements will be placed in the City's newspaper together with other appropriate notification of the impending vacancies. Advertisements will net be required for appointments of Chair and Vice Chair. 2. Notices will contain a closing date for accepting applications for purposes of administrative ease. The Council by a majority vote can direct further solicitation of people. 3. Applications should be in the rorm of a lei->.er expressing interest and a resume of experience, particularly experience that may be relevant to tne position frc-.i individuals who are new to the process. Letters of intent will be requested from incumbents. 4. Council may hold interviews at one Council meeting- and may extend the interview period if it desires to a subsequent meeting unless a different process is indicated prior to such interviews. Failure or inability to attend an interview will not result in automatic disqualification. 5. Following the interviews Council will then decide what appointments they desire to make to the various vacancies . ( . I * -V tvrCL TO: The Members of the Orono City Council har S 1931 Dear Council Members: There are many reasons why I am keenly interested in joining the City of Orono Planning Commission. Whether it is taxes, schools. Highway 12, Lakeshcre/LMCD, sewer plant annexation or development, I find these issues matter a lot to me and my family. Often, I catch myself reacting critically to the information I read in the local papers yet wishing to know more of the facts and complexities of each evolving decision. Not surprisingly, such knowledge comes only through active participation—one must become involved in local government to earn the right to be a constructive and critical voice of the process. Many of the decisions that will impact Orono's future quality of life will be made in the next several years. Thus, I wish to embrace civic responsibility and become involved. While I cannot offer any prior public office experience to the Orono C‘ y Council, what I will do is bring compassion and pragmatic concern for the issues that confront the lifestyle we all share. I will ledc .* the details and forthrightly contribute towarJs finding the proper solutions. My goal is to be a consensus builder, not a maverick. Many of the aforementioned issues hit close to our home here in the Orchard Highlands on Lyman Avenue. By participating in and understanding the decision making process, I will necessarily be more accepting of the choices made. Without any doubt, I hope to err on the ride of fiscal prudence and gradual, well-reasoned development, with a strong bias towards protecting the rural traditions of this community. On the personal side, my biography is a quick read. I grew up on Shavers Lake in Deephaven and at age thirteen, moved with my family into a home on Wayzata Bay. I graduated from Blake School in 1976, and earned a degree in Ancient History from Drown University in 1981. Shortly thereafter, I began my professional career with Cargill. Having spent my undergraduate years in New England, I would spend the next six years merchandising grain in Iowa, Ohio and Missouri. My addresses ranged from rural towns to larger cities. The exposures to different communities were great experiences, yet too short to put down roots in a meaningful way. In 1987, Lili and I made several major decisions that centered around finding a more permanent lifestyle for our fledgling family. The quality of life we sought was in a community which valued its schools, wildlife and recreation: where privacy, hard work and individualism were respected by friends and neighbors alike. After one year of searching we found that place in Orono, whose fiscal policies and credit-worthiness rank among the top three percent nationwide. With its history of well-considered growth and development Orono was clearly more attractive to us that its surrounding communities. Now it is three years later, and more than ever we believe that Orono is a particularly unique place to live. I certainly want to go on record as a concerned and active resident. It would be both an honor and a very real commitment to serve this special community. In advance, I thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Howard I. McMillan III ■ r HOWARD I. MCMILLAN III 1275 Lymam Avenue Wayzata, Minnesota 612-476-8626 (H) 612-371-7713 (O) PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: 1988 - PRESENT: 1986 - 1987: 19P4 - : '86: DAIN BOSWORTH, INCORPORATED INSTITUTIONAL SALES - Minneapolis, Minnesota Fully T'igistered securities broker specializing in high quality fixed income products: corporate, municipal, government and mortgage- backed bonds. Customers include banks, insurance companies, trust departments and money managers located in Ohio, Illinois, Iowa and Minnesota. Series 7, 63 and 3 licensed. CARGILL, INCORPORATED REGIONAL MERCHANT - Kansas City, Missouri Achieved budgeted profit of $1.7 million merchandising oilseeds in adverse market conditions. Directed profitable cash trading positions in three distinct markets: Kansas City terminal; Mexican rail export; Texas gulf export. Developed soybean program at Topeka facility earning above average margins of 16 cents per bushel. Responsibilities included: regional oilseed P&L; government commodity programs (domestic); supply and demand analysis; freight logistics; space allocation and put-through budgeting; managing information flow; contract compliance; merchant development. .ASSISTANT REGIONAL MERCHANT - Toledo, Ohio Dual responsibilities: traded high-capacity unit trains of corn, wheat, soybeans; coordi­ nated their movement from country elevator origins through three Atlantic seaboard export facilities. Logistically managed a fleet of 180J leased hopper cars with a cumulative trading volume exceeding 120 million bushels. Successively reduced demurrage losses by 50% per year; ex­ ecuted vessel sales to overseas buyers; negoti­ ated contract rates with railroad companies; tripled the region's direct purchase volume. lyiTS r«vjiv»i mtw*] I h !»• 1 March, 1991 MAR A laai Orono Counci1 Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 Dear Council Members: I am writing to submit my name for consideration for a position on the Orono Planning Commission. My goal in joining the Commission is i.o work with the other members to act in the best interests of Orono and its future development, as expressed by the Comprehensive Plan. Orono currently faces a number of development challenges and it is my strong desire to be actively involved in resolving these issues. I am ready to commit my time and efforts on behalf of the community with the Commission. My wife and I decided to relocate our family back to Minnesota (I wa*? '' ■'d raised in Marshall) two years ago, moving here frc '"Tgland. We chose Orono deliberately and carefully f' ' rural characteristics. I am committed to wo _rve those qualities. From Salomon Brov London, I joined the Churchill Com­ panies, a Minneapolis investment group, where I serve as a senior executive in our subordinated debt fund, Churchill Capital. The fund makes subordinated debt capital available nationwide to manufacturing and service concerns for a variety of transactions, including recapitalizations, growth and buy-outs. PUase refer to the attached resume for previous professional experience. In addition, through high school and college I worked with my father, an independent contractor, and have first-hand knowledge of zoning and building issues which are relevant to the Commission's work. t m I look forward to working with tne Council as a member of the Planning Commission. If I can provide additional information or answer an> questions, please call me at home at 476-6492 or at my office at 673-6628. Thank you for ycur consideration Very truly yours. Charles L. Schroeder 1925 West Farm Road Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 Enel. CLS/paf Work ExptrlMc* Jan. 1M7 • Pritant 1M2-1M7 1M1 • 1982 1981 MMINIMr iduealion 1980-1982 1977-1990 July 1999 CHARLES L SCHROEDER 30 Ntton Street London, Eng^ SW6 6NJ 01-381*0844 SALOMON BROTHERS INC LONDON. UK Account Executive/lnvestment Advisor. Responsible for development of new accounts and delivery of Investment products to UK and European InstJtudonal clients. Product range indudes asset allocation and equity portfolio trading with emphasis on equity futures and options. Market coverage of Japan. UK and US. Address trade seminars on equity products and markets. Registered Representative; CFTC registered. CITIBANK, N JL NEW YORK. NY Senior Account Officer. World Corporation Group - Shipping. Managed worldwide bank relationships, providing corporate fktance products and services. Including credit, hedging aitematives. corpc^e advisory and cash management. Developed securitized products. Acted as Department liaison with US Government maritime orlties. Account size ranged upward to over $1 bition in revenues.at POLAROID CORPORATION CAMBRIDGE. MA ConsultanL Worldwide Trade aral Investment Division. Developed Wematlonal pricing manual which considered the effects of transfer pricing policies, tareign exchange exposure, sourcing options, and tariff and trade laws on Polaroid operations. US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C. Financial Advisor. Prepared recommerxiations on TWo XI financing requests of US shipping companies. Furxfing requests ranged upward to $120 mMlon. FLETCHER SCHOOL OF UW AND DIPLOMACY MEDFORD. MA Master of Arts In Law and Diplomacy. Primary fields of study included Intamallonai Fliwnce. Intamatlonol Trade and Investment, and International Business. (Diploma received 0/87) HARVARD GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION CAMBRIDGE. MA Cross regisliiilon through the Fletche. School. Coursework Included Investment Management. International Business Managemertt, and International Shipping. COLLEGE PORTLAND. OR Bachelnr of Aits, Ecortomics. Recipient of Aubrey Watzek Scholarship arxl DMelw commendations for acadamle achievement Thomas J. WMson Felowship natlonat IkialiaL Honors thesis. Er^ cruising arxl competkive saling. skHng. terxiis arxl bicycling. Have traveled extanslvely. Working knowledge of Spanish. r- RermebcJimcompaiw 9741 96th Avenue No>’th Maoie G'Ove. Minnesota 55369 Orono City Council Box 66 Crystal Bay, HN 55323 FEB 1 ^ 2-13-91 Re: Application for Planning Commission Post To Whom it May Concern, Please accept this letter as my formal application for consideration as a member of the City of Orono Planning Commissi>n. As a long time resident of Orono, I feel I can bring perhaps a new perspective to the Planning Commission. Not being too certain of the level of experience you look for in such a position, I can only present myself as a concerned citizen with the following qualifications: Age: 47. Children: Small business owner of Sales firm selling construction related products to the Contractor/Industrial/Utility markets. Business address: The Rennebohm Company, 9741 86th Ave. N, Maple Grove. Currently own office/warehouse at this address. Owner of business since 1972. Education: Breck School 1959-1962. University of Minnesota-Duluth, Graduate with a B.A. in English. Honors Study, Dean's List, Post Graduate Assoc. Harried, Sharon Rennebohm, wife. Emily (age 24), Jennifer (age 22). Both graduates of Orono High School. Emily a graduate of the University of Minnesota with a B.A. in English. Jennifer a graduate of the Minneapolis College of Art & Design. -- Religious Affiliation: Trinity Lutheran Church, Long Lake. -- Residence History: 135 Cygnet Place, Long Lake. Built house in 1972. County Road 90, Independence. Built house in 1975. 1520 Tanglewood Road, Long Lake. Built house in 1979. 4565 Bayside Road, Orono (current). Built house in 1990. — Fraternal Membership: none. -- Professional Organizations: North Central Electrical League, Manufacturer's Agents National Association, Plumbing Heating Cooling Club. -- Political Party: Republican. -- Miscellaneous Memberships: Ducks Unlimited, Isaac Walton League, Minnesota Horticultural Society, Minnesota Nurseryman's Association. — Social Membership: Uayzata Country Club, 1972-1991. Mrjfu f — Recreational Activities: Tennis, Hunting, Skiing, Coif. — Avocation: Tree Farmer currently planting nursery stock for non-commercial use on 10 acres at Bayside Road address. —Physical Health: Good to Excellent. — Crininal Record: Clean except for miscellaneous traffic violations. •• Legal Judgements/ Bank notices: none. — Qualifications for Position: a successful businessman who has raised 2 children in the Orono School System, built (4) houses in 20 years in Orono, has experienced firsthand pitfalls and problems In dealing with the Planning CosoDlssion and City Council, and can bring a mature, experienced, sober pc^epcctlve to the City of Orono. It would be my wish to learn flrcthand ^he workings of the Planning Commission as It relates to the council, scaf.. and most Importantly, the citizens It serves. My strongest suit Is as a good listener, who will weigh all points of an Issue, research subject matter in depth, prior to rendering an opinion or vote on an issue. In conclusion, as will be apparent from the above-mentioned, I have had neither the time or energy In the past to volunteer for community service. Now that our children are grown up, and my business Is established in its own right, I have not only the time and energy to devote, but a sincere desire to help facilitate sound, intelligent growth through the governmental system within the City of Orono. 1 am available for interviews at your earliest convenience. Respectfully, Peter H. Rennebohm 4565 Bayside Road Orono, HM 55359 472-7369 i. • n' il I'-' .4"- • r s* ir"' »-♦ February 12, 1991 Hark Bernhardson Orono Council PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MM. oaUju. 55323 Dear Mark, Please except this letter along with my resume as intent to serve on the planning commission. I feel my experience in dealing with the public, along with my experience in the construction field would be an asset to this community. Please feel free to call me at any time if you have any guestions regarding my qualifications. Day phone number 933-1046 or Bvening phone number 472-5795. Regards, David M. Rahn David W. Rahn 1134 Wildhurst Trail Orono, Minnesota 55364 Phone: 472-5795 Work Exporionco Dov« Rohn Dock E Design Orono, Minnesota May 1980 > Present ^ Design and build unique decks - screen, 3 and 4 season porches, additions and new homes. April 1982 • Present VJtr : 'M • ’ Knox Lumber Co. Hopkins Minnesota May 1989 to date Commercial Sales Coordinator ^ Provide technical advice to over 3.000 commercial credit ' cor^struction contractors. ^ TakeK>fT residential and commercial blueprints. ^ Price all materials pertaining to take-offs - trusses, micro-lam beams, etc. ^ Maintain accurate ’Job in Progress' files. ^ Respond to customer Inquiries promptly and professionally. February 1986 to May -1969 Inventory Coordinator ^ Accurately received all Incoming building materials and hardware. ^ Processed paper work In a timely and accu* ’te manner. ^ Adjusted and tracked inventory discrepancies. April 1982 to February 1988 Construction Consultant ^ Provided complete and accurate material lists for customers projects. ^ Ai>$wered aN questior^ pertaining to these projects in a professional manner. Wrote up deliveries and coordinated time with trucking and customer. ^Taught ICnoixcustomer education seminars; iuding designin and building decks, house buildirtg. insulation/ventilation end other t* :)mt5 ’/nprovement courses. Taught over 1,200 adults, in these seminars. SklHt Organized and Etricient ExceHent People Skills &(pert in computer aided drafting and home design software Trok^ed In Computer Aided Blueprint Take-off Systems - Texonics end Nixdcrf Excellent Blueprint Reading Skills Excellent abilities in home building and on-site problem solving Up to date knowledge of current building techniques and materials Education Hennepin Technical Center, Brooklyn Park, Minnesota Carpentry Course Weslonka High School, Mound. Minnesota Aehievementi CerWIed Class I Building Official <«MN-399) July 1978 • April 1960 Graduated 1977 I:' ..................................................................................... 9tatr of Mlnn^Bota COMSSiaCR OF MRUIISIMTin AS Ah Botum CFFK|flL tK 9mU Bako 1134 .IH14lMn«t Or«M, HtOMSOU . SS3M |if,5p Ellli;i399 laaTiti 1/34/M. ,. r '• -------- • .-J <•••■;-.1 • •■ •• • V ' \ i,-r.. *y ' rs<ioio6-oi i^tatr 0f lHintirB0ta CCMIISSIQHER OF MmiNlSmTlOII HAS^SPBD *<iV\CERflFlC4TI(RI,AS^A i miLOI To: D«r14 Ratal Ccrtfftcata ir»UTt«l •ITI 1/24/90 NI-1399 1/24/93 • *•••* »• aM .«k# Mr-^ f: t • r ^ . -i !---------S '} S.V I larr- •* I >^0 qv(\ co^''^'y 40INT INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #287 This certifies DAVID has the competencies evaluated on the reverse side for the program CARPENTRY I I i. .1 L .ji and Is therefore entitled to receive this Recognition given this (j3y of rman Of the Board %/ .19 \ Su per inten dent j U- r r: :VxIf. if'" I" COURTLAND financial services, inc. Febrxiary 28, 1990 Mar i isai Ore10 Council P. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay, Mn. 55323 Dear Council Members: Please consider my name for one of the Orono Planning Commission vacancies. I ^gXleve my background would orovide a good natch with the Planning Coimnission, along with the experience of working within a city planning department. I am very interested in land use and making sure we keep a quality of good planning within the City of Orono. I look foward to hearing from you Sincerely, Janice Berg 1007 twelve oaks center, 15500 wayzata boulevard, wayzata, mn. 55391 (6121-476-2413 fax; (6121-476-4155 f« JANICE V. BERG EDUCATION: University of Minnes'>ta University of Minnesota: Minnesota School of Business American Institute of Banking: Mortgage Bankers Association: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Course Real Estate Law Income Property: Ccnstruction Lending loan Closing Pro*Source Real Estate Course: Houses From the Ground Up Minneapolis Builders Association: Customer Service Guide to New Construction Seminars Apartment Operating Expenses Fundamentals of New Construction Houses Inside & Out Marketing to Builders EXPERIENCE: 09/89 - Present OS/89 > 08/89 12/86 - 04/89 09/85 - 12/86 09/76 - 09/85 07/74 - 11/75 02/73 - 12/73 Courtland Financial Services. Owner, Vice President, Heal Estate Loan Officer. Origination underwriting packaging, brokering residetuial, commercial, construction and land development loans. Contracted to review and rate commercial real estate loans in the RTC portfolio. Nordic Mortgage: Construction Lending Officer. Origination, tinder writing, and packaging to broker residential construction loans. Inspecting construction progress and tracking disbursements. Wayzata Mortgage Company: Residential Construction Loan Originator. Originated construction loans, did the underwriting, writing up and presented to loan committee. Previous position: Senior Income Property Processor. Assisted originator in obtaining documentation from clients, process, underwrite, package, and present loan packages to lenders for permanent and construction loans on commercial properties. Served on ’’Service Committee” for Wayzata Mortgage and the ’’Incentive and Recognition Committee" for the Bank Group, Inc, (Parent of WMC). Bruce Cameron. Real Estate Agent/Coldwell Banker: Administrative Assistant, Performed all office functions, prepared competitive market analysis, purchase agreements. listing agreements, searched for homes for prospective buyers, telemarketing and qualified buyers for mortgage loans. Information Publisher: Telemarketing. Daytons: Community Service and volunteer work for church. Chairperson f^ board of Education, President of Home and School Association, Librarian, President of Volunteer Origanization of Our Lady of the Lake School. Secretary and Vice President of Our Lady’s Women’s Council. City of Richfield Planning Department: Secretary and Administrative Assistant for Planning bepartment. Responsible for all department functions. Attended Planning commission meetings, prepared write ups and minutes. Involved in the establishment of HKA (Section 8, Rehab and new homes program). Hired and supervised planning aides/intems. Marquette Rank; Loan Consultant. Interviewed borrowers for residential home loans and monitored the file througli to approval. 04/72 - 02/73 06/71 - 04/7 2 03/66 • 06/71 01/65 * 03/68 Vlortgage Company: Loan Closer. Closed residential loans (existing and new construction) for Northland’s portfolio. Reviewed the title policy, appraisal, did truth in lending and issued closing instructions to the title company. Reviewed processor’s files for accuracy. Boutells: Designer's Assistant. Vo'cational Placement; Employment Counselor. IDS Mortgage. Secretary to VP of Interim Construction Loans. Responsibi^or all department functions, gathered documentaUon for committee presentations, worked with branch offices, monitored and administrated commercial construction loans and draw requests for funds. Midwest Federal. I^an Closer’s Assistant. Handled all phases of loan Reassessing, approval and drawing of closing documents. Did all follow up after closing, reviewed insurance policies, final title policy and did the insuring (FHA and MGIC) and guaranteeing (VA) loans. AFHUATIONS: Minneapolis Builders Association: Membership Committee Community Action Task Force Interfaith Outreach - PR Committee North Tonka Crime Prevention Coalition: Director Community Education Committee Mortgage Bankers Association; Financial Institutions Committee Professional Women in Real Estate - PR Committee Twin West Chamber: Karen Gibb Women of Acnievement Committee Licensed Real Estate Broker Nota/y il 3691 TT/t(Mf€Vr a t; Re: Interview for Planning Commission Dear » As an individual who has expressed interest in the vacancy on the Planning Commission, in response to the newspaper notice of February 18, 1991, I would like to invite you to the Council's Monday, March 25, 1991 meeting to be interviewed. The interview will consist of any introductory comments you may desire to make regarding yourself and your background in the position together with responses to the following questions. 1. What interests you in serving as a member of the Orono Planning Commission? 2. What attributes do you possess that would be of benefit to the City of Orono as a Planning Commission member? 3. Please outline your thinking on the following items: - Orono's Comprehensive Plan - Highway 12 corridor development - Long term street and transportation planning - Facilities needs - Lake Use and Management -> Council/Planning Commission responsibilities and relationship • Ways to develop/retain good Planning Commission/ applicant/staff relations 4. What areas do you feel are important for the Planning Commission to focus on for the rest of 1991 and for 1992. It is anticipated that interviews may begin about 8:00 p.m. The Council meeting' starts at 7:00 p.m. Sincerely, '*• f.i Mark E. Bernhardson City Administrator I TO: FIOM: DATS: 22S?1.8 Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator> February 28, 1991 7^*' jQa. ^ SDBJKT: City Communication - Cable TV Representative Report ►-r ISSUE * Determine process Council desires to have the primary cable TV representative Tim Pattrin report. DISCUSSION - Tim Pattrin was appointed and did attend the FaErtMry~T5, 1991 Cable commission meeting. Given that the City has two primaries, a specific normal report by him may not always be appropriate. Given that the Commission itself only meets four times a year these may be fairly sporatic and can be handled on an as request basis for the agenda. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Establish a method: a. ) Regular report b. ) Upon request of the representative 2. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION -* It is recommended that given the frequency of the meetings and the fact that there are two primaries and an alternate two of whom are Counci Imembers it may be appropriate that reports from the meetings or issues that may come up be handled as an item on the agenda at the request of one of these representatives. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _, Council direct how they want to handle •-eports from the Cable TV Representative. Ayes , Nays p 22891.1 /C TO: PROM: DATS: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat February 28, 1991 SUBJECT: Highway 12 Corridor a !- I. V- j- i, ly 1 - k Attachment: A. Planning Commission Minutes 2/20/91 B. Highway 12 Corridor Memo Dated 2/5/91 (Memo Only) ISSUE - 1. Prer.ent to the Council updated information regarding he development of a recommendation from the Planning Commission's process regarding Highway 12. 2. Determine what the Council desires to do once the reconnendation is received. INTRODUCTION - At the Council ’s January 25, 1991 Council they requested that the Planning Commission undertake a review of the Highway 12 corridor study. DISCUSSION - Issue #1 - Planning Commission Recommendation - In response to tKe "CouncT 1*^ request the Planning Commission set up three meetings for review of the corridor information which are as: 1. Review of information to date - February 6th 2. Public informational discussion - February 20th 3. Development of a recommendation - February 27th A draft of the recommendation based on the Planning Commission conceptual direction at the 2/27/91 meeting will be presented to the Planning Commission at its 3/18/91 meeting for adoption. The Planning Commssion will review the final draft of their recommendation at their regular meeting, March 18th. The final draft will be sent to Council on Tuesday, March 19th. One of the issues that has been problematic during the Highway 12 review process has been the connotations of the terms: No build Expressway Freeway Because of this it may be more fruitful to avoid using such terms and as an alternative focus the discussion on the following if r !■ > issues possibly in a segment by segment basis through the length of the corridor. Number of lanes of traffic Speed to handle the traffic Frequency of access onto the facility Whether access is at grade or separated Frequency of cross points of the facility (May not be the same as access to tiie facility) Issue 12 - Consideration of Recommendation - At some point the Councrr* *nee7i to (decide how they want to deal with the recommendation. It may be appropriate that this be dealt with along the lines of the recommendation split between: A. Goals and Objectives B. Corridor Recommendation Alternatives for consideration are: Place on a regular Council agenda Establish a separate workshop Establish another public information discussion with CounciImembers Table awaiting further information as it relates to: Further traffic analysis information A discussion with the Long Lake Council under an established format Use the recommendation as a guideline to representatives during the Highway 12 Committee meetings but not as an officially adopted position Adopt as presented ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the information for further consideration. 2. Establish a process for further review. 3. Table until receipt of the Planning Commission recommendation. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that Council discuss ways they desire to review the recommendation once received and further FI i cecowBond that the Council discuss the item on its March 25# 1991 Council meeting to determine a process prior to final adoption# which could include getting additional public input# and/or discussions regarding this matter with the Long Lake City Council. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by __# seconded by # Council accept the information from the Planning Commission and^adopts the Goals and Objective* portion of the recommendation together with tabling the balance to the March 25# 1991 Council meeting. Ayes__# Nays NINUTES or THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING REGARDING HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR SELECTION HELD FEBRUARY 20, 1991 ROLL CALL: The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Planning Commission Chair Charlie Kelley and Planning Commission Members Jeffrey Johnson, Mcureen Bellows, Ed Cohen, Jim Hanson, Candace Rowlette and Sara Moos. The following represented the City Staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, and City Recorder Scheffler. Councilmembers Goetten and Jabbour were also present. Chairman Kelley opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. and welcomed those in attendance. He informed the public that another meeting on this issue is scheduled for February 27, 1991 at 5:30 p.m. He said, "The meeting will be mainly a work session. The Planning Commission will use all of the information presented this evening and try to form a recommendation to forward to the City Council. In my opinion, that recommendation should include a location and a statement regarding the degree of upgrade that should occur." Kelley briefly reviewed the procedure for addressing the Planning Commission and began taking public comments. Hartmut Ginnow, 1840 Lakeview Terrace, asked whether light rail transit is a possibility. Cohen replied, "The cost of the light rail system is cost prohibitive. if such a system is implemented, it would be from the Burnsville area to 35W. I also believe that because of the enormous cost to construct 394, the State will not consider spending additional monies in this area for light rail transit." Hanson added, "I read an article stating that the cost of light rail is not economically feasible because of the relatively low population density in this area." Ginnow asked if consideration had been given to elevating or tunneling portions of Highway 12 as a method of relieving traffic congestion. Kelley stated that the issue of design has not yet been discussed. John Merideth, 3685 Watertown Road, stated that he sees two problems that MNDOT is trying to address with this project and that there are two possible solutions. He said, "MNDOT believes there is a need for a major east/west highway to extend all the way to South Dakota. There are plans to improve Highway 12 all the way to South Dakota. From the Communities standpoint, I believe it would be best if such a highway did not go through - 1 - yiiw/iritfii i ■: PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 20, 1991 Orono. It seems to me that it would not be difficult to connect Highway 12 with Highway 55 somewhere near Rockford. This would not completely relieve the congestion in Long Lake, which is the second problem. It is not clear to me that a four-lane highway is the only solution to the Long Lake congestion problem. There upgrades proposed for County Road 6. It may be that safety improvements to Highways 6 and 12 may be all that is required. If those improvements are not acceptable to MNDOT, then I would like the City Officials to take the position that two of the proposed routes through Orono are unacceptable. One unacceptable route is along the Luce Line, the other is County Road 6. I believe that locating the corridor in either location would have significant environmental impact on the Luce Line Trail and our lakes. If a four-lane highway is necessary, and must go through Orono, it should stay where it is presently." Bob Biesterfeld, 450 Deborah Drive, agreed that constructing the corridor near the Luce Line would have a negative impact on the wetlands and wildlife in that area. Hanson stated that he seems to hear over and over again a Community consensus of "not in my backyard". He Si.id, "This question has nothing to do with what my position will be on this issue, but how do we as a Community respond to the transportation needs of the State? One of the political issues involved here is the fact that the western three-quarters of Minnesota, directly west of here, have been under-developed for 29-some years. This is due to the fact that those communities have not had good highway access to Minneapolis/St. Paul, which poses an economic hardship. To what extent are we strictly residents of Orono and we deny our responsibility in a larger community?" Steve Harris, 3850 Watertown Road, stated that though he lives close to a few of the proposed corridors, none would greatly impact him. He said, "So it isn't so much in my backyard. I have talked with MNDOT personnel and attended a few meetings. I have heard discussions regarding the option of building nothing. I think that is unrealistic. My impression, from talking with Steve Hay, is that he would prefer to have a freeway, but realistically a four-lane is what they want and think they need. I would prefer not to have a four-lane running through Orono, but considering Mr. Hanson's comments, that realistically addresses those concerns, and probably is what will happen. The other question is, as residents of Orono, why did we move here and what criteria were in place when we did. The Comprehensive Plan was in place setting forth how things would be in the future. The integrity issue is what was in place and what was planned for to begin with. If the Comprehensive Plan was in place, and we were to believe it, then if it is still in place, we still should believe it. That is whar: Orono has as our integrity position. Realistically we have to realize that we may have at least a safe transit responsibility for people from east - 2 - ■i'% V, PLANNING COMHISSION SPECIAL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 20, 1991 to west and west to east. Speed may not be our responsibility. Whether it takes ten or twenty minutes to get through Orono, if you can do it safely, then that is the point. If we accept our responsibility as citizens of the State and feel that we must let people get through safely, and yet we maintain our integrity position, which is that there would be no additional corridor in Orono, then logically something needs to be worked out with existing Highway 1.?.” Sally Hauser, said, "I chose to live in Orono because it is a rural community. My husband works in Arden H.’.lls, but wa did not want to live there. It is my opinion, that those people who wish to live far wost and work in Minneapolis can make that choice. If they wish to get to work quickly, they can live near 35W In the city. The people living Orono chose to do so because of the environmental characteristics. I have a proposal that I’ve not yet heard discussed by anyone. As mentioned previously, there are two groups of people wishing to get to two different places. One group wants to get to the Dakotas and others live in the immediate western suburbs. The solution for traffic going to and from the Dakotas, you bring 494 north to Highway 5>. For those living in the western suburbs, a gentle upgrade of the existing Highway 1.?, using reversible lanes, would solve the traffic congestion. If there are four lanes, three lanes could head east in the morning and three lanes heading west in the evening." Bob B.lesterfeld stated that he previously resided in Willmar. He said, "Western Minnesota is very well served by several major routes, 94, 169 through Mankato, Highway 1?, and Highway 7, Highway 7 lends itself much better for upgrading and %/idening. I agree that we are dealing with two different traffic groups. There is speculation that economies of western cities would improve if more roads serve that area, but that is just speculation. I think we need to address the major issue for local traffic which is getting through Long Lake and Maple Plain. I personally would rather take an additional five minutes to get through Long Lake than have the entire road torn up.” Cohen stated that he would like to know how many of the persons present prefer to have nothing done at all. One resident asked why it would not be possible to have one lane of traffic heading east and west elevated over the railroad tracks. He said, "There would be no properties or businesses lost, yet it would alleviate some of the congestion.” Another gentlemen stated that it seems the consensus of the residents is that something needs to be done, but that there only be an upgrade and utilization of existing east/west roads. - 3 - I PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 20, 1991 Kollsy said, "Let ••is not address the iss-ie of up9tade at rhis time, only location How many residents in this room would like Highway 12 in the same location." The majority of people raised their hands. Charles Schroeder, 1925 v/est Farm Road, asked why^^ the Highway is not being given more consideration. He said, "That is certainly a solution for traffic west beyond Long Lake and Maple Plain. I have heard that Highway 55 will not address the local problem, but am mystified by that. It seems to me that 0J.0 currently four ways to get into Minneapolis. T lere is County Road 15, existing 12, 6, possibly 24, and Highway 55. I would think that a modest upgrade of Highway 1? and County Road 6 should serve the purpose. If you reside in Delano or Maple Plain it would not bs unreasonable to drive an extra mile or so north ^ot on a fast moving Highw»".y 55. It has been determined that people tend to take the faster moving roads even if it is a mile or so out of their way." Cohen stated that the Faderal and State governments have spent billions of dollars to construct T-394. He said, "Those agencies are not going to admit that they made mistake and should have used Highway 55. It is necessary to view their mentality. X-394 i:5 going to be the funnel of the bulk of the traffic into town because it leads to the parking ramps and downtown accesses. is not the case with Highway 55, which in my opinion is more logical for trucks. I think the City has to recognize that." Schroeder stated that if the consensus of Orono residents is that they do not want to have a freeway, then Highway 55 offers a viable alternative. Darrell Anderson, 920 West V^ay2ata Boulevard, stated that he constructed his home on Highway '.2 in 1967. He said. It appeared at that time that the corridor would go behind the cemetery and along the Great Northern railroad tracks. However, there was not enough funding for the project and nothing further was done until now. I sat for six minutes one day trying to get out of my driveway onto the H.’.ghway. I have heard the crashes at the location where Old Long Lake Road intersects. To my knowledge, there have been three fatalities there. Tiere is no question that there is a problem. However, I do not believe that upgrading the existing Highway 1? ia a feasible approach. I nate to think what the construction period would be like." Rowlette said, "I would just like to get an opinion for the audience. Since most of you raised your hands indicating that you would prefer the existing corridor, I would like to know how you feel about our responsibility to the town of Long Lake and the business owners along Highway 12. Is it your opinion that the newly constructed Long Lake shopping center should be torn - 4 - I’ fRtf (t; j. p- ;r. PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEL ELD FEBRUARY 20, 1991 down? Do you have any suggestions of how to deal with that issue? I agree with Mr. Anderson's comments about the congestion and safety problems. It scares me sometimes when I try to get around the City of Long L=*ke. The town of Long Lake has been in this location for some time. I may not be the most beautiful town, but there is a lot of history and historical buildings." Alan Carlson, 3125 Fox Street, stated that there would be no discussion involving alternative routes if no one was concerned about. Long Lake. He said, "The City of Long Lake is the basis of the problem. We are trying to be fair to the City of Long Lake. However, that is where Highway 12 is today, and that is where it would be automatically upgraded, were it not for the people of Long Lake. It is a difficult problem to solve. It is clear that the people coming from the west could use H.’.ghway 5h, 494 and 394 to get downtown. I found the recent census figures interesting. It showed that Eden Prairie's population increased by 141%-they need a freeway. Brooklyn Park increased by 30%, Maple Grove increased by 83%. Those rities need a freeway. Orono increased by 6% in ten years and Minnetonka Beach lost population. It is apparent that we are not building a highway for ourselves and we are trying to take everyone else into consideration. It would be one thing if we needed the freeway and did not w.unt in our backyard. However, that is not the case." Kelley added, "Population projections for the years 1980 and 1990 were done after the 1970 census. Orono's 1990 population is what was projected for 1980." Eleanor VLinston Comorehensive Plan, development." s.aid, "That i because of the City's The City of Orono is not planning for Sherokee Use, 3530 Eileen Screet, stated that the Planning Commission and Council have stu :k with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. She said, "Many of U3 are here to support you (ths Planning Commission) in your efforts to continue doing that. I agree that we must not negate our neighboring cities. I don't think we should just accept MNDOT's mandates. We need to be creative and find other alternatives, while upholding the City's Comprehensive Plan. I am here to ask what we can do to assist the Planning Commission toward that goal." Bruce Carlson, 593 Northstream Road, stated that everyone present this evening is more than likely in favor of safety. He said, "There are definitely places alonvg Highway 12 where safety improvements are not only necessary, but are planned to occur. Whether or not safety improvements include widening to four lanes is an engineering issue. Ingenuity could be used to design a more safe highway with only modest widening. It seems to me that if Highway 12 is moved off of its e.'cisting corridor, that the businesses in Long Lake will suffer. They rely on the traffic - 5 - - ! PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 20, 1991 going through that area to make the businesses thrive. I think Orono should help the City of Long Lake work with their land use planning to minimize the impact to the businesses. I believe that once discussions begin that include going cross country onto a totally new alignment, and you take an environmental impact of what is currently felt along Highway 12 and transfer that to a 1,000 or 2,000 yard corri&or elsewhere, and you wrap the City of Long Lake with freeways on both sides, that seems to be irrational, long range planning. The City of Orono should try to negotiate with m::«DOT and the City of Long Lake to develop a solution that would be as least painful as possible to all parties concerned, while providing a safe, maybe slow, but consistent with our land use plan, type of highway. It seems to me that once you go across Highway 6 or elsewhere, and MNDOT draws a line on a map without having any construction funds, that is irresponsible as it puts all of the property owners along that line in jeopardy. We need to uphold our Comprehensive Plan. We don't have to apologize to other cities for what we stand for. We are entitled to protect our property values." Rowlette disagreed with Bruce Carlson's comments about business dieing if the freeway went around the City of Long Lake. She said, "Most business districts thrive when the freeway does bypass them. Most of the traffic going through Long Lake does not stop, but only adds to the congestion. T-iat traffic makes it difficult for the local people to come into Long Lake and do business. Many people stay away because of the traffic." Desyl Peterson, 4385 Chippewa Lane, agreed that the City of Orono has an obligation to the City of Long Lake. She said, "I think the two cities should be consolidated. That is the ultimate solution for a number of problems including police/fire services, new public facilities and Highway 12. However, I do not believe that will happen in time. We could just consider the needs of Long Lake. The City of Long Lake has indicated their concern about loss of tax base and the impact on their business community. I tiink Orono has an obligation to work with Long Lake to make sure that does not happen. It may be necessary to relocate some of the businesses in Long Lake, but Orono could assist with that by detaching portions of our City and giving them to Long Lake. Orono may lose some tax base, but nothing compared to what may bo Inst if another corridor is selected. The area on Highway 12 near Otten Brothers may be an appropriate area to detach." Hartmut Ginnow stated that he is the bvisiness of aesthetics and that in his opinion the City of Long Lake needs to improve in that regard. He said, "In ny opinion, the City of Long Lake could only benefit from having slight pressure put on them to rebuild the downtown." - 6 - k! PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 20, 1991 Bob Biesterfeld stated that the City's first priority is to look out for the City of Orono. He said, "I agree with earlier coRunents about the City of Long Lake being the reason we are having so many problems with this project. When Long Lake decided to construct the new shopping center, they were only looking out f >r themselves, as it should be. would be a Highway 12 improvement at some point they built the shopping center hoping that detriment to putting the new corridor through their town. The City of Long Lake has made their bed and should lie in it." They knew there In my opinion, it would be a Steve Harris stated that he owns a business along Highway 169 in Eden Prairie, but lives in Orono. He said, "There is a certain price on a business, but there is an emotional price on a residence. It is much easier to relocate a business than to relocate your residence." Jackie Singer, 4295 Watertown Road, agreed with Mr. Harris's comments. She said, "There is no comparison when you talk about displacing hundreds of households and impacting our environment versus the impact on two or three blocks of business i:? Long Lake." Roberta Schmidt, 3980 Watertown Road, supported the notion of working with the City of Long Lake to relocate their downtown businesses. She said, "The City of Long Lake does have some historical buildings. We have Stubbs Building Movers. Perhaps those buildings would be an effective focal point for the new downtown area." Rowlette said, "Everyone I hope realizes that if downtown Long Lake were removed, it would be downtown Orono." Jacki Anderson, 2280 Fox Street, stated that it is important for everyone to view themselves as part of a larger picture. She said, "We are citizens Orono, but also of the State of Minnesota. It is necessary for people to go through Orono to get to other places and we have to have a broader sense of responsibility. I do not agree that a freeway is the answer, but realize that something has to be done. I do not mean to anger residents along Highway 12, but when they moved there they knew it would always be a busy highway. I do not think we should vote to have everything moved up to Highway 55 because the people in that area have the same concerns that we do." John Maresh, 2085 County Road 6, stated that many various groups have been organized to support and/or oppose a particular corridor location. He r-aid, "That is all well and good, but everyone is missing one p%.i.nt. If the road is constructed anywhere in Orono it is going to divide the City and affect persons living miles away. Any major construction that takes place not only in Orono, but Long Lake, Medina, or Maple Plain, *• 7 - <Mii f t PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 20, 1991 will change life in area as you have never seen. Freeways set up major division lines. I am also a member of the Orono School Board. I am not speaking for the School Board, because tney have not discussed this issue. My personal opinion is that any construction that occurs in Orono through School District boundaries, is going to cause mi]or problems. Tne School District does not have any additional funding for more school buses. If construction of a new corridor, or a major to change to the existing corridor occurs, it would be necessary to add bus routes. It now costs the School District $3C,000 per year for each bus. Any additional costs would have to passed on to the taxpayers. I think the best location for this improvement, which I believe is going to be a freeway, is on Highway 55, out of our School District entirely. The School Board was recently contacted by MNDOT. They indicated that they will begin safety improvement construction next June. The proposal is to first construct center islands at every intersection from Maple Plain to Delano and then to install two extra stoplights when the project is completed. Even if Highway 55 is the chosen corridor, there will still be a fair volume of traffic using Highway 1^. T think we need to encourage MNDOT to improve Highway 12 in such a way that it can handle the traffic going through there in a safe, slow manner. I think a four-lane road, 35 to 40 mph from 1-3)4 to Maple Plain would best serve that purpose. I would hope that is the position that the City takes.” Kelley asked whether the School District is going to make its own recommendation to MNDOT. Maresh replied, "The School Board has not discussions on this issues. I think discussions delayed until the routes become more defined." begun its are being asked how the School Board intends to interact with all of the various cities it serves. He asked, "Will the School Board work with each city council prior tc making a public statement about its position?" Maresh did not know how the School Board would approach the recommendation process in that respect. He added, 'I only know that if the construction occurs anywhere in Orono, it will have a devastating effect on the entire Community. I think the* Planning Commission should take the position that the City does not want the corridor here. The pressure for the corridor is coming from the western cities that want a super highway to access Minneapolis." Kelley asked what time frame the School Board may have for discussing this issue in an open forum. - 8 - PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 20, 1991 I'*' ‘•■I' r .f r I ■5 i'- t: Maresh statad that the School Board, at its next .-neeting, may request more definitive information from MNDOT a'^out the meaning of the potential routes. He said, ’’The problam the School Board has is that it deals with several communities. It will be difficult to come out with a hard statement recommending that the corridor be placed in one community as opposed to another." Goetten as)ced Mr. Maresh if he would notify each of the City Councils for the Orono School District communities of the meeting date for the School Board to discuss this issue, Maresh stated that if and whan such a meeting is planned, the Board would notify all of the persons in the Orono School District. Kelley stated that he had been informed by City Staff that the scheduled safety improvements for Highway 12 would not occur until 1993 because of no funding. Dave Fritz suggested that it may be beneficial to have the citizens form a coalition with members from the other coiiununities. Cohen said, "For those here this evening that think nothing is going to happen, you are wrong. Something will happen. I agree with comments made earlier about the impact that these lines on the map have for persons that may wish to sell their home. I still have not been given a true consensus of what you (the public) think is going to happen." Maresh reiterated that though there are three routes proposed that go througr. Orono, Orono can still take the position that they do not want the corridor to go through Orono at all. John Massopust, 440 South Brown Road, agreed with Cohen's earlier comments. He said, "We have to face the reality of this situation. I moved to Orono for the same reasons that everyone else did. I think the City needs to do everything possible to preserve the Comprehensive Plan. However, I also think we are fooling ourselves. If we put our heads in the sand, we are basically allowing Larry Dallam to maxe decisions based on what he thinks should happen in Orono. If we do not face the reality of what is going on, we are just deceiving ourselves. All you have to do is drive on Highway 12 ii the morning or late afternoon and you realize that something has to be done. The reality is that millions of dollars have been spent to bring 1-394 right to Orono's border. MNDOT is not going to admit that they should not have done that and that all of the money spent to do so was wasted. They will work off of that. I appreciate all of the arguments made this evening in favor of Highway 5.i and have made those same arguments myself. However, MNDOT is not e - 9 - %■ W.,:. ' .* V pt ■ I, i. r i/:. ii. i?' '■?-/ At ■ I tfifevirii PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 20, 1991 interested in pursuing Highw-iy 55. An indication of that is there h«is been no representation at any of the Highway 12 Committee meetings from any of th<? Highway 55 communities. I asked Mr. Dallam why that is and his response was that MNDOT d .d not wish to unnecessarily alarm them. MNDOT is not thinking of Highway 55 as a serious alternative. For the City of Orono to keep throwing the corridor up to Highway 55 is unrealistic. I would like to see it up there. I also want to have input on where the corridor goes. I agree that we need to work with the City of Long Lake. It was previously suggested this evening that we offer concessions to Lake Long to enable them to keep their business tax base. Orono is not interested in having a downtown area, but prefers the rural character for our community. I believe that whatever tax considerations we offer Long Lake to save their tax base and relocate the downtown will have far less impact on us than constructing the corridor elsewhere will. Let MNDOT construct a downtown area that makes sense for Long Lake. The City needs to work toward solutions rather than putting our heads in the sand. MNDOT is very aware of the impact the five lines on the map have on property values. They have indicated that their prime objective is to have the corridor designated by this fall and eliminate the other four options. Once the other lines are off the map, it seems to me we have little opportunity for changing their opinion. We need to work toward a solution soon. If the City can put in front of MNDOT a .solution that addresses Orono's and Long Lake's concerns, we may have a better say in the matter. It seems to me that there are few disputes about the use of the existing corridor the farther west you go. Long Lake is the trouble spot." Charles Schroeder said, "It appears from listening comments of Mr. Massopust and Mr. Cohen that so.me information exists which is not known by the citizens." to the inside Cohen explained that his comments are based on his past experience in dealing with MNDOT and road upgrades such as this one that occurred in Golden Valley. Massopust stated that his opinions are based on information he gathered from attending the monthly MNDOT meetings. Schroeder stated that the fact the citizens are present this evening shows that they are not putting their heads in the sand. He said, "I am mystified as to why Larry Dallam will not consider Highway 55." :>ally Hauser asked why Highway 55 is not a consideration and if the citizen's efforts are in vain if in fact a corridor has been selected. - 10 - Si. PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 20, 1991 Cohen stated that there is some flexibility for the citizenr because the road is a State Highway and MNDOT has a diletnma with the City of Long Lake. Alan Carlson said, "Tha Planning Commission has heard the consensus of the citizens and they want you to push Highway 55 so it will address the traffic coming and going from the west. Highway 12 will need to be upgraded to safely get local traffic through." Cohen stated that MNDOT may look at a County Road 6/Highway 101/1-394 option before considering Highway 55. ofAnother resident stated that a basic principle negotiation is to say no and go from there. He said, "After you say no and do everything possible to gain that, then state our alternative position. If you do not say no to from the start, you are starting at the wrong place. I would also like to point out that there has been no discussion regarding watershed into Lake Minnetonka. That is one of the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The City may be under pressure to provide sewage treatment facilities at a substantial cost," John Merideth said, "I think one of the decisions that has CO be made is whether or not the citizens believe our City Council is limited to choosing between one or these three routes, or if they have the freedom to do whatever they think is best for our Community. I believe it would be a mistake to underestimate the influence of a strong stand by the City Council. I also believe that Highway 55 lends itself better as a corridor because of its surrounding characteristics. Highway 12 is much different and more residential in nature." Sherokee Use volunteered to survey the property owners along Highway 55 to get their opinion of where the corridor should be. She said, "I would think that the people along Highway 55 would love the corridor there. They are already commercial. It would not be difficult to swing up to Highway 55 past Delano. You could by-pass Rockford and end up oi Highway 55 where the industrial area begins." Cohen statad that he had attended a MNDOT meeting in the City of Medina. He said, "We are all saying go with Highway 55. The residents of Medina are saying go with Highway 12." Hanson said, "I have spent a fair amount of time considering this issue with no particular position to take. I have though about the obvious, pragmatic situations. Not the least of which is that there is hundreds of millions of dollars of 1-394 coming out aid now stopping at the border of Orono, and wa are telling MNDOT to take Highway 55. I'm enough of a pragmatist to say that grates against me a little bit. It seems to me that it behooves - 11 - ■ -- - - - - - - - - - - - r 'i'. PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 20, 1991 US to take a hard look at what is possible to be accomplished and act on that firmly, without losing sight of what our long-term wishes are." A member of the audience asked Hanson to state his long-term wishes. Hanson replied, "One of problems I have as I sit here as a Planning Commission member is that I realize that the people that I see in front of me are not representative of the Community at large. Most of the members of the Community at large are not concerned enough about these issues to come to meetings." Another member of the audience asked what more tho Planning Commission would like to see in order to feel that they were getting a consensus of the Community at large. The person indicated that in her opinion, the Community is well represented at this meeting. She stated that people in the Community have not been properly informed of the issues. She said, "There is a lot of innuendo going around this Community. Some of us have had to work awfully hard to find out what the truth is." Councilmember Jabbour stated that he was speaking only as an Individual, not as a Councilmember. He saiu, "I agree that the p]Toc0SS of integrity has not been up to my standards. It is refreshing to see that is changing and I would like to give some good points to the Planning Commission and Staff. Tt is refreshing to see after four years that the Comprehensive Plan is becoming an issue and we are taking it off the dusty shelf to agree with it. I ask the citizens to please let the process happen. Everything that is being said is very important and we agree with you. However, some way or another our job as Council and their job as Planning Commission is twice as hard because the coalitions that were formed prior to the present Council being in place. The City of Long Lake is very trigger happy. Orono is in litigation with them on other issues. Before the citizens take a position, review all of the facts and figure out that there are other issues with which Orono and Long Lske aste involved. Highway 12 is a major issue, but it is not the sole issue that Orono is handling. I agree with the comments about merging with the City of Long Lake. They have serious problems--bad planning problems. Whatever you are suggesting is a Band-Aid. I do not mean to criticize Long Lake." Kelley stated that in his opinion, evening did represent the opinions of large. the people present this the Orono Community at Ann Cosgrove, 1895 Fox Ridge Road, asked if one of the reasons Medina opposes a Highway 55 corridor is that it may cause the County Road 116 issue to surface again. - 12 - PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 20, 1991 Cohen stated that the Medina citizens did indicate a slight concern about County Road 116, but mainly did not wish to have the corridor in their backyards. Councilmember Goetten said, "Though I am really here this evening to listen to what the citizens have to say, I would like to respond to Ann's question. I think the City of Medina is very concerned about the upgrade of Willow. In my opinion, if either Highway 55 or County Road 11 is selected, there is no question that upgrading Viillow Drive would come back on the drawing board. I do not think that the City can just take a position that Highway 55 is the only option, because the City of Medina will be working equally as hard to keep the corridor out of their City as well." Eleanor Winston, Spring Hill Road, stated that she is not only concerned about existing Highway 12 be selected as the designated corridor. She said, "I am also concerned about the Comprehensive Plan in terms of the Planning Commission seeming to want to re-work it." The Planning Commission members all emphatically stated that they did not wish to re-work the Comprehensive Plan. Kelley said, "As Chairman of the Planning Commission, I have no intention to raise that issue or debate whether an amendment should occur." Winston said, "We have the Comprehensive Plan in place. It seems to .me that we should stand by it, rather than be intimidated into accepting something we do not want. Perhaps if we join forces with Long Lake, Medina and Independence, we can take a stand that wa do not want the road. Out East, in Massachusetts, there is a much more dense population. Yet they have found ways to preserve open spaces by slowing down development. One way to do that is to say no to these highways. We know that we need to make Highway 12 more safe, but we do not have to accept a freeway." Bellows stated that Kelley had read from the Comprehensive Plan at the beginning of the first Highway 12 Planning Commission meeting. She said, "Everyone agreed that we are here to uphold the Flan. We are here tonight for the purpose of being able to draft a statement representing the City that comes from the citizens of Orono. I would just like to express to those of you who are of the *no build’ or Highway 55 options that I would be very concerned if we, as a City, took that stand. That would provide MNDOT with a way to catch us shorthanded, when they unilaterally decide that northern routes will not be considered. I urge you to re-think some of Mr. Massopust's comments. I think there are alternatives to a four-lane highway or freeway. However, I think we had better explore those alternatives and be - 13 - !■! feu. PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 20, 1991 sucB of whsrs thst rnight hsppsn. MNDOT do©s h3vs the power to unilaterally object to Highway 55 no matter what stand the City of Orono may take." Dodd Cosgrove, 1895 Fox Ridge Road, stated that one of the problems is that the City is considering the City of Long Lake to be an adversary. He said, "The City of Long L*ke is potentially our greatest ally. How can we possibly ally ourselves with Long Lake if we take a position to locate the corridor through the middle of their city? It seems to me that the strongest stance we have is to say 'no build' and send it someplace else. That also supports our Comprehensive Plan." John Massopust said, "I'm not oure that we would get a 'no build' consensus from the City of Long Lake, because they want something changed to move traffic through there better." Br:ce Carlson said, "It seems to me that we have inflated the negative impact in our own minds of what could be a creative solution on the existing alignment to the point where we think it is going to wipe out Long Lake. That causes us to think that there is no way to compromise and that the only solution is to 0yQfyone to support H.'.ghway 55. We should consider this as a negotiating process with MNDOT. We look at what is best for Orono and what is best for Long Lske to see if there is way we can come together on the issue. We can start out by saying that Highway 55 is the preferred solution. If it later becomes apparent that it will be more sensible to upgrade existing Highway 12 and other existing roads, that will evolve out of the process, but it will be something that may be acceptable as a reasonable solution. Another point is that it seems to me that there has been some reference made about the north and south groups. Our feeling in the northern group is that we want to cooperate with the City of Orono to help develop a consensus and a negotiating strategy that makes sense for Orono as a whole. W*5 are also dedicated to getting the line off of the map that goes through our particular property. Tne gentleman representing our group is quite convinced that the Highway 55 issue is not dead. Discussions have taken place with the Metropolitan Council about the differentiation between through traffic to western Minnesota onto major thoroughfares that are logical for that kind of traffic, such a.s Highway 55. The Highway 12 corridor currently exists in a form that best serves local traffic. I do not PsXieve we have given up on Highway 55 at all in our group. Our advisor indicates that is a very rational approach." Sherokee Use askt»d the Planning Commission members to express their own opinions relative to the Comprehensive P » and what they believe they could agree on at this point. She turther asked, "Can the citizens walk away from here this evening feeling - 14 - m U s' '■r- PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 20, 1991 secure that the Comprehensive Plan is what the City wants, and that means no freeway through Orono, but a creative alternative?" Kelley stated that he fully supports the Comprehensive Plan and does not favor rezoning. He said, "I can guarantee you that if the corridor is located elsewhere, rezoning will be necessary. Our Comprehensive Plan also states that the City of Orono does not wish to compete with neighboring communities for industrial/commercial properties and has no interest in developing a downtown area. That is my opinion." Eleanor Winston asked what Kelley's position meant in terms of the Highway 12 issue. Kelley said, "For me personally, it is either H_ghway 55 or the existing corridor. With regard to upgrade, I have no idea." Cohen stated that he also stands by the Comprehensive Plan and that his opinion favors the existing corridor. He said, "I will examine the alternatives, b-Jt that is my opinion at this point. The term freeway is used pretty loosely. I am of the opinion that the road must be widened. Something has to be done." Hanson stated that one of the compelling arguments ha had heard this evening was that from Mr. Maresh. He said, "The psychological and factual divisions that such a highway creates in a community are significant. If you take that into consideration, the best corridor then would be County Road 6 which would bring the corridor to the northern boundary of Orono. That is if you are considering the City of Orono. If you consider the School District, then you would consider another set of geographical boundaries. This is what I was referring to earlier. When you weigh all the considerations, what represents the voice of the Community?" Roberta Schmidt asked what the City of Orono has done as far as communication with the City of Long Lake on this issue. Kelley stated that as of today, the Orono Planning Commission has not had any discussion with the Long Lake Planning Commission. Councilmember Goetten stated that there has been no conversation between the Cities of Long Lake anrj Orono regarding Highway 12. Schmidt asked why. Goetten replied, "There are more pressing situations and issues involving the City of Orono and Long Lake. It is our understanding that the issue of the Sewer Pxant property comes - 15 - p' h' i’- PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 20, 1991 first.” Jabbour said, ”It was either the 5th or 6th of January that Long Lake asked us to meet with them regarding the police issue. To the best of my recoi: ection, that is the first meeting that has taken place where our entire Council met with their entire Council. That is a major step forward. It might seem like a minor issue, but prior to that, those two Councils could not even sit in the same room together. I io not understand why Orono and Long Lake are two cities, but that is how it is. Both cities have issues that need to be addressed and they extend beyond the issue of giving them a small parcel of land. We are now in litigation with them trying to preserve part of Orono the way we would like to see it developed. It is not necessarily the tax issue that was most important to Orono. A*: the meeting, I asked the Long Lake Council if we could talk about annexation. Highway 12 and they vowed to be cooperative. So far we have not gotten over the hurdle of annexation. Tomorrow there will be a meeting in that regard with the Municipal Board. Until we get over that hurdle, I do not think the dialogue has been very good.” Ms. Schmidt suggested it may be appropriate to table the annexation issue to clear the way for discussion on Highway x2. Jabbour stated that there is a time limit on the annexation issue. He said, "It is more complicated than It sounds.” Another resident asked if Commission would answer Sherokee Comprehensive Plan. the rest of the Planning Use’s question about the Moos stated that she supports the C<jmprehensive Plan and that in her opinion, the new highway should be located on an existing corridor. She said, "Highway 55 would be great— it moves it north. However, I also think that something must be done to Highway 12." A member of the audience asked how the Planning Commission sees the extent of upgrade needed. Cohen said, "Most of us feel that it is not going to .a a freeway. We would not stand for a freeway. Secondly, widening is necessary, but should be done as minimally as possible with maximum safety." Kelley said, "I view the process through which we are going as a means of providing us with your input. We will meet next week to discuss the issue among ourselves and take into consideration what we have haa.rd from you and learned from attending Highway 12 meetings. Tne Planning Commission is going to make a recommendation to the City Council as to where we think Highway 12 should go, and possibly some vague recommendation - 16 - PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 20, 1991 about size. Me are trying to get the citizen's input this evening to assist us with making our recommendation," A member of the audience asked how the citizens could learn of the Planning Commission's recommendation once it is mac-,- Kelley stated that their recommendation will be puL .r information. He added that the public is welcome to attend t:ie work session that will be held on February 27th at 5:30 p.m. He said, "The Planning Commission will address your questions regarding our position on the Comprehensive Plan, but that is all." f i w. i' - ■ r:. K-'- : K % i-Y r' Johnson stated that he supports the Comprehensive Plan. He said, "I think everyone up here has worked hard to see that it is carried out." Hanson said, "I also support the Comprehensive Plan, but it should also be stated that I have some questions regarding its workability in certain areas, specifically public and private roads." Rowlette stated that her support of the Comprehensive Plan is one of the reasons that she volunteered to serve on the Planning Commission. She said, "At this point I really do not know what should happen with a highway corridor. I have strong feelings in many different directions." Tom Terry, 4225 Watertown Road, asked Rowlette whether she would be able to make an unbiased decisions for the betterment of Orono, when she has a business locatad on Highway 12 ir’ Long Lake. Rowlette replied, "Absolutely. I have a house in Orono which is more of any investment than my Long Lake business." Gail Harris, 2195 French Lake Road, asked the Planning Commission the following three questions: 1, Is a new corridor, one that is not e.xisting at this point, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? It was the Planning Commission's consensus that such a corridor would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2, Is an upgrade of Highway 12 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? The Planning Commission agreed that an upgrade could be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3, Is a four-lane, freeway/highway consistent with the - 17 - PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 20, 1991 Comprehensive Plan? Kelley asked Ms. Harris whether she was referring to a freeway such as 494, or a highway with stop lights. Ms. Harris replied, "Highway 55 has four lanes.” It was the Planning Commission's consensus that a four-lane freeway/highway could be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Bob Gasch, stated that he now lives in Cokato, but has been an Orono resident for most of his life. He stated that MNDOT has on file a four-lane corridor foe Highway 12 through the City of Orono which was surveyed in 1965. He said, "Some of you are probably aware of that corridor. MNDOT could pull that survey out of the file and use that as the corridor. The road would not only run through Orono, but the City of Independence as well. The City of Independence over the last 20 yaars chose to keep that highway corridor designated through their city. The City of Orono chose to no longer follow that corridor when it amended its Comprehensive Plan in 1980. If there is no agreement among the various cities for a highway corridor, MNDOT may decide to use the 1965 corridor." Bob Wyatt <-onfirmed Gasch's comments. He added, "That corridor was selected because there was a largo Nike base in St. Bonifacious. That was going to be the main corridor for traffic gplfig from Minneapolis to St. Bonifacious. That corridor does still exist and has been surv-yed. Another point I would li/<e to make refers tc comments made earlier by Mr. Kelley. He stated that he did not know how he would vote on this recommendation to Council. I find that frightening because this is not a new issue. There has been ongoing input from the citizens for several months. I would like to get a sense of what you are going to discuss because the public is not invited to that meeting." Kelley informed Mr. Wyatt that the public is invited to attend the February 27, 1991 meeting. Hartmut Ginnow stated that he did not hear much discussion about County Road 6 or County Road 11. He asked, "Does that mean that there is a consensus for either Highway 12 or Highway 55?" Hanson replied, "I think that it what Chairman Kelley is referring to when he stated that we are not yet ready to make a recommendation. I hear numerous personal opinions that differ." Bellows said, "If the Planning Commission had come to this meeting tonight with our decision firmly in mind, this would not have been an open forum. Tne purpose of the meeting was to - 18 - rs t ..... PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 20, 1991 receive your input to essist us with making a reconunendation. So please let us consider all of the facts before we make a choice." A member of the audience stated that the groups from the north and south consistently support a 'no build' position. Bruce Carlson said, "I think it is fair to say that everyone here is in favor of no new corr ^r off of an existing alignment, safety and working with the Ci ^ Long Lake." Goetten responded oo Mr. -t's comments about the Planning Commission be sufficiently informed to make a decision. She said, "In all fairness to the Planning Commission, for those of you that may not know, the Planning Commission has only recently been given directives from the City Council to become involved in this process. I think the Planning Commission is doing an excellent job addressing this issue. The ncil appreciates their efforts and we need all of you to si rt them. Every meeting that is held is open to the public. T.e public is always welcome." Ann Cosgrove said, "The public was told at the various MNDOT meetings that MNDOT would not build a road if the communities could not agree on a corridor. I asked Steve Hay recently whether the option of 'no build' is possible. He informed me that a 'no build* option is possible and that MNDOT cannot force a highway corridor down our throats. Mr. Hay told me that they would have to bring this issue to the legislature in order to over-ride opposition from the cities, and that MNDOT would walk away before going to that degree. I would also like to s.ay that I recently attended a neighborhood meeting in the city of Long Lake. A number of Orono citizens decided that we woulc like to work with Long Lake since the city officials have not yet done that. There were approximately 14 people at the meeting and the Long Lake residents seemed excited about the aspect of working together toward a unified position. Tney asked what they can do and I told them to start talking to their City Council members." Kelley encouraged the residents of Orono to talk with the Long Lake residents. He said, "Make them aware th..t we are Interested in working with them. Encourage them to talk to thei/: Council. Our City Council has heard the pressure from you to talk to Long Lake." Goetten stated that the City Council is trying to work with the City of Long Lake. Jabbour said, "Ths problem is that the process cannot be put on hold waiting for Long Lake to hop on board. We are facing issues involving a new facility, fire and police service. Highway - 19 - frt PLAHNING COHMISSION SPECIAL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 20, 1991 12 and the annexation. Tho Orono Council has stated to the Long Lake Council very loud and clear that we would like to work with them on all of these issues. One of the Long Lake Councilmembers talked merger. We are a step ahead, but the question is where we go from here.” Charles Schroeder asked the Planning Commission to include the Highway 55 option when contemplating their recommendation. 1^^ m 25 - ^ JlTTTKfMeTur B TOs FBOM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson/ City Administrate DATS:February 5, 1991 SUBJECT: Highway 12 Corridor Study Attachment:A. Planning Commission Memo - Highway 12 Corridor Study Dated 1/25/91 (Memo Only) B. Draft Charge for Citizen Committee Members C. Highway 12 Corridor Task Force (Willmar Group) Dated 2/4/91 D. Draft Response Letter ISSUE - 1. Present process for Council concurrence. 2. Update Council as to schedule of upcoming meetings. 3. Present to Council for their consideration and potential adoption a charge for Citizens Committee members. 4. Consider a response to a letter on Highway 12. INTRODUCTION - At the Council ’s January 23rd workshop they requested the ; the Planning Commission undertake the review of process to date. In response to that Attachment A outlines the process they have developed. Additionally discussed at that neeting was the development of a potential charge outlining responsibilities for the Citizens Committee members in representing the City. DISCUSSION - Issue #1 - In order to undertake the process as quickly as possTble the Planning Commission Chair and Building and Zoning Administrator developed Attachment A. It is anticipated, if Council concurs in the process and if they are able to accomplish the work as outlined, that they would present a recommendation to Council at the Council ’s March 11, 1991 Council meeting. (It should be noted that the attachments listed in Attachment A are included in the Council's Strategic Issue Development Chapter on Highway 12.) Council may desire to accept for further consideration the recommendation at either that meeting or the March 25th meeting. Given events currently scheduled for the March 11th meeting it would perhaps be beat to hold a public discussion either at a separate session or at the beginning of the 25th session. Issue 12 - Upcoming corridor study meetings. It is our unHe^tanding that there will be no meetings of any of the groups " ------- r:-- '.r- r f- I l'-' I t. until the April round of meetings which are currently sch^.duled for the following: POLICY COMMITTEE - April 17th (3rd Wednesday of each month) 5:30 P.M. Maple Plain City Hall TECHNICAL COMMITTEE - April 23rd (4th Tuesday of each month) 1:00 P.M. Delano City Hall CITIZENS COMMITTEE - April 23rd (4th Tuesday of each month) 4:00 P.M. Maple Plain City Hall CITIZENS COMMITTEE CHARGE - Attachment B represents a statement of direction for members of the Citizens Committee. If Council desires this can be amended and presented at a subsequent meeting or if acceptable at this time, transmitted to the members of the coosiittee. LETTER RESPONSE - Attachment D is a proposed response to the letter recelveci in December. As far as the communications aspect of the study# it is our understanding that MnDOT is currently preparing a brochure for communicating to residents the progress to date on the study and will hopefully be available within the next month. As noted in Attachment C the "Willmar Group" has set a meeting for March 21, 1991. ALTERNATIVES - Review Program by Planning Commission - 1. Accept the Planning Commission ’s format scheduling a review by Council for either a separate meeting or at the beginning of the March 25th meeting. 2. Amend and adopt their proposal 3. Table until the February 25th meeting. Giving task approval to Planning Commission's current schedule. Dodate 1. Accept the information. 2. Raise any questions regarding the process. Charge to Committee 1. Adopt. 2. Amend and adopt. 3. Table for further discussion. _ ’W.'i 4, Tsbls p©ndiri9 csdrsft bssdd on ths prsscnb discussion. 5. Choose not to undertake a specific charge. RECOMMENDATION “ It is reconmended that Council accept ^the Planning Coasiission's proposed schedule and indicate whether they desire at the March 11th meeting or as part of the Council’s March 25th meeting (or another date should Council prefer). It £0 r^cofluftcndcd th^t CounciX dcccpfc fchG inforindtion and after discussion make any amendments to the charge to the Citizens Committee that they desire. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by # Council approves the schedule for the Planning Commission and sets _ as the date for Council consideration with a recommendation. Council additionally adopts Attachment B as the charge for the Citizens Committee after making any amendments to that. Ayes _, Nays —. cc:John R. Gerhu4.dson, Public Works Director Citizens Committee Planning Commission chair Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building s Zoning Administrator February 23, 1991 Mr. Mark E. Bernhardson City Adninistrator City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay» Minnesota 55323 Pga 2 s isei J ^ Dear Mr. Bernhardson, As we discussed yesterday, I was very disheartened to learn that the south route proposal for Highway 12 extension had been quietly changed in January by Mr. Dallum to now clearly parallel, if not directly overlay, a significant portion of the Luce Line Trail. I say quietly, because to ey knowledge no public announceaent has been nade as yet and it did not come up at the Planning Commission meeting last Wednesday evening. The reason for the change seems obvious. You confirmed it in our telephone conversation. The original south bypass was simply too close to Woodhill Country Club. I don’t have to see the membership roster to understand fully what wrath Mr. Dallum may have incurred when the original route was published. Also, as I mentioned, it would not be honest of me if I didn’t admit the biggest cause for my disheartenment c^mes in seeing the new south route now passes directly through r " home and property. The powerlessness I feel today is a ^ost indescribable. It seems we are at the complete mercy of this huge Juggernaut of MNDOT bureaucrats, their hired consultants and faceless "political” pressures to protect a private playground. What are a small number of private property owners and those who care about the environment to do in the face of this? I believe I speak for the true feelings of many, many people. All the personal whining aside, I’d like to share an equally disheartening concern that should be of greater interest to all residents in this area. It’s the impact this new route, if adopted, will have on the Luce Line Trail, wildlife, public rocreation and perhaps, most importantly, the very fragile balance between preserving the environment in some significant fashion and the seemingly incessant demands of our "move ever faster, ever farther, at any coat" society. At the December meeting at the high school, I asked Mr. Dallum directly what the status was of things like the Luce Line Trail and the Orono public golf course. He described what he called "4F" property classes and said MNDOT would "do most everything" to avoid disrupting this type of property. You now suggest he probably meant they would not directly -tverlay the trail, but could parallel it and build dividers. he no knowledge or feeling of how sterile the environment .^o^ld become? What about the wetlands along this stretch? What about Eisinger’s Pond? What about the serenity this stretch of the Luce Line affords to everyone, not Just golfers playing on a private golf course? As I travel the length of the Luce Line, I believe the piece from Highway 12 to west of Brown Road is the very most secluded portion of the entire trail. Does the DNR have knowledge of this change? What of all the public rhetoric about preserving wetlands and nature trails? Knowledgable real estate executives in this area say the DNR will cave in quickly. Is this true? What are we to do??? It appears MNDOT and its consultants intend to prevail. It also seems they will capitalize on the lack of a counter plan and much needed cooperation between all the affected communities. We need alternatives to plowing up the countryside. We need creativity. We need cooperation. We need a variety of solutions to traffic issues that include upgrading existing Highways 12, 6, 55, 11, instead of starting over. We need leadership -- real leadership. Orono and the northwest area will be forever changed if this new route is adopted. A new route will expand commercial rezoning like cancer, never to be undone. Draw the "Line”...now. Thank you for your responsiveness yesterday. I appreciate your willingness to discuss my concerns openly. I ask that you distribute copies of this letter to members of the Planning Commission and City Council prior to their ne.xt meetings. 30 Orono Orchard Road Orono, Minnesota 55391 y-v Feb. 21,1991 Dear Plaxining Conunissioii Members, veryincontroL Thank you. ort of done ^eefiQ|^ end what seems to make sense to lie in this area I continue to mpport of yoxir work, It I thoui^t 1 have been It is a combination of suggestions that surely Will need B5SSSllSsfejSSSSXSS£3£:-iS S?MS iS^a? t2aWda4S2?£i5&”;ssi»«^most of the future growth will be north of Hwy 55 and they have plans to A. A .pada It anyway. reection already g; BO aaw corridors through Orono to bo turned into a highway of any kind tbs Old Corridor Option.) C.U] wl OB tiu manin^^a evanins rush hour problem (maybe a consideration of a MMtmiiW >4or »W~iSf SffSU*•gMw gpreeAny out the traffic flow nSmoring dtisena. b i L--- • • • ■i , X, tl a rr- Up untilThe value ofOronotakixiff a strong stand by sayiiunoj^M^y is certa^yin^^^i ^wa luj^takan our itron^ uoifed standt you an so right in believing that we roust take it one atop Ibrlliar and offinr constructive sAlvt^oM that hopefully also provide a win-win solution to wtutmt iwnmtmidjMi This is another opportunity for Orono to take a leadership Wo must do more than just say NO li^ so many communities have alnady done. li-r.i freeway throu|^ Orono off the map immediately Thank you. Good luck in your important work. If then is something that 1 can do to support you •nd this community effi)it, please feel free to ask. *■- • ■ ^ - Staieerbly, SmokmUm Ojfe -.'.S 1 Eileen St Ifa^ Plain. BIN 66359 476-1303 ce City Councfl and Orono's Hwy 12 Committee Members i k- • ' -% l" I K-S:'. I ;•••. r ■: k >4*‘ I , II &• I t- '• I" ’ m•.' {• ?•ii ;i[■!•} • tr ;!I •I C I *• • • . »♦“•1 -i kkl'ri*M *>jLMr! ,'\ i'S ro .iACH ^ A ♦ rncui!. 6oWs<si~ Ct^ 0^ o?<i^ ■^o 6o^ CryStoi- 5532J? /{♦-•!• U. t; y, •‘ i.^ ..i' > < it.1 isi j'ili'ii'iili! 4 t . J > . .<M ji • • •i.ir , t 9 I Mao... •__ I !*•i ■;j *• t • /! I ♦ • • • • • i •* • » \f ■ Matthew N. Nicoll 2943 Farview Lane LongUke, MN 55356 (612) 473^128 (Home) (612) 449.0014 (Office) Februarv 25, 1991 .k Mr. Mark Bemhardson City Administrato r U t : *-»*i*# ‘ - ...rf j-nr•. - Cftyof Orono P.O.BOX66 Dystal Bay, MN 55323 A, . *T rr- FEB 2 8 1991 RE: Relocation of Highway 12 Dear Mr. Bemhardson: 1 am a concerned citizen of Orono. Orono provides a unique living environment having developed its character over many years and by following its Comprehensive Plan. Its charm comes from its rural setting which is due, in large part, to lot sizes of a minimum of two acres and no major through streets except Highway 12. To consider relocating Higjiway 12 would destioy the character of Oono and its distinct urban and rural life s^. Highway 12 has existed in its current location from Orono’s initial stages of development. People and businesses who bought/built near it did so with full knowledge of its presence. There will be disruptions, value implications, and environmental impact regardless of what route is chosen in order not to violate Orono’s Comprehensive Plan and to maintain the integrity of this community, the Highway 12 corridor should not be relocated. I am under the impression that Orono is not an outward critic of the relocation of Highway 12. If this is the case, I would appreciate an explanation of the City ’s stance since I see no positive aspects to its relocation. Sincerely, Matthew N. Nicoll MNN:lab k" E -». i r-r. I' 'f 22591.3 TO: FROM: DATS: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administratoj February 25# 1991 SDBJBCT: Woodhill Country Club w *« Attachment: A. Request for Sewer - Woodhill Country Club Memo Dated 12/21/90 ISSUE • 1. Determine if Council will allow connection of Woodhill Country Club sewer into its sewer system. 2. If 80, what charges would be relevant to such a connection. 3, Determination as to who would undertake maintenance of that existing line. IHTROOUCTION - At the Council's January 14, 1991 Council meeting the matter regarding Woodhill Country Club was tabled pending additional information as to level of usage that would be anticipated for the system. DISCUSSION - laaue #1 - Sewer Hook up in Orono - As noted in Woodhill Country gluFs"Tetter 'Ja teT~DecemSer 11, 1990 which indicated the other alternatives that they had looked at including placing approximately 11 septic systems on their property and^ the disruption to their golf - . - .....w__ ___ _course by doing that together with the potential’ccmnection into Wayzata's sewer which would be at a cost of approximately double that of the proposed system. As noted before, the City of Wayzata has allowed the sewered area off North Ferndale to go through its lines at no additional connection charge a fact that is also true of two homes along West Ferndale that are connected through their system. As for capacity, there currently is capacity in the lift station. If that is exceeded it can be increased by addition of a new pump for about $25,000. Issue #2 - Costs of Facility A. Capital Construction Costs - It is estimated at this point that it will cost about $250,000 for the line to be constructed from the Country Club to the current Orono line. This cost would be borne entirely by the Country Club. B. Metro Waste Control Commission/Sewer Availability SAC Charge) - The Country Club has been “working with MWCC to determine v,he number of units that they FT ■ I' would be charged for a SAC charge. The current SAC charge is $600 per unit and MWCC bases it on maximum usage which in this case is calculated to be 27 units. ISSUES - C. Orono/Connection Charge - As was the case with the Art Center any connection charge would be deemed based on average usage, not the maximum usage the way !!etro Waste Control calculates it. As a result the number of units, if Orono were to impose a connection charge, would be approximately 10 units. The cost for connection charges in this area is approximately $8,600 per unit. As noted above, however, given the fact that the Country Club Club House itself is in the City of Wayzata and the City of Orono has been able to have its properties connected through portions of the Wayzata system with no connection charge that imposing such would be a departure from the past with the City of Wayzata. D. Orono/Maintenance - This would be based initially on estimated usage and subsequently request for metering all the water usage at their well. It is estimated that the initial usage would be equivalent to the 10 units and adjustment would be done based on the metering for future •*‘*ars. E. Maintenance - As noted this would be built to City specifications and as such could be operated as a City facility. Avenues for maintenance of this are: A. Privately maintained under the sole control of the Country Club. B. Privately maintained but with an agreement for a public easement together with the ability to take over the facility on Council vote. With no reimbursement to the Country Club. C. Once constructed have the City take it over as a public line. Action Issue #1 - Sewer Connection to Orono 1. Allow. 2. Not allow. Issue 12 - Costs if Allowed to Sewer 1, Connection charge. I: 2. Operations charga. Issue #3 - M.aintenanc:'-> 1. Privately. 2. Privately with public easement (similar to private road easement.} 3. Initial public ir.ainte ’'.ance . RECOMMENDATION - The following repres-rt recommendations cegar^ng the Country Club: Issue #1 - Allowir^ Sewering - It is recommended that the City allow the Country Club to hook up through Orono for the following reasons: A. Capacity exists to allow hook up at such time as part of an agreement the City may require that if an additional pump costing up to $25,000 needs to be installed in the pump station that the Country Club be responsible for paying for that at the time of the upgrade. The above amount would be increased by the construction cost index. B. Sewer through Orono represents a better solution than either sewer at a greater expense to Waysata or septic systems that would be substantially disruptive to the Club. C. Orono has continually had non re u i. aen t i a 1 properties hook up to sewer when it is available (Windward and Minnetonka Marinas straddellng the Metro W:iste Control line on County Road 15.) D. Although the Club House of the Country Club itself is in Wayzata, the Country Club with its vast holdings in the City of Orono represents one of the top 10 tax p.f./ers in the community. Issue #2 - Capit;^ Charges - Since the Country Club will be paying substantial construction cost together with SAC charges it is recommended that the City not charge a connection charge given the presedent with other Orono properties goin^' through the Wayzata system. It is further recommei d that the Country Club install a meter on their w.«ll to monitor usage and that the initial fee of about $50.00 per quarter per unit be as'tessed against 10 units. Issue # 3 - Ma intenance - It is recommended that an agreement^similar to a private road easem'-'t agreement be made so that the City can, if it chc . «s in the future, take over public ownership and maintenance of f* \£^ this line but that it be left with the Country Club at this time. (The Country Club could contract with the City to provide any substantial maintenance that would be required in the future while it is still privately held.) This recommendation is made in part that there are properties who may desire to hook up and this would, to a degree, be one step that they would have to undertake which is have the City take over the line before they would be allowed to connect up. Even if the City did, however, take it over before those properties did hook up, they would be required to go through a Metropolitan Council Comprehensive Plan Amendment in order to extend the MUSA line in this area. Given that the Country Club building itself is in the City of Wayzata, the entire City of Wayzata is within a MUSA area. The City would state in the agreement the terms of any inspection and upgrade made by the Country Club prior to turnover. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by that Council direct staff to undertake drafting an agreement with the Woodhill Country Club to take into account the construction of a sewer line in accordance with City specifications with the City only charging a maintenance charge subject to potential upgrade of the lift station of which the Country Club's responsibility would be defined. Additionally the agreement would specify that the City has the ri’jht **o take over the line at a time in the future that a Council majority would so decide but until then it to be retained in private maintenance and that it could not allow any other property to hook up without Council approval. Ayes _, Nays cct Mark Albrecht, Woodhill Country Club John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director I L -V T -H TO:Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator DATS:December 21» SUBJECT: Request for Sewer - woodhill Country Club Attachment: A» Woodhill Country Club Memo Dated 11/20/90 B. Woodhill Letter Dated 12/11/90 ISSUE - 1. Present to Council additional information based on questions raised at prior meetings as to the sewer hook up. 2. Determine direction Council desires regarding this request for sewer. INTRODUCTION - The matter was presented to the Council at its NovemEerJ^ 1990 meeting and was tabled to the Co-„r il’«: January 14, 1991 meeting. DISCUSSION - In response to issues raised at the meeting the following Information is provided: Grinder Station - The question was raised as to what the reason the grinder station was installed east of the bridge when the City was considering sewer on West Ferndale. This was done as it was cheaper to install a grinder station than pump the sewage for the two houses in Orono on the east side of the Ferndale bridge east in the Wayzata pipes rather than putting the necessary piping to the west. It was not an issue related to the capacity of the lift station on County Road 15. (If this were an issue the Woodhill Country Club might be able to hook into the proposed Metro Waste pumping station currently proposed at West Ferndale and County Road 15.) Annexation - As mentioned last time annexation appears to have taken place in about 1956 primarily because the Country Club desired to go from a bottle club to a regular liquor license club, which was not offered by Orono at the time, this was subsequently changed by referendum during the '60's in Orono but there was no apparent reversion clause at that time. ALTERNATIVES - As noted in Attachment B the Country Club did consider alternatives including hook up to the Wayxata system, but this would necessitate having to jack under both the rail road tracks and Highway 12, a run that is about twice as long as the one proposed here. Secondly they did consider septic tanks ;rv ;• t-r:i- ■5 but this would necessitate development of 11 septic fields and require substantial alteration to the Club grounds itself. other considerations - Other considerations not mentioned at previous meetings include the following: Woodhill Country Club - The Country Club as correctly pointed out by one CounciImember is one of the 10 largest taxpayers in the City of Orono even though the Club House itself is located in Wayzata. It pays about $40,000 in taxes a year to the City. Commercial/Institutional Sewer Hookups - As has been done in the past commercial or institutional entities that have been near projects have been included, such as the marinas and the Art Center with just residential property in a 2 acre zone being excluded. Should the Country Club be able to hook into Metro Waste the City would loose any operational contribution to this. ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the information. 2. Indicate any further issues. 3. Give staff direction as to further proceeding on this matter. . 4. Indicate direction they desire in dealing with precedence. 5. Determine direction for use of the charges. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council direct the City ^aff work with Woohill for finalizing the proposal program for connection of the Club House into the City of Orono*s lines. IROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by Council directs staff to work with Woodhill Country Club having given conceptual approval to allow the connection proposed either at ___ or ____. Ayes , Nays r in - 112090 i ' firr/tof/z^ei^T f{ TO: FBOM: DASB: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate^'^'? \ November 20, 1990 SUBJECT: Woodh'll Country Club Attachment: A. Woodhill Country Club Memo Dated 11/9/90 ISSUE - 1. Presentation to Council information raised at the last meeting including: Capacity of lift station MUSA status of Woodhill Club House Hoodhi11/Hayzata location Connection charges Precedent regarding allowing others to hook up 2. Determine Council direction on the matter. INTRODUCTION - At the Council’s November 13, 1990 Council Attachment A was presented for Council consideration. At that meeting several other issues were raised as outlined above. DISCUSSION - The following represent responses to date to those various issues. 1. Caoacity of Lift Station - Presently the capacity utilized at that lift station is about 60%. As such, given the peak gallonage of the Country Club would not present a problem tor that lift station. Currently pumps in the lift station are 80 gallons per minute and even at a daily maximum of 11»000 gallons per day the Country Club usage would result in the pumps running approximately 2 hours longer per day. As for capacity in the interceptor, the interceptor capacity does not present a problem at this time. 2 MUSA Status of Club House - Since the entire City of Wayzata h iBciuaSa^n tM^PSA-Ttne, the Country Club is already included in the MUSA. 3. Woodbil 1/Wayxata Location - The background Country ciub' was incorporated into Wayzata is somewhat uncertain, iUU^-to fe? i”rSJu!'a? liouor license, at the time Orono did not i»««« Fr •E F. such an exchange. 4. Connection Charges - A. A; >unt - The City is currently exploring what number of units would be appropriate to this property. B. Give that the Country Club is constructing a rather extensive line from their Club House to a connection and uses only a small portion of the line and a lift station it may be more appropriate to only charge a use charge based on an established number of units. C. Precedence for others properties - The issue discussed was if allowing Woodhill to hook up creates a precedence in the following situations. 1. Properties which are in the rural zone that have not previously been part of a project. 2. Properties previously allowed to be hooked up^ but who chose not to. One way to differentiate this is the fact that it is in another City and that Orono has had properties such as the following that have connected into systems of other Cities: Wayzata - Herrick Circle, West Ferndale Road, Chevy Chase L<M)9 Lake #1 Rural Areas w uThe properties that are in the rural area should not have a precendence because of this line because it is a property that currently is within the muSA line and rural properties would require MUSA line extension the Comprehensive Plan amendment in order to permit* t2 Properties able to Participate , ^ w, -,. ..foe the properties which previously had the ability to get into a project# but chose not to# it was indicated properties were told at that point that they would never be able to join in the project. Council can therefore decide whether they would amend that policy to allow those to be included or chose to enforce the policy previously stated. To the best of staff's recollection however, none of Ull brought such a request in the last 5 years (although they have inquired as to the ifexplore) and those requests could be dealt with at that time. If they would have been permitted in the project originally it may be difficult to exclude them at this point. C. Use of Monies from Connection Monies - For P^®P®tties allowing to previously existing assessment the City f- could do the following with those monies: a. Place in the sewer fund for capital replacement items in the future and thereby keep down the costs of longterm operations for all sewered properties* b. Designate the monies for specific repairs in this area. c. Determine a means to distribute those charges to all the properties that were in the district as a rebate. (It should be noted however, that not all the persons who paid the amount are the residents there at present.) ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the information. 2. Indicate any further issues. 3. Give staff direction as to further proceeding on this matter. 4. Indicate direction they desire in dealing with precedence. 5. Determine direction for use of the charges. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended after Council has considered these items tliat if it is appropriate staff be directed to work with the Country Club to determine if a connection charge is appropriate and that as it is a property in another city that the issue of precedence may only be applicable for the few properties previously excluded from ths project. As for use of any connection charges at least from this connection that they be used for future operation maintenance costs. This would keep the overall maintenance for this sewered properties lower as these properties are no further ahead finincially if Country Club doesn't connect that they would ae if they did connect. Additionally it creates no negative 'mpact on the system and the Country Club was never contemplated in the original assessment. A different story may be for those individual properties that could have gone on the project and thereby lower the original assessment, but chose not to. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by __, seconded by __, that the Council give direction to staff regarding whether they should proceed with working to develop sewer connection on this property. Ayes _• Nays _. cc: Woodhill Country Club, 200 Woodhill Road, Wayzata Mark Gronberg, Coffin a Gronberg Inc. [i: % // miaMm^rfj TO:Mayor and city Council t • 'vX Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adrainistratoc^VFBOM: DATB s November 9, 1990 SXI8JBCT: Woodhill Country Club Attachment: A. City of Orono Ordinance Section 3.05/Subd. 10 B. Hap of Area ISSUE - Determine issues Council may have regarding EyWobdhill Country Club to hook up their club house to an Orono sewer line. INTRODUCTION - The Woodhill Country Club club house is located^ in Wayzata and is currently on a septic system and needs to develop an alternate septic system or hook to sewer. DISCUSSION - Under Section 3.05 Sub 10 (Attachment A) the City Administrator has the authority to allow hook up of sewer by a property in another community. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - As the club house itself is located in Naysata it is probably included in the MUSA line and if so therefore a comprehensive plan amendment would not be needed. At the p»*eaent there is no proposal to hook up oth^er club house properties in Orono or the houses abutting the club house. These ifQyXd r6^uir€ 3 comp pldn aincndniBnt* The system is proposed to be done 3t club house expense in s con£i9urstion outlined in Attachment B* Location - The entire line is on club property except for the last'connection to the sewer on Russell using a gravity line. Thiy respon/lb^TS for obtaining easements. Maintenance - Although an 8- line (the size of Public lines) it would remain the property of the Club an- responsible for all maintenance and repair. (In the future should other properties be allowed by the City to City nay deem it a^. propr late to take over certain portions of the line.) Caoacitv • The proposed line would not present a iof our^lift station or the interceptc 'even if other properties were added.) Sewer Charges - The charges will be «st^J»l^shed b«ed m the uiilf* fkTrTOffner done with other non-residential properties. ft ALTERNATIVES 1. Indicate any concerns. 2. Table for further discussion, pgrOMMENDATION - It is recommended that after Council 0]^f(^sed Issues or concerns that staff proceed accordingly. has 4 shall specify the amount thereof, the description of the premises served, and the name of the owner thereof. The amount so certified shall be extended by the Auditor on the tax rolls against such premises in the same manner as other taxes, and collected by the County Treasurer, and paid to the City along with other taxes. Subd. 9. Damage to Municipal Utility Equipment. It is unlawful for any person to intentionally cause any damage to any municipal utility equipment or appurtenance, including, but not lim-^ted to, meters, street lights, water hydrants and curb cocks. Anyone causing such damage shall pay the reasonable value thereof to the City, including labor for renewal and installation of any equipment and shall be, in effect, an insurer of any equipment in his possession or with which he comes in contact. Subd. 10. Municipal Utility Service Outside the City. The City Administrator is hereby authorized to furnish municipal utility service to consumers outside the City, provided, that such consumers specifically agree to all the terms of the City Code, including, but not limited to, rules, regulations and ratjs adopted thereunder and the right to specially assess delinquent services, charges and penalties. Subd. 11. Separate Services. Each separate occupied property or each separate building or occupancy on a single property shall be served by and shall utilize a separate service connection not shared by any other property or occupancy, including each unit of any townhouse development, or each commercial occupancy under separate ownership. Exceptions: (1) duplex dwellings consisting of two residential units in one building, on one parcel of property, owned by one owner; or, (2) condominium, residential or commercial uses having more than one owner within the same building, where the land and/or common areas of the building including service areas are owned in common or by an association; or (3) apartment buildings or leasehold commercial buildings htsving one owner but multiple tenants. SBC. 3.06. CBRTIFICATION REQUIRED PRIOR TO TAPPING OR CONHECTION. Priot issuance of a permit to tap or connect a lot or parcel of land wieV' ^ municipal utility, the City shall issue a certificate of compliance with one of the Subdivisions this Section. Any certificate issued under this Subdivision shall provide that in the event of a subsequent assessment thereon for such utility, the amount of the assessment hereunder shall be credited against the subsequent assessment. Subd. 1, The certificate shall state that such lot or parcel has been specially assessed for its share of the instruction of the sewer or water main, as the case may be, and that no Installments thereof are delinquent or permit fees unpaid. ORONO CC (4-1-94) I--. il\ H li^ z/f. • ^9* (l2) • ^ tM f i :: ■ 1^ ' >« d f^j^(lfo5SJ> 1 S£C*^E-E L/aJE I ^ /^o uTi> ________wcjMill b^\l ' /•eonmiv ^m^ wl, : ./'V WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB :00 'CrOODHlLL ROAD WAYZATA. MINNESOTA ^^591 ’.M3 rj % 8 December 14, 1990 To: Prom: Subject: tftark E. Bemhardson, City Administrator Mark Albrecht, Woodhill Country Club Consideration of connecting Woodhill's clubhouse sewer line to Orono's sewer. h a At the November 26, 1990 Orono City Council meeting, issues were raised about connecting Woodhill Country club's sewer line into Orono's sewer line at Russell Ave. At issue is > Why does woodhill, which is located in Wayzata, need to hook their sewer line into Orono's line? During the past two years we have been studying all of our alternatives, which I have listed below. 1. 2. Drain Fields * In order to accommodate o«^ useage, we would need to construct about 10 drain fields. Marsy of hhese would end up in Orono since the majority of <3 property rests in Orono. Also, some would in-txim oe In Wayzata because of the unusual property line. In order for Woodhill to construct this many drain fields, considerable damage would be done to our golf course. Also encountered would be many lift stations and other technical problems. Connect Woodhill's sewer line into Wayzata's line. We have met with Wayzata's City Engineer and the nearest connecting point would be about 4000 feet from our clubhouse. In order to connect into Wayzata, it would be necessary to go under the Burlington Northern Railroad line, under existing Highway 12, and thru some marsh area. We question getting approval for this, as well as construction problems for the line. We find many obstacles to this alternative. ,1 ^ H 5c \J WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB :lu vVOODHILL road \X AVZATA. MINNESOTA 3 . 4. Connect Woodhill's sewer line directly into the MUSA line. This line runs down County Road 15 and is the closest connecting point for Woodhill. In order to connect to the MUSA li.ne, it would require going under the railroad and County Road 15. There is also serious doubt that approval could be received because of the pressure in the MUSA line and problems of a direct hook~up. This has been discussed, but not pursued because of technical problems and questionable approval. This brings us to the existing alternative of connecting Woodhill's sewer line into Orono's. The approximate distance for this is 4200 feet. For Woodhill to reach Russell Ave. we would go thru our property until we get to either the Tom Carpenter propsirty or tho propBrty on ths cornsir of RussgH Ave* We would request a Deed Easement from either '»n'* (or both) to cross their property and connect * ono's line at one of two places. As I understr connection could be made by the railroad 200 yards up Russell Ave. I believe this covers the alternatives which were look. . i. . > by Woodhill. If there are other suggestions as to what Woodhill can do with our sewer lines, we would be more than willing to look at them. MAA:sf TO* COFFIN &. GRONBERG. INC. SUnvEYINQ. KNQINEERINQ ANO CANO PLANNING 482 A tamarack avenue long lake . MINN 39350 473-414 1 Dacesiber 11, 1990 City of Orono F. 0. Box 66 Crystal Bay MN 55323 Attn: Mark Bernhardsor. and John Gerhardson Re: WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB SEWER CONNECTION Dear Mark & John: We first looked at the possibility of using a new drainfield system to treat the effluent from Woodhill Country Club. Aiter having Woodhill install a water meter, we found that peak flows exceed 11,000 GPD. Mound systems can only handle 1,000 - l.zuu GPD in any one location because any additional volume raises the groundwater elevation under the mound area causing hydraulic fail­ ure. This is known as "groundwater mounding". Thus, we would need about 10 different sites to put in the mounds required. Most of the Woodhill site is wooded, hilly, prone to flooding or is located in golf fairways, greens or tees which makes « appropriate for drainfield systems (as shown on attached pchibit A from a 1978 drainage study). It would be very di.,.^icult to find enough areas meeting che criteria for mound systems. Constructing a pumping system to reach 10 remote and separace mound sites would be very complex and disruptive to the grounds and golf course. After checking with the City of Waysata, we found two pos­ sible connections to their sewer at this time. One connection would be near the lift station just south of Wayzata Country Club near old Highway 12, and the other being south of County Road lo at the west end of Peavey Lane near the cul-de-sac. The first option to the lift station would involve ap­ proximately 4,000 feet of OLD®"*the Burlington Northern Railroad. NEW U.S. Hwy. No. 12 and OLD U S Hwy No. 12, and would also involve getting approval from those owners as well as approval from Wayzata Country Club to cross their parcel between the two highways. Also, some pumping stations would be needed and depending on the route allowed (if at all), some imsuitable soils and additional length could be encoun tered. The second option to Peavey Lane would involve cutting through the center of the golf course with its many irrigation and draintile lines, under the Dakota Rail, West Lake Street and County Road No. 15 and then through private property to on"the roi?e''oho3er““siirto;.ng^£rom the 1978 drainage study liiilar TonaliLn^ ^rex?ii%n^:tLra well as in the lower areas near County Road No. 15 and Peavey Lane. This would be a vary difficult line to construct ana very destructive to the golf course. Both options are shown on .he en- closed aerial photo copies. This would entail about 3,oCC feet of sewer line depending The proposed Orono connection could be accomplished by grav so!rSSr?ngfLfe^!n5?cI?L “lrio?rSuItKlfsoiirfi^ roLtruc- tion of the sewer line. Please contact me if you have any further questions Sincerely, COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. Mark S. Gronberg MSG/lh Enclosures :: 8 9 i. 3 / / TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat^^^ DATE: February 28, 1991 SUBJECT: Facilities 'ffNcii yu cny ^^ING !9$i ‘•0 Attachment :A. Draft Letter to Facility Committee Members B. Letter of Invitation to Planning Commission Members C. Draft Agenda for Workshop Meeting D. Facilities Memo Dated 2/22/91 E. Temporary Facilities Outline K ISSUE - 1. Determine if Council desire to amend the date of the workshop. 2. Present letter for Council consideration uo be transmitted to facilities committee members to determine continue interest. 3. Present an agenda for Council consideration for that meeting. 4. Determine if Council wants to undertake a questionaire in the Crystal Bay neighborhood. 5. Select a strategy for temporary facility. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's last meeting they set a date of March 27th for a facilities workshop at which all 5 CounciIniembers together with the architect are able to attend. Additionally Council directed that the Facilities Committee be polled as to level of interest and be invited to the meeting together with an invitation to the Planning Commission members. Additionally they tabled the question regarding questionaire being transmitted in the Crystal Bay neighborhood. DISCUSSION Issue #1 - The Planning Commission when invited to the meeting at their 5/27 Highway 12 meeting requested that an alternate week be selected as a number of persons would/could be out of town because of Spring Break. Issue #2 2. Invitation Letters - As noted in Attachment A a letter has been developed for transmission to the Facility Committee members this was previously transmitted to Council for consideration on Monday, March 4, 1991. The Planning Commission has been invited by Jeanne Mabusth at their Wednesday, February 27th special meeting which is followed up by a letter shown in Attachment B. 1.1. • i' Issue #3 - Agenda - Attachment C was prepared as a preliminary agenda to determine what information Council would like to cover during that meeting and what decisions they would target to be made at the meeting. Issue #4 - Questionaire - The issue regarding the questionaire was tabTeJ until this meeting. Issue #5 - Strategy for Temporary Faci1 ity - Attachment E outlines a strategy for a possible temporary facility. ALTERNATIVES 1. Accept the information and table to March 25, 1991 meeting. 2. Adopt a draft letter to the Facilities Committee and an agenda. 3. Amend and adopt. 4. Determine if a questionaire is to be sent. 5. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council, after making any amendments to the Facilities Committee meeting and the agenda, table further discussion of the facilities until the March 25, 1991 Council meeting. Additionally, staff would like to have Council consider for adoption the outline for temporary facilities presented in Attachment E. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by _ Council adopt a lett'eFTo“the Facilities Comluttee together with an agenda and direct staff to undertake process for potential temporary storage of facilities until a new facility is available. Ayes _, Nays cc; Department Heads Jack Boarman, 222 North 2nd Street, Minneapolis 55401 22S91 Facilities Committee 'temBei s Re: Facilities Committee - Further Service Dear As you recall, the Council at its October 1990 Council meeting decided to table further consideration of the facilities until after the elections. During the elections Counci Imember Barbara Peterson was elected riayor and this created a vacancy that needed to be filled. The City went through this process in January and the Council at its Febraury 11, 1991 Council meeting appointed Mary Butler, former CounciImember and former Mayor, to fill that vacancy. Also at that meeting the Council did renew its option for another six months on the property on Highway 12. The new Council felt it was appropriate that a work shop be held once all five members were on board and that this has now been set for Wednesday, March 27, 1991 at 6:00 p.m. This will be a workshop with Council, Planning Commission and Facilities Committee members and box lunches will be available . This letter is written to determine if you, as a committee member, desire to continue further with this once Council has resolved issues of common verses split site and helping to design and develop the process from here. It is requested that you respond to Dorothy Hallin to indicate if you would desire to continue and also if able to be present at the March 27th meeting that you discuss what type of box lunch you would like. Additionally, at the Cou • il's Febraury 25, 1991 Council meeting they reviewed the common versus the split site material that is presented as an attachment to this letter together with reviewing options as noted in the memo for a temporary solution to our Public Works problem. We strongly encourage you to continue and look forward to working with you. Sincerely, Mark E. Bernhardson City Administrator Enclosures 36=1.5 iftvr ^ Dear As Jeanne mentioned to you at your February 27, 1991 Highway 12 meeting, the Council is having a workshop to discuss the next steps for a facility. This will be held ___________. We invite you to attend. As noted in the attached letter we have also invited those from the Facility Committee to participate. Please let know if you can attend. Sincerely, Mark E. Berhnardson City Administrator ^n-noj^HexjT CL CITY OF ORONO FACILITIES WORKSHOP 6:00 P-M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS MARCH 27, 1991 1. Review of Process and Information 2. Process for Further Consideration 3. Issues Common vs. Split Site - Impact on operations and cost - Selection of site(s) - Questionaire for input Size of Facilities Cost/Level Design - Shaoe - Exterior - Materials Financing 4. Role of: Planning Commission Facilities Committee - Chair Appointment 5. Action Steps 6. Adjournment TO: PROM: DATE: !!ayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administratot; February 22, 1991 SUBJECT: Facilities Workshop V V (• Attachment: A. Facilities ’!emo Dated 2/V91 B. Outline of Issues Related to Site C. Draft v^estionaire for Crystal Bay Neighborhood D. Boarman Proposal Dated 2/3./91 Alternative Design Development ^ T><1. ISSUES - - - - - - --- - ^ V ^ 1. Present for further Council consideration and comment 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 o*f 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. INTRODUCTION - 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. DISCUSSION - 1. Common versus splj^ site - Attachment 3 was a draft summary of the Issues r eia ted to the site. To date ^ staff has received no correction or additions* The underlined portions represent changes staff has made since then. 2. Neighborhood questionaire — Attachment C is a proposal for a questionaire to be sent to the neighborhood. The t PT'WT' 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 CounciImember Callahan he stated although it was his original suggestion he indicated a desire to reconsider the advisability of doing such.) 3. Storage of Public Works 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 with the utilization of the current structure but continue to close off areas that are unsafe. B. Renting o f 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 NS? 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 Exist ing Facility, Undertake Outdoor Storage of Current Indoor Storage Materials - Under this option 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 completed. Once fenced in the City would then have the current lumber shed removed. D. Interim Repair of Lumber Shed - Staff explored to see if 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 Zoning) does not allow a dirt floor for a commercial building. E. Undertake a New Fac 11 i ty - Should the City select a site for 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 - For approximately $55,000 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 Puroose - This is addressed in Attachment A together with the issues of note at thar 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 workshoo. 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 - Questionarie 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. 6. Table for further discussion to :!arch 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. 3. Define scope. 4. Define roles for groups. RECOMMENDATION - Issue ^ _ #1, Common versus spli^ sites - Staff continues to recommend from an operational, 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 sit® best meets those. Staff however, encourages Council to identify further issues or information revelant to the decision and recommend tabling until 3/11. 12. Questionaire - It is recommended that Council give staff any comments or amendments but table further consideration until March 11, 1991. 13. Interim storage - It is recommended that Council table until the March 11th 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 si te.) - 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. Workshop - It is recommended that the Council set a date for that"wotksnop and table discussion of agenda and roles for the other groups until March 11th meeting. PROPOSED riOTIOM - Moved by seconded by , that Council give staff direction as to the various issues rej.ated to facilities. Ayes , Nays _. cc: All Department Heads Jack Boarman, Boarman Architects, Inc 222 North 2nd Street Minneapolis, MN 55401 1 1 Iijn /:U() 1>.H. Couik ;! I MetiLing 2nd 4. Uh Monday O V:00 P.M. Planning Commission 3nl Monday 1991 ORONO CITY MEETING SCIlEnilLE Q O'ay ( hroucjli Ocliolior 1st Mond<»y ds (in (illornale date) Adopted 11/13/90 Amended 1/14/91 Board of Review /\ Pell k ('ommission 1st Tiiesi'ay lei a I Holiday 1991 FEBRUARY S M T W T F S ]2 5 6 7 8 9 24 ^51 26 27 28 13 14 15 16 17 20 21 22 23 A 8 9 U 15 16 22 23 29 30 JUNE S M T W T F S 2 5 6 7 11 12 13 14 18 19 20 21 25 26 27 20 1 B 15 22 29 ScMooJG!^oAmkEli.ccilOKi SEPTEMBER S M T W 1 1 F 8 ^ 10 11 12 13 15^17 18 19 20 22 0^24 25 26 27 29 30 _S 7 14 21 28 OCTOBER 5 M_T_W T F S ^ A '2 ~ y 4 5 6 ® 8 9 10 11 12 13 jD)15 16 17 18 19 20 QD 22 23 24 25 26 27M 29 30 31 T-OCi?.fA. NOVEMBER S_M T W_T F S 1^0 K 1 2 7 8 9 , -J3 14 15 16 17 Ce) 19 20 21 22 23 24 1251 26 27 2a: W 30 APRIl S M T W T F S 2 3 4 5 6 7 M 9 ^1 ’ 12 1314 ^16 17 18 19 20 21 T221 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ^^ j’ AUGUST S_M T W T_F__S i ’ 2 ^ 3« • I 4 ^ A 7 • 8 9 11M*3 14 15 16 180^20 21 22 23 24 25I2S 27 20 29 30 31 0 7 S DECEMBER S _M T W T F 8 15 _ 22 23 24 >1 26 27 28 29 30 31 A 4 5 6 7 m 10 11 12 13 14 V16> 17 18 19 20 21 jMlik // 9n TO: FROM: DATE: ilayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adninist February 7, 1991 rato^ SUBJECT: Facilities Workshop Date Attachment:A. Facilities Memo Dated 1/22/91 (Memo Only) B. Outline of Issues ^.elated 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 Memc 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. Establish a meeting date and scope of action for upcoming workshop on the matter. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's January 28, 199 1 meeting the issue of faci1ities 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 Hall/Police facility for Crystal Bay neighborhood. 4. Discussion as far as a date for a workshop was tabled to the February 11, 1991 Council meeting. 1. Common versus so I i t site - Attachment 3 is a draft related to the site, both ones issues in the and summary of the is.«ues that are quantifiable together related areas organizational development, location compatibility of land uses. It is requested Council indicate other issues they may think relevant or questions as to information presented. Boarman is reviewing the draft. that are Jack 2. Neiqhborhood questionaire - A questionaire 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. 3. Storage of Public Works ecuipment - As mentioned at the January 28th meeting, 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 with 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 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 Faci1 ity, Undertake Outdoor Storage of Current Indoor Storage Materials - Under this option 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 completed. Cnee fenced in the City would then have the current lumber shed removed. D. Interim Repa ir of Lumber Shed - Staff explored to see if 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 Zoning) dones not allow a dirt floor for a commercial building. E. Undertake a New Facility - Should the City select a site for 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 obtain an estimate for a temporary structure for a 1-2 year period. It is hoped this would be ready for the 2/25 meeting. 4. Comb i na t ion Issue # 4 Rede s ign ^o£ C£v_s£aj^ Bay Neighborhood - This issue was discussed at the meeting on the 23th and issues related to that to come up with an alternate design include as noted in Attachment E. Size 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 CounciImembers 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 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 - r 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 February 25th. Issue #2 - Questionarie 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 infor.mation. 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. RECOMMENDATION - #l!^Cominon versus split sites - Staff continues to recommend from an operational, 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. |i2, 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. Interim storage - It is recommended that Council table for further information regarding temporary structures. (It should be remembered that if the Public Works goes ahead of the City Hall facility there may be implications as to cost savings of bidding both at t.he 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. Work shop - It is recommended that the Council table discu*ssTon of a date until the February 25th meeting. 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__. cc: All Department Heads Jack Boarman, Boatman Architects, Inc. 222 North 2nd Street > Minneapolis, MN 55401 / To: From: Date: Mayor Peterson & Orcno Council Members Mark E. Bernhardscn, City Administrator^^'. January 22, 1991 /f ^ Subject: Facilities Workshop ATTACHMENT - A “ City Facilities dated 10/30/90 ISSUE - Determine when Council would desire to have a workshop on City facilities. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's 11/13/90 meeting, it was deteFmined 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: March 5 Tuesday Evening March 6 Wednesday Evening March 7 Thursday Evening March 9 Saturday Morning March 13 Wednesday Evening March 14 Thursday Evening March 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 information apart from what is in there, it is requested that that specific request be given to staff for information development prior :o March 1st. Facilities Workshop January 22, 1991 Page 2 of 2 ALTERNATIVES - 1.Select a date. 2. Table for further discussion. 3.Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - 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 meeting. PROPOSED MOTION: Moved by , seconded by , that Council time, atestablish a facilities workshop on _ _ _ _ _ _, at _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ location and will indicate to staff additional information that they would like avaij.abj.e at that meeting prior to March 1st. Ayes _ _, nays _ _. MEB/tln cc; Department Heads Jack Boarman, Boarman Architects, In S ft If 1 n b CITY FACILITIES - CITY OF ORONO C&pital Costs (Site Specific) Land Costs Less Sale of Property: Crystal Bay/Neighborhood OCB/Sewer Plant Site Development Soils Correction Water/Sprln)cler Support Sewer/Utilities Landscaping Street/Parklng/Curb-Gutter Denolition/Current Phasing Post Office (800 sf § $60-70) Joint Development/Bidding Common Site Rental Other COMMON SITE SPLIT SITE C. City H'll/Police D. City Hall/Police B.Old Crystal Bay Crystal Bay Crystal Bay Highway 12 Sewer Plant Neighborhood Neighborhood Public Worlcs -Public Worlcs - 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 15,0000162,800-282,800 160,000 325,00025-50,000 25,000-35,000 25-50,00025-60,000 25,000+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 of bldg of bldg \J 0 savings savings %/l45,000)(5%/l45,000) 0(?)30-50,000 30-50,000 Possible realignment Acquisition ofofOCB (100-200,000)Houses Minimum l-$50,000/house TOTAL m;€I_B y //' ar^A 7 A N c; \ c c r"' 1 ^ L't,: \ J > i U . » r M • r £ r - 1_ \ \ ? ^ c ' ‘: t : -V, r* *' I* ** February 8,1991 Mr. Mark Btmhardwn City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Cryttat Bay. MN 55320 RE: Orono Municipal Cantar Exittlng City Hall Stta Schamaties Dear Mark: Aa par your raquaet. we can prepare a revised schematic plan for tne listing sUe for an additional fta of $2,800. Thie fee represents $2,000 to prepare the deslc-n work and $800 o meetings and community reviewe. The design work would Include the following: c. An exterior Image sketch showing how the design would fit imo the neighborhood. This work would represent, not a final design tor the site, but an illustration of how a be uniquely prepared for the City Hall 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 illustration of how the City to the old City Hall site as a specific opportunity to further assess the potential of this site. On be/|aif of Boarman. Kroos. Pflster. & Associates, ina, I appreclaia this opportunity to again be of seriica. Ja^O. Boarman, AlA lident Boarman, Kroos, Pflstar, A Assocfstas, inc. JBilkm FDeNamo: pro|ect\om2\b\2-lb6 212 North 2rd Street Minn eaool.* Mianetota 55^0 ’ bW-M^-iTS: FAX 61 tQull 05BO''uni;v ‘mnler'"' ^. j 3 y • h: 12 • 1ii\ If:CITY FACILITIES - CITY OF OROllO jj COMMON SPLIT B LOCATION CH/PD C PW CH/PD D PW (Assumed Geographic Center of City - OCB a Sewer Plant) Distance; Prom "Center" Prom OCB/NS Drive 2 miles 2.5 0 0.5 1.5 L 2 2.5 1.5 1 0 0 Time I From OCB/NS Drive All residents can reach this site without going thru another community. COMPATIBLE LAND USE Type;Commercial Residential/ Urban Coirj’iercial Urban Natural" Residential Residential Commercial •City Hall/Police-Office/Retail •Public Works-Lt. Industrial •Scale"/Ma8s Siroilar/Small 4x5 times than current surrounding 8--12 times Equal/less 8-12 times 4-5 times Variances Building Setbacks None None None (if no or limited expansion) None See C None Parking: Setbacks t of spaces None None Yes Possible None None See C None None Hardcover (DNR-proposed regulations - 25%) Outside 1000* Mostly outside 1000* About 40-50% Hardcover Outside 1000* About 40-50% Hardcover Mostly outside 1000* Operational Aspects: Capital Storage Can place it in PW*s at less s.f. cost P.ooms Lunchroom# one less office PW*s None Trips Between Pacilities On foot 3-4 miles between sites mama T P 'T\P ! L jJ Ci J 1 CITY FACILITIES - CITY OF ORONO Vehicles Can store Admin/Police vehicles in winter without additional Fueling on site.S • • RoTiain outside or add garane space to CH/PD ($17,000/stall). Fuel at split site or 2nd fuel system. May require receptionist/secretary at Ptibl ic Works or always have supervisor presf'nt ( $30,000/yr) • 2nd telephone system for PWs. 1*10 of Existing Properties: Sewer Plant Residential Crystal Bay/Current City Hall Park or housing (plus post office as is) Faciliiies Same a i A txpandability of Site:Extra bldg site plus building expansion of CH/PD/PW More limited thar A liimi ted»oint Site for Other Purposes: Could be -- - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - -used in (Library/Post Office) conjunction with library/post office/school/other commercial, etc. CH/PD Very limited Residential Facilities rw Good None apart from incorporating existing post office Yes CH/PD Very limited See C Facilities Facilities rw Good Possible ’Locatability*: • mm mm mm mm m mm mm mm ^m * Resi "Non-Residents Easily described Easily described Reasonably Not as easy ea*-y Easy See C Reasonable Reasonably More difficult p,^c:y Persons may qo to one site hoping to find the othor. I f >lOjJCL TO: FROM: DATS: Citizens Facilities Ccrinittae Mark E. Berr.hardson, City May 15, 1990 i3 w — wl ^ StJBJSCT! Staff and Servica 3ac.tsraund c.arvice ‘Review D^itsd 4/13/90Attachments: A. Englneerin, aer.ice f-t’03--c”s raised at the Facilities IS3CS - provide '«?°f=^^,%ario7Ts90. the anec-.f.c reancnae. tHta^fln^iesues include me fo.lo«-..g. A. current and projected nuncers or start. . ... inoac-s those hace on the proposed layout.3. Soace m?ac-j w-iv^^o •c. cost impacts or those layouts. - .-nnt-ao- services to ether communitres on D. I.tpact or cont.ac. =e. citv budcet. • wuo r’*-’-*ens Review iaS32|2£|2f|i;erque1tioL7°e7imd to'the cu^ =?a”f”A^V>. tj.e proposed h^ have on the if any, building oni/ overall project. niSCDSSION - rom.munity and nrcanlrational growth be Based on these exp built out and pot.nt. s^qnlficl^’n^her of yearn beyond that. Other scenarios which may include any of the foUowrn,, <?P"vice to Orono residents.- New types or se-/ice e. Other, currently sepe.aw,. Additional services -o. othe jurisdictions. . Change in soninq which significantly increases population. j are not Ho«ivtrt%iten't?^^^^^^ Se1 JrafqumiScient land for those potentials i 7 the lii*ic2dVven 10 years from now.e.xpansion wili oe severe-/ j.i.^----- - A. potential two or three yea.^^^.^^ vears. The ?ro:ections given staff increases d------- ^ ^s = ^ntisllv based on theby the architect are oneb t..au a.- ------------ following criteria: occasionally over the last Increase in coimnunity copulation Shift of function in the following areas: Engineering Recreational Supervision Assessing Enc'iee’-ina - The issue of whether the City . V-ed"'*”-£nc-nee- r-i ** *• a n t ■ v beina exc-orec as ou.----..ecengineer or no, is cj--en,,.^ 3 consultant Attachment A. Even ir t.ne ^-^e— er serve engineer that person may need some ... nous, s, the organization. in«^ha^ ?'ani-'cant shift mav be the addition of Recreation - Anothe- a^gn*-- _ _ ^. ac h,-%ve. but tner rec.-ero onal supervisor, wnich^ co.^un.-es n City o£ Orono is -^^teVossiole seed for a ?^i;irtL^n^=;?rVillV°£or/r;nlu; II=\%°Ainraou“s rvLrat\e"to- tV,'3,. ior otter propraos. z^«^<^pssor IT13V b6 nssdGci wnstihGT i*-S Assessing - The ‘basis As a contractor may need to in house or se-ve the oublic. A related issue have space availaole to ^ this service and the is that there house fun^Jon because of aCity may be required to ma<e i, an y^n^nou one of the lack of available «ntrac.ora. -^--^.o -.^oause of the Sni^^e^ all^v:r^^d‘=V/;el of hVusing to" a full economic scectr-um.) Police - Here an increase o growth . fche oroiected growth is a straight projection for £ thrle ?n.-o! L'fioers to parsilel t.te populotror. ;r'LVi"xrorlicl?esrsrp:|u“tiot--although tte increase oay be less than that. IMPACTS OF PRCoECTICNS The following represent the impacts o£ staff growth projected over the next ten years. 3 1 CITY HALL i orT ^ ??.CJ2CTS: AEDimCMS SCL-APJ: =T3 Vww^ - Adnin 31dg/Zonina Financs Recreation Engineer Assessing 1 Clerical*/ OQ1Tecnnical104 1 Clerica- Technical ^ Q Ca ^m.- /'^ecr.nicai.oc*Assessing Total Nee Toeal Gross (3oi) n 3 1,064 $35,169 FCLIC2 Orono Contract PUBLIC WORKS ^ ^ 1 ♦ i, U-.-- - 0 * currently have a oar in a space saving. 3 Maintenance personnel timer in the position so would no r e s u 1 associatea '•r^a^ to each or tne commun j. -- - . The arrangement IS ben^--. - ^ :ainimum of five, not s-x^ of the communities would n maintenance expenses to ha/- officers plus otner cap *- - _3 ^b''e to get bv at a cheaper rat- around the clock service the^City'of Orono benefits contracting with Orono. i. substantiallv similar basicSs it would essentially need a substaji^ti^^^..^^ large a itself to provide around -he - _ arrangement is mutually community that it present y as proposed ben.etclal to ail ’ ,d what%r the City has 10 or 20 a eacllity that would^ b 0^^ difference being the number of officers with the only should be stated tha- locker spaces that i«- w. ries" are not absolutes, and woul certain of the force than with a larger ;Sc«r «Vs“l^“u«fu\^^Ver^f orono did not contract -ith any of the eomnunities. „,ioe Animal Control ^“spriifg parhrMinne'onita 3each',and on 3 contract /-nnfac*" foe animal contrOaL ^ <t lib tn%r sr.=iti^” 'rc=nt“ aV/1« ^ numuec of hours of pat.ol (y C i -^ mm ^would reruir. 2 rocether with ca-- ou... tr.e r.unicer oi hcuro tr.e function such as tnis,^ou^ wcr:<ir.= . The contract cities Conaunitv Service ’ cost is S 11,000. Again thispay $3,400 for ^a servic wn^ .ug city didsay 53,4uu -a. -i a*:- " ~ ^ ^ ^he communities. il.* i‘?fo*-tf.*'.nYiaTconVr,-l ’'** a a V i n 9 = o.:»unities around j^ .e h^a |c- contractors because o^ wue reasonable service quali-y. Minnetonka 3eacn. .Nh^--^^^^ elirlinaced they do srovice revenue person 520" oo'c vear to hei? off sec tne ou-------n-ranging f rom 3-S20, OQO , 3.; comcarison tnis wouic inspector's salaries. ison. ‘ It should he nosed increase t.he ^starf ?®‘ 213^; q/only do building inspections^ that the bui-cmg ins.-->-■'oninc reviews. The cit., but assist in the sep^hic a-- because of the verv unique in t.he area or bui.. nc an^^-^ program anc stringent and Action that does go on in the the unique V^t" "'t’ =>' remodelings. The ceoartmenrconmunity togetner _ wi--ntha.n_the generates subSwant^ -onn^'’ '"he oro^ection for increasec s^--- cost of all tne personne.. .. r. cular Iv in the septic would be to help carry our runcmons ..a.............. . and zoning areas. COST or SP.AC2 >?OW ^7ErSTS_ T^ rUTT?^ , O Z tri0 According to our S35.000 to additional square footage i- building addition $100,000 for building oroject the costs would he 50% were constructea late, as a ama- - .<In addition each year u ne greater due to the ^ma-. 'the* a ve r age over the last 10 construction prices go u-, years at 3% per year. COMMON LOCATION FOR F.ACILITIZ3 construction - From t.he w/e%amrco^ buildings are on the same -ave about 5% on the contract or estimated that the Ci>-y co “ xn addition to tne $100,000 on $2 "the'** savings regarding utilitybuilding construction savings, othe sa^.j^^^ Shared parking hookups, sprinkler .systems, "common" expansion space on facilities, landscaping, plus hav.ng^ generate parcels having to the same site as opposed t y 9 - senerate sites more have expansion space for each, total land would be needed. . ^ ui T 1 have a building that Sprinklers and Otilitie_s ‘^^^Vecy purposes. Sites wit.hout will be totally spcinlTLered for sare-/ pucp w- ' ma"or wells to handle this at a cast of « nnn'T^ -^-e's a'» seoerata it would double tr.at $200,000 or more. I- Ji.«-es a-- a>=r cos t. ^ selected ccerational features of havingOoerations - *...e_e a-- j<=-- .________u,—------... . a-'’ 3”blic Works tocecner sue., as ..a. >—n^-c..— ■»..«• - ■“ ^ c^^^'nc roorss spaces thac -® ?"•?”=' ^eiJctarreccrdrand otr.er r:SVace'caTce°Vlaced fn the VlcIIi wor.<s buildieg widhoct any Storage can wS pxa • a" "v less scuare footace cost operations vehicle'storage could be than in a C-.y ^i-ie of a "ublic Works building for cityaccoraodateo in the ai^ia or a .jj-- ,ut,^ra n,-n > of «v-hicies, oarticularly police venic.es (..nere a. a _.a o^.^ . ve"*''-‘'®s and not all can be stored in *.ne ^a../ -o..wo.. mOI.-s. /e..-w-- , s-u'” etc. tocether witn tne non Usl;raf^t.he I.-;tegrat‘al:ion of a work force between Public works, police and city hall find common solutions. If not located on S'-me s--- roGui- additional oersor.nei to ccoraina te _ cer .a.n thl fict that the operation may not be as ettective ana e.....en. as one on the same site. c w- - "'Wa uo of the three facilities Sou^F ^eate confu ifon for peVple comi.ng to city hall, police or wou.a t-.B .vara - -hr^*® different locations. I. is pub. 1C wo.xs 1- t 1 oiace so the public can come to ‘onrolal^Lid find all t.he personnel all over the community to rinc /a-.o.s p - - operation . conclusion - It is hooed t.hat these do provide some g^^ifance and will be "available for further questions at your mee----g on A . 24^1.990. 'll Prom: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Date February 1, 1991 Subject: 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 NS? on County Road 19. Attached for your information is a proposal from the listing agent regarding that property. The proposal has been verbally adjusted to a one year length of leaser all other items remain the same. It is also our understanding that the use is approved as per the zoning of Tonka Bay. . ? TOMLINSON COMPANY Ccrr^;^erc:a)/incLStrai ^eai Estate Sa ’es ancJ Leasing ‘ITSSO Sfeconwooo Rd. Wivzata. MN 5S391 '612-475-12V ^ 1 - 1 Q Q 1 Hanus Bus property Area - Land Building Finished shop Granular floor approx. 97,575 sq.ft. 4,150 SQ ft. 11,075 sq.ft. approx. approx. Iota! sc.ft. approx.15,225 sq.ft. Rental rate Finished shop area approx. @ $4.00 per so. ft.per yr. Granular floor area approx. @ $2.75 per sq. ft. per yr. 4,150 sq.ft. 11,075 sq.ft. $16,600.00 30,450.00 47,050.00 Pe^ month 3,920.00 Tenant to pay cost of heating, lighting, phone service, water and sewer service. Occupancy - Immediate Length of lease - 2 years. r ftc* i ft \ Ik f •p I \ /iTnfl4!(ev7- t- To: Prcm; Date: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Lvle Cman / Suildmc 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 repair the leaking roof. It is my opinion that the building is beyond repair and if someone was to request a permit to repair a building in this condition on private property, I would deny the permit and commence hazardous building action. Structural deficiencies and deterioration starts at the roof and continues down to the foundation. - Roofing is leaking and is past its life expectancy. - Roof sheathing is rotted. - 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 no longer plumb. - Foundation is crumbling and bearing poi.nts are unstable. — The whole building is leaning toward Brown Road. It is my recommendation that all equipment and materials should be removed as soon as possible and the building be secured until it can be removed. 22291.2 To:Mark E. Bernhardsonr City Adnir.istrat:or Frofli:John R. Garhardson, Public Works Director Date:February 22, 1991 Subject; TeFOorary Equipment Cold Storace Attached are very preliminary estimates for temporary structures for the Public Works Department on our site. Building Size 60x120 ” 7,200 s.f. 6.00 per s.f. constructed $43,200 Bituminous Pad 4" thick 176 ton ? 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. CITY FACILITIES - CITY OF OFONO COKMON SITB SPLIT SITE C.City Hall/Police D. City Hall/Police B. Old crystal Bay Crystal bay Crystal bay A. Highway 12 Sewei Plant Neighborhood Ne i ghborh(*od Public Works -Public Works - Highway 12 OCB Sewer Plant Capital Coats (81ta Specific) Land Coats $292,000 $0 $292,000 $0 Lass Sals of Propartyi Crystal Bay/Maighborhood (34,500)(34,500)0 0 OCB/Sswar Plant (200,000)0 (200,000)0 Bits Davalopoant Soils Correction 160(-415,000)15,000 7^-150,000 15,000 Natar/Sprinkler Support 0 162,600-262,600 162^80^285,000 Sa«fsr/Otilities 25,000 25-50,000 35,000 2401000 Landscaping 60.000 fe0,000 ^,000 'fco^boo Strast/Parking/Curb-Gutter 90.000 120000 120,000 95,150 Denolitlon/Currant 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 Phasing 0 0 40,000 40,000 Bidding Clinata (if construction delayed)51-145^000 81-145,000 Post Office (600 sf I 160-70)0 0 50-60.000 50-60,000 (assoMs inoona current level) Joint Davelopnant/Bidding _5I 5-101 0 0 of bldg of bldg savings savings (51/145,000) (51/145,000) Santa1 0(?)50^000 30-50,000 PoBsibl^e rea 1 i gnment Other Possible realignment Acquisition of of OCB (100-200,000)Houoes Hinimum l-$50,OOO/house j: 75,000 TOTAL 427,500 408,300 Comon Site 145,000 145*000 202,500-537,500 263,300;^26,100 704,800-949,800 670,100-860,100 1.000,000 r CITl FACIUTIKS - CITY C OHO COMHON SPLIT ABC D (Highwiy 12) (Siwer Plant) CB/PO PW CL'PD PW (Cryital Bay) Bi<jhv.ay 12 (Crystal Bay) (Sewer Plant) Vahlclaa Can atora Adain/Polica vahlclaa in winter without additional a.f. Pualing on site. Conagn •Bolovaa -Ptrfcinq Remain outside Fuel at split site (wasted enployee time) or 2nd fuel systua At a pjnimua require receptionist/secretary at Put lie Works or always have supervisor present ($30,000/yr). 2nd telephone system for PWs, b Oaa of laistinq Propertiaai Bawar Plant Facilities Crystal Bay/Currant City Ball Residential Same as A Bspandability of Bites Park or houainq (plus post office aa ia) Mora liaited than A Eitra bldq (big lota) •its plua building eipanaion of Joint Bite for Other Purpoeesi CB/PO/PW Limited CH/PO Very 1Imited (Library/Poat office) -Locatability«i Could be uaed in conjunct ion with library/poet offlce/achool/other cooBierclal, etc. If Putilic Works Director moves to ti ls faci 111y need addn conference space/rntg/oquip. Real dent 1 a 1 Pact 111iea Faci1 It lea Resident!a 1 Fad Ii t lea CH/PD Very licnited PW Good PH Good See C None apart f rco i ncor porat 1ng existing post office Possible - hut wav be lialtcl Baaldanta *HQn-Iaaidaota* Easily doseribad Eaaily described Resaonsbly easy Rsasonatly sssy See C Not S3 easy More difficulT Easy Reasonable Persona may go to one site hoping to find the other. CCMMON SPLIT A U C D LOCATION 'highway 12) (Sewer Plant) CH/PO PW CH/PD PW - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (Crystal Bay) Highway 12 (Crystal Bay)(Sewer Plant) (Aaaumed Gaographlc Center of City - OCB & Sewer Plant) Distancet Iron 'Center* 2 ml lea 0 1.5 2 l.b 0 rroB OCB/NS Drive 2.5 0.5 1 2.5 1 0 Tiae t Proa OCB/NS Drive All residents can reach thla site without going thru another connunity. COMPATIBLE LAND USE Typei Commercial Heeident i al / Urban Commercial Url»an Commercial —~~~—-- - - - - - - -- Natural* Residential Residential •City Hall/Police-Office/Retall •Public WorkS'Lt. Industrial *Scale*/Maas Simllar/Sma11 4x5 times 0-12 times Equal/less 8-12 times 4-5 times — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -current surrounding Variances - -——- - - - --- - - - - at current zo.Ting - yes Building Setbacks Nona None (If no None ’ See C None or Halted expansion) (requires street closing) Parking! " Setbacks Nono None None See C None I of spacea None None •>8 Hardcover (DNR-proposed Outside 1000' Mowtly ;^«sibla Outside About Moatly regulatione - 251) outaido looo* 40-50% outside 1000' About Hardcover 1000* 40-501 Operational Aspectss Hardcover Capital Storage Can place it in PW's at lese a.f. coat Rooaa LunchrooBr one lesa Nona office PW's plus meeting, training space % Trtpi Batween Facllltlaa On foot 3-4 nilcs between eltea % /// 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, (aoproximately 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 utilise 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 t.he 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 Hail moves from the Crystal Bay neighborhood, t.he 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 . Public Works - Regardless of what the City did, the Public Works 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. QUESTIONAIRE Choose only one option per household. Own Rent 1. For the property currently otmed 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. PLEASE RETURN BY . * - j ^ /4^ 77 ,r^0(^ 'r' i' February 8.1991 fc3 1 2 Mr. Mark Bemhardson Citv cf Crono P 6. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 RE: Orono Municipal Center Existing City Hall Site Schematics Dear Mark: As per your repuest, we can prepare a revised schematic plan for the existing C>ty Hall site for an additional fee of S2.800. This fee represents S2.000 to prepare the design work and $800 for meetings and community reviews. The design work would include the following: B. C. Site plan providing the property size and building location. Floor plans illustrating the building layout for City Hail. Pciice and public meeting soaces. An exterior image sketch showing how the design would fit into the neighborhood. This work would represent, not a final design for the site, but an illustration of how a design can be uniquely prepared for the City Hall site. It would include one revision. The work would be done within a two week period after your approval of our propos<u. Tills work would provide a spec.olc iiiustraticn of how the City Hail .needs cculd be uniquely applied to the old City Hall site as a specific opportunity to further assess the potential of this site. On bei^f of Boarman. Kroos, Pfister, & Associates. Inc., I appreciate this opportunity to again be of servbe. Ja^O. Boarman, AlA . .. lident Boarman, Kroos, Pfister, & Associates, Inc. _ r:. -----JB:lkm FnaNama: project\om2\b\2-jb6 222 North 2nd Street .Minneapolis .Minnesota 5540! S12-3J9*3752 bl2-J39-t»2l2 Equal Ooportunitv Emoioyer ATTACBMENT E TO:Mark E.Bernhardson, FROM:John R.Gernhardson, DATE:March 5 , 1991 SUBJECT: Temporary Facility Public Works At the February 25, 1991 Council meeting it was determined that it was necessary to pursue temporary housing for Public Works and in particular the equipment stored in the "Lumber Shed". The intent being that a temporary "Pole Barn" type building would be constructed on City property that could be moved and utilized as cold storage at the site of the new facility that we have been planning. It is anticipated that 5,000 square feet will be needed to take care of our immediate needs. Another alternate that I will be researching is the feasibility of constructing a sand/salt storage building now on City property that can also be moved to the permanent site and used for that same purpose. This would require outside fenced in storage area for equipment attachments, sign, posts etc.. A rough schedule would be: 4/91 Outside storage to fenced area. (Either here, our sewer plant, water tower or Hennepin County Public Works.) 4- 5/91 Remove Lumber Shed. 5- 6/91 Decision on new permanent Public Works or go ahead on temporary structure. 6- 7/91 If temporary - construct on a site selected. 10-12/91 If awaiting permanent - partial occupancy of permanent facility. TO: FROM: DATE: ::59i.4 ^ » * 5Va Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat February 25, 1991 Of J$gU >10 SUBJECT: Storm Water Management ■/> Attachment: A. Storm Wate^ Management - Concept Review Dated 1/21/9.1 ISSUE - 1. Determine if Council desires to undertake an overall storm water management program. 2. Determine if Council desire to utilize alternative financings to special assessment for storm water projects. INTRODUCTION - At the Council's February 11, 1991 Council meeting Attachment A was presented for Council consideration. Council requested it be tabled until March 11, 1991. DISCUSSION - Issue #1 - Storm Water Management - The basis for Orono's Comprehensive Plan was to reduce densities in the rural area since developing at that density would not greatly increase non­ point (storm water) pollution. This was selected because of the concern that by eliminating the sewage point pollution problem that they would create at least the same, if not a greater problem, by increased density and therefore storm water run-off that would eventually end up in the lake. Definitive technical studies as to the specific run-off sources and amounts however, were not performed. Development of a storm water management plan for the community would provide a more empiricial basis for the City's Comprehensive Management Plan. In addition if the City were to develop a storm water management plan for the City it could then have it reviewed by Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and if in accordance with their plan, the City could then take over its own storm water management and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District would no longer be involved in approving such plans unless they were amendments to the storm water management plan. It is anticipated that a storm water management study would cost approximately $225,000 , the primary cost ^ being the necessary elevation mapping of the entire comrauni-.y at 2 foot contours. (It could be done over a 2-3 year period.) It is anticipated that the plan would not only provide the following: A. Empirical basis for the Comprehensive Plan B. Govern its own storm water management instead of Minnehaha Creek watershed District if Orono chose to undertake C. Identify areas for potential storm water managment projects D. Provide information for the City to deal with related items such as: pollution of the lakes including hard cover/fertlizer pollution etc. The results of this mapping could be placed on a computerized mapping system and used for reviewing future development. Some monies could be generated by sale of this information to applicants if the City had it loaded on an Ultimaps or Autocad. This element would address the storm water quality in the plan. A second, though not required, element for such a plan would be a water quality study of the storm water which would cost an estimated $50-70,000 should it be undertaken. Issue #2 - Financing Alternatives - Storm Water Management - The primary thrust of Attachment A was to outline ways the City could finance various storm water projects. Additionally to the extent that it generates money it could also look at using this to fund an overall storm water management plan. Several cities have used the utility revenues to pay for the plan. The utility approach is the one that for at least a portion of the community may make necessary storm water management plans easier to implement. As an example we could set up a storm water utility in the Navarre Heights area and perhaps use that as a funding mechanism instead of the special assessment approach currently being contemplated. ALTERNTAIVES - Policy Issue #1 - Storm Water - 1. Direct staff to develop a request for proposal for storm water management plan. 2. Choose not to undertake. 3. Table for further information. Issue #2 - Storm Water Financing Alternatives 1. Delinate what alternatives seem appropriate. 2. Direct staff to continue with special assessments as the only alternative. i 3. Request the City develop a storm .‘tility policy and identify the cost for such. Action Alternatives 1. Undertake. 2. Table. 3. Choose not to undertake. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the Council direct staff to further refine the cost elements before going for request for proposals for storm water management to determine the cost of undertaking such. It is further recommended that the Council direct staff to further explore the utility alternative and determine the cost for developing a storm water utility policy with its Engineer. While the storm water management plan talked about in Issue #1 is helpful in developing the policy it is not a necessary step to be undertaken. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by Council direct staff to develop a request for proposal for storm water managment plan and that staff obtain the cost for developing a storm water utility policy from its Engineer. Ayes _, Nays _. cc: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator / :iayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator January 21, 1991 SUBJECT: Storm Watar Management - Concapt Review Attachments: A. City of Eagan Storm Water Utility Policy Dated 6/90 B. County Road 15 Financing Alternatives 12/9/37 (Memo Only) C. APWA Article 1/86 Charles Honchell D. Water Resources Protection ISSUE - Presentation to Counci] of the concept of storm water utility and other methods of dealing with storm water management. INTRODUCTION - The issue of storm water drainage and management and the possibility of establishing a storm water district go back to 1987 when tht ,e was a proposal that as part of the Countv 15 funding that a sewer utility funded by fees and/or taxes be established in the Navarre area. Because of the requirements at the time it did not seem appropriate to undertake. It was secondarily raised as a possibility in the Highwood area but again not pursued as the Highwood area was resolved by the City constructing a retention pond on City property north of the problem area and constructing a catch basin in the Highwood Road right-of-way. The difficulty in dealing with a storm water project as a special assessment both as to process and also demonstrating benefit to assessed parties is well illustrated in the consideration of the Navarre Heights drainage area. DISCUSSION - Unc.r the laws of the State of Minnesota there are four general ways in which cities can deal with storm water projects, they are as follows: Special Assessment (MS 429.011-429.111) - Establish a drainage district for each project and then generally an assessment is established either on a square footage or lot basis for how much drainage is contributed to the project. As a special assessment it would have to go through a process of a series of hearings together with proving benefit, and could ultimately be tested in Court . Storm Water Improvement District (MS 444.16-444.21) - As established this allows a City by a 2/3's vote to establish a storm water drainage district and levy taxes related to improvements in that district on a "Ad Valorum Basis" rather than a benefit basis. Although the requirement is that it be reasonably related to the project costs, it can be used not only for construction marn.tanancs, upgrade, etc. Annually is a lew that 'peed3 to be established but it is u xevy tnac '^'outsicfe the levy limits. Projects, however, require a^roval process similar to special assessments. I 3 an c>‘storm Sewer Utility (MS 444.075) - This approach authorised under Minnesota statute alloato i_hai_ uhe utility district be establisned and that a ^fee be }33sed on a reasonable basis. ..*13 '-oumO^e adequately address a property's contributions to the y^ter control problem generally in an area and iu is one that does not have to prove benefit nor be project specific. Additionally fees not paid by a person can be can be assessed as a delinquent charge against the prooerty in the same manner as the City currently does water and sewer.with General Fund - Council always has t.he option to u.<=:e general fund monies to do storm sewer improvements, but to the extent that levy limits e.xist and it is a general tax on the city, it may not be appropriate for specific areas. Combination — Certain combinations of these items could be allowed depending on the laws and project related to storm water drainage. The discussion if brought forward to look at the overall issue again of how to approach storm water drainage given t.he ^.ol-owing issues: Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan Navarre Heights Drainage Kelly Avenue Drainage Other specific areas for drainage USE OF ALTERNATIVES Several communities have gotten away from t.he special assessment process and have either i.mplemented storm sewer districts using an ad valorum tax or storm sewer utilities either in par w oc t..e community or in the whole of the community. Rates established in these communities for the utility portion, which would be put on the utility bills, generally reflect the amount of run-of.. for a standard rain and the impervious surface general ly expected on the property. For residential properties flat fees are generally established with more complex properties s u ch commercial/industrial having specific fees assigned based on the amount of impervious surface on the property. An average rate for such, as noted in Attachment A from the City of Eagan, are about $4.50 per quarter or approximately $18.00 per year. It is interesting to note that this not only covers the projects that may be needed, but also maintenance, cleaning, drainage, restoration of wetlands where appropriate (as previously noted wetlands that become too mature no longer have the appropriate nSSdSQ to 0 2 D2n2-iC13^} but U_£0 u.i-n^a^ jwC.i US strs€t sweeoing which reduce ouantity and cuality of cheu*icalSf sand and s'alt, dirt and debris are not either a positive contribution to the store sewer system. Additionally it would allow for selected public education as this is an is oue of not 3 us of quantity run-o..- ouv. a-so o*. - city such as Orono a means fertilization etc. to deal with public education for RURAL, AREA Given that much of t.he rural area of the community was developed based on avoiding the urbanization cycle in the "rural" areas which saw increased density generating more non-point pollution (i.e. storm water runoff), it maybe appropriate to establish districts in the urbanized areas only. The whole idea of a comprehensive storm water plan provides a more accurate basis to ba'ckup the City's comprehensive management plan and enable Council and staff to deal more erfectively with issues of storm water management, run-off, hardcover, etc. YJjq l3sue is presented to Council at this time to generate discussion and determine if it is appropriate to undertarce a different direction in this area. POSSIBLE WOR.K PLAN jf if is appropriate to look at this as an approach, the City could first fund a comprehensive storm water management plan as a local plan following up on the watershed's plan to determine specifically what projects to be undertaken together with what maintenance and management practices would be appropriate. (Note that Eagan's plan was developed by Bonestroo.) It may additionally determine it appropriate based on that study to differentiate urbanized lake areas from rural areas and perhaps have different fee structures based on the needs within those districts. (It should be noted that most of the cities that have put in a storm sewer utility make it one city-wide district.) - This is based on the theory that although all lands can contribute to run off. the urban developed properties generally have a substantiallv greater contribution. (It should be noted that even vacant land at certain percipitation levels do contribute run-off even in the natural state.) ALTERNATIVES - 1. Accept the information 2. Discuss cuid accept. 3. Request additional information 4. Give general direction of this. r L 5. Table. 6. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recontr.er.ded that after oppoL'tunity to iscuss and digest the infornation that the Council direct staff tc further explore the idea if it is appropriate for Council. Further exploration would ‘nclude determining the cost of comprehensive study, legal aspects to introduce such a utility and what apact this may have on per.ding issues such as Navarre Heights and Kelly Avenue drainage. c PROPOSED MCTION - Mo. ov , seconded by , Council acceo* tie information from staff and direct they further develop the d-’j for a storm water utility for Council consideration. Ayes_, Nays 1 il-jfffifUlsvr (I Report for storm Water Utility Policy £agan, MinriBSota June 1990 DEC 1 9 1990 APP!?nV--;.) a U I w . -. 3t r*/ Date. EAGAN ENGINE-.^^9 •• •* I J Bonestroo Rosene ^ ^ Andcrlik & I Associates Engineers & Architects .3i«r' C VtiA-r* L. i A r .ih-t r r ;rn Ce — • ’5 •>Cf-a; z '•c^^ ’- >-Cf^ C ^5 M £ir*r C ;c-j-3 A» =ct:?* C 2w^rr^ ^ s .erv' * 3ouocr> Vji ^ -inscn '?C < *5 ‘.•^•ae* ’ 'juL-a** Jircrr i C LTJtsra. JV *5 vicrjc* C i ’.*aa-c Uii-i • »5i\ *ooe^ C ^ ^ *^c~II £ ••r-k —• :^r~: •»? - . •:prrr- •wUn • >C . CiJA^ -‘5 v-J» • ®€ vart • xxiri. *5 ‘•t-ii • - Zj“. • *.'!•'<*•• ■*? i ••! . C.X.V : »5 ?•*•• r a-i. • * •.« ; ^ ' C ’ f-s r •— Cr. c - •-ne' ■>€ C*J'M ^ ; rtksr *.« Marjn M C^ion June 14,1990 Honorable Mayor and Council City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota Re: Storm Water Utility Policy Report File No. 49482 Dear Mayor and Council: Enclosed Is the Storm Water Utility Policy Report for your review and ccnsider^ion. Council adoption of this report will establish the policies and procedures used to Implement and administer the Storm Water Utility. We will be pleased to meet with Council and other interested parties at a mutually convenient time to discuss this report. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERUK 4 ASSOCIATES, INC, Jerry Bourdon 2J35 West Highway 36 • St. Paul. Minnesota 55113 • 612-636^600 STCflM WATEH tmUTY POLICY HEPOF^ JUNE, 1990 summary The following secilons desc.-iOe me policies and administration of the Storm Water Utility Fund as adopted by City Council. npPINtnONS ■ I..,. All properties contributing storm water runoff within city boundaries spue areas and other similar land uses are all considere user . Vacant unimproved land with ground cover: Property that has not been platted or developed to its intended design use or purpose. Residential Equivalent Factor (REF): A parameter that relates the amount of runoff from a property to the amount of runoff from a single family res,dem.al property. Low Density Residential Property: Properties conforming to fl-t and H-2 zoned land use (single family detacned and duplexes). Density Residential Property: Properties conforming to H-3 zoned land use (Townhomes). with shared ground space. Impermeability Ratio: The Impermeability Ratio is ^ determined foXropediS mat «« establishes the Resident!^ 1 -a a minimum ratio of 1.0 /• Is established to or no impermeabie area still contributes runoff Into the system. ________Hia. area: Impermeable area, for the purpose of determining a property. RES^^mproveme^nts consisUng primarily of buildings, dnveways. roadways and parking lots. Page 1 Property area: For the purpcss of determining a property's REF, the property ’s area inc'uces ail property wjthjn a legally described parcel except. * dedicated public right of way, ■ designated outiots that meet the requirement of ‘‘■•'acant unimproved land wit.h grouna cover', and • Normal Water Level (NWL) area of ponds that are identifieo on the City's most recent Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan. filLUMiSSttUr The Residential Equivalent Factor (REF) The billing unit of the Utility will be the Residential Equivalent Factor. Each User will pay its proportionate share of the Utility ’s obligation based upon the Residential Equivalent Factor of the property. Determination of REF for low density residentiai land use; Ail property conforming to low density residential land use will be assessed an REF of 1.0 per dwelling unit. Determination of REF for medium density residentiai land use: All property conforming to medium density residential land use will be assessed an REF of 0.8 per dwelling unit Determination of REPs for oil other land uses: All property, except low and medium density residentiai, will be assessed an REF that is determined from: • the property ’s Impermeability Ratio and its corresponding REF per acre as established in Appendix A of this policy statement, and * the property ’s area. gSTAflUSHMENT OF THE imUTy BILUNG The Utility's budget, billing rata and allocation of it’s revenue will be at the discretion of the CounciL The billing rate will be the result of the budgeted obligation of the Utility and tha most current REF Inventory as determined by the Public Works Departmer^ The 1990 billing rate Is $4.56 per quarter for each Residential Equivalent Factor (REF) unit Page 2 f !MG / payment pcucv BUling of newly developed property will commence witn me first water utility bill. Residential Equivalent Factors will be evaluated with -ach building permit application based upon the site plan submitted with the permit application. ■n,. dtv mav at any time and at its discretion recompute the RE.= for any property from SI. b^ av^lLil. Lormation including site plans, aenal photographs, Held measurements or any other available data. ^pjUSTlIENTS L APP^Afeg . No adlustments will be made for low and medium density residential land uses. . Adlustments will be solely based upon recomputation of the ratio of Impermeable Area to the Property Area only. . Requests for ad|usun.nts must ren“ wSh frciSrc^omputatL^ that determine the Impermeable Area and Property Area. . Adlustments will not be retroa«lve beyond the three momh period for which the request for recomputation was made. hydrologic BASIS The following criteria was used as the basis for the hydrologic aspects structure me del . model storm: S yr. frequency, 24 hour event. (3.r rain as per soil conservation service charts) • hydrologic soil type: Type B • Typical residential unit: 0.5 acres. 26% impermeable surface This criteria is established as City policy. Adlustments may not be made based upon hydrologic arguments. Page 3 r ih?, laperseability Racio (2) 1 nmm 3 u c 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 * 1. 3 a 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 R£F per Acre 1.10 1.14 1.13 1.22 1.25 1.30 1.34 1.38 1.42 1.46 1.50 1.54 1.58 1.62 1.66 1.70 1.74 1.30 1.36 1.93 1.94 l.si 1.96 1.97 1.98 2.00 2.02 2.06 2.10 2.14 2.20 2.26 2.32 2.33 2.44 2.50 2.58 2.66 2.74 2.80 2.86 2.90 2.94 3.00 3.04 3.10 3.14 3.20 3.26 3.32 77 78 79 80 31 82 33 34 35 86 87 83 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 4.94 5.00 5.06 5.12 5.20 5.28 5.36 5.44 5.52 5.60 5.68 5.76 5.84 5.92 6.00 6.08 6.18 6.28 6.40 6.54 6.68 6.84 7.01 7.20 CITY OF RESOLUTION NO. 1990- A RESOLUTION CITY OF EAGAN. «If W 4W *USZP. FEE’* ZN THE The City Council of the City of Eagan, after ’"eview of al- pertinent City files, records, and proceedings, finds as follows: 1. The City Council has established by ordinance a Stom Water Utility and a Water Quality Management Plan. In addition, the City has a Comprehensive Storm water Management Plan. 2. The City Council of the City of Eagan must balance and decide between the policy objectives of competing and conflicting factors of Storm” Water Management. The system can be made safer and water cuality can b© improved by the eswablishinenc of a Storrn Water Utilitj^ User” Fee. Such a fee will be charged to those users for whom the Storm Water Utility, comprehensive Storm Water Managem.ent Plan, and Water Quality Management Plan benefit and such fee shall be an increased cost. 3. The Cit” Encineer's office, in conjunction with studies done V Bonestroo, Pcsene, Anderlik & Associates, Inc. ("BnA'*), the -onsultinq engineers to the City, determined the estimated cost for z.te completion of the Comprehensi .'e Storm Water Management Plan and t.he implementation of the Water Quality Managene.nt Plan. Utility Policy Report dated and incorporated to this4. BRA submitted the Storm Water June, 1990, which report is attached Resolution as if fully set fort.h herein. 5. The City council upon weighing the^ policy objectives of , effective implementation of the Water Quality Managemenw Plan and Comorehensive Storm Water Management Plan specifically including the benefits derived to the City and its residents versus the cost to the users of the system, decides that the benefits outweign the cost and hereby does order: a. That the City of Eagan adopt the Storm Water Utility Policy Report dated June,”l990 and acknowledges the findings of the report, soecifically including the "Residential LiUivalent Factor" (REF) as the basic unit of the fee structure for the Storm Water Utility User Fee; and b. That the City establish the REF at $4.56 per quart as a Storm Water Utility User Fee; and • I • I• I c. That the Citv finds that the REF is just and equitable; and T3C-T eV'aiT he •'n full force and effect fror. and after d. T.. c the P.-r “ aT^anr.oi frsn tine to tinetoe '^aate" of passace and'publlcarion until_ ar,en«^ ti.-n rasoluPion of the City Csur.ci^ of t-.e C..^ o. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Eagan this I’th day of June, 1990. CITV *"oeN^GAI CITY COUIJCIL /•^77 > -//1 ^/5v: Thonas A/'cc.^n-- ‘its: Mayor ATTEST: VanOverbeke ity Clerk APPROVED AS TO FOP-M: /janes F.Sheldon ^ty^Attotney / approved AS TO CONTENT: wI / C( t-1.. monas A. Colbert :ity Engineer and Public Works Director )ated: -7. !otion made by: Pawlenty J^vor^Ega", Waohter. Gustafson and Pawlenty Phose against: McCrea DATED: June 19, 1990 < I I I • ! --- . ORDIKANCZ NC 2;td SSRIZS /^onTMiMr-s* OF '^■=‘ CITY OF EAGAN, MINNESOTA, AMEIi ’TING EAGA2I C--i ^ -> r^*MVT7jTci?AL AiJD PUBLIC UTILITIES - PCXES A^iX 'cHASGiS A-'ID CILliCmM" 3Y RiJrATIMG *:iC_Al^iplNG mSmn" 2.07 RSGAJalHG ESTABLISHING A STCR.MWAT^ DWINA^ AHB nSBR AND CONNECTION AND AVA._A3.*-xT£^2??i;-i..;Linage utility; and ado?t:ng by r^.-^-ud.c=. c.-^-es i a... .. . . 3.99. The City Council of the City of Eagan does hereby ordain: section 1. Hagan City Code Chaorer 3 is hereby anended by adding Section 3.07 to read as follows; 1. Stem Water Drainage Utility. « ! public uoiiitv pursiar.-. --= Mir.r.ascoa Star-anas S-i44.075, frtt C-tacrar a.nd to k'fV =f Saca.t Public Works S;"::Ln?^^Ld"\tder"^k.ke 'idbtktsr^irior, =f -lie Public Wor.ks Dx«T60^oir • 2. Purpose of Funds Derived and Allocation of Revenue. ^ -1 *1 v©d ieS wO psiv fozr 3XI oir p3ir»- o.^ cHb SnstfSPJon, "^ecLfU-uct^:k:"?acaur. eLkrgenant, i-Pr=v-ent or IITA Ie“:™u?!u?f a?‘ eslakuskaS ky ' t.te Ctty of Eagan. All . ?:v;nuer ker^vid fron t.te fee shall be cradttad to ..re aopropriate scorn sewer fund. 3. Stora Sewer Utility Fee. « -auo-,- ut’lity fee for connection and availability of ^he s^r^ seie^facilities shall be determined by resolution of the StrcoSncil and shall be just and equitable A CMrge °U the cLnLtion and availability of storm sewer service kay be imposed for all premises abutting or plLes where municipal storm Sot connected to them. A charge “on c-nnection to the stora sewer service may, in the - of the City Council, be fixed by reference to the po- the cost which has been paid by assessment of tne preais (a) (b)rk ..iii... frr 'isa cf the stt-.- sever strrr. saver v -esclvticn of the City facilities snal^^_^be^ - eciiracie. Charges aade ^ar council »"* „^--"-;,T..as'nay bo fixed or. the basis of waterthe use or the lac-^-es ay rpasc-ab'e classification of consuaed, or bv ^ref erence^ - _ se’“/ics is furnished, or the types of pzsziises -- -“-7*;,,, ‘ pollution qualities and by reference to t.^e wLer, or in any other eSi^abl^ bLis including... but_ without lin.^at^o.., a.y cSbination of those referred to aoove. 4. Adjustments. The Council carJils. Such adjustments shall netthe adjustment or t..e le- — . be made retroactively. » 5. Exemptions (a) (b) fa®s estaclished inPublic richts-of-way are exe-.-s, ..w.. t..e . - paragraphs 3(a) and 3(b). • -—...-vor} 1 with ground cover and City o- Eaganvacant, unimproved fens established in paragrapnowned land are exempt iron w..e ^er;, 3(b) . Depi^-he^?. '"A?r*bilirshru brpayable%c‘'?hs“offica of t.he City Finance Director. 7. Recalculation of Fees. cavinQ the fee If a property ^of^^s \ch char sT^that person may have questions the corr<^ ^ charae recomputed within six months o.. S!linr*”y"s^Sit-Jng to^'ltr lublil Wor.s Director a written “^estfor the recomputation. 8. Collections. All fees are due on days thereafter. It :;f-“Ies^°wh^rrsa?imla;«^ delinquent »==‘’'“^f'.„,rLve not been made, all such delinquent arrangements for .-■ j city clerk who shall prepare accounts Shall be is against the Prop.y-y ^2r4r*=r*to li S^7%d" ic «1” account, f.ere shall be added a cer-if i ’the*^cunr"provided*f or by City Council delinq*-3nt ac--a*.»s) *_ •• __sb*'*'' be delivered to tbe resolution. This asses^^a..- r^*Z^ oc-obe- 1 of each year. Such acticn^ bfr bf °opt?Snal “ or'subJiTaent to taking legal action to collect delinquent accounts. sssi.;; IN jlCE-lSSilP SViolariony ^nd Sacticn . -^led rapaarad adopt sd in w^ei^ —•-/ i verbatim. Sacdion 3. Efdec-.iva Cate. This__ordirianca shall take edfect adoption and puoiication accor-—.g uoon its DATED:Mav 1". 1990 CITY EAGAil ^ 3r: THOMAS A. SCAN ^Its: Mayor 3y r-ETrlVanCverbeke It^l City clerk Date ordinance Adopted: .May 17, 199 0. oat. ordinance Published in the Legal Newspaper: May 2-, 1990. I t! J TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council ■*f^''\ Mark Bernhardson, City Adninistratoi DATE: Decertber 9, 1987 SOMECT: County Road 15 - Financing Alternatives Attachment A. Municipal State Aid Street Capital Improvements B. County Road 15 Memo Dated 11/17/37 (without attachments) C. County Road 15 Costs D. Zoning/Plat Map - Mavarre E. petitions IrTOtlal direction to staff tegacdinc financing of ctoject as it teiates to types of funding to be utilizied and a??roxit.ats ^mounts for each type. '■cunty.2. Adoption of agreement with r INTRODUCTION - At the November? given^o the final plans f^ IS* It was indicated at that ti. back further recommendations as » -• -- - - - - -a. KaAn the Attorney has been reviewing the agreement that nad been ^gce^ved just prior to the last meeting. •il meeting approval Si. .iction of County Road itaff would be bringing j c. - financing. In addition • s _ _ 4 ^ A ^ PI8CUSS:oN - A. Apoottlonment of costs - Tb« original allocation of costs did rc." «'orate*"tH<r dssign and construction managaisant costs to tne iSdiSuw! constr"uon it.«8. Tbls allocation dots not chan,. thV total but do.s change the allocation among the three suggested financing types - 11/28/87 Memo 12/10/87 Proposed Allocation ; f , i. Clty/MSA Funding 248ra9d 218.003 i :/ Special Assessments 198r039 126.000 !•) Storm sewer Dist 72a000 04,39. ' ■V i ■ =/. TIf7000 ■mrm f;:- i;' 'i u' V: 'I 'e- 1.) The reason th* per foot cost did not go up is inclusion of*front footage around the corners at 19 and 15 where work is done. B. Municioal State ^d Streets - Upon staff request the City Engrneer”lias“developed “an initial draftis) of the capital budget for the City's Municipal State Aid system roads. As noted in the diagram attached to the program that the City is served in a grid system of •major" streets and arterials. This is composed of a State Righway» County roads and MSA streets. The streets on the system have been the result of previous Council's actions and MSA program criteria. The dollar figure placed on each project in Attachment A and B is based on rough construction estimates. The plan is presented to indicate needs and funding sources, projects proposed for certain years are not recommendations but are used to illustrate how such a plan would work. (As part of its overall goal in the transportation area ( 1988 Strategic Planning Goal #7) staff will, present for council consideration during the next four months a more refined capital plan based on priorities, needs, and expectations.) Any "adopted" plan would be annually updated as to costs/priorities etc. Based only on the MSA street system the City has over the next several years needs of approximately $5.4 million with approximately $1.8 million available to it in the form of funds from the State. Should the City choose to undertake a substantial amount of these projects the City will need to use its General Tax Funding together with assessments, developers agreements and other sources to make up the difference. While all these upgrades do not need to be done in the next 13 years, the earlier the reconstruction work is done the less problem there will be for any attendant right-of-way acquisition. It is also anticipated that the relative cost of construction will be lower today than in the future. This lavout of needs does not take into account needs that the City has for other City streets not on the msa system that may need upgrades. Neither does it relate to needs on private. County or State roads the City may eventually take over. It is anticipated that private and County roads that may in the future come to the City would be at the standards to which the City would be build its streets. It therefore should not necessitate a substantial reconstruction amount. This may not be the case with City streets not on the MSA system. To the extent that they are not on a system however, they generally will not have the heavier traffic use that would be expected on MSA roads. C. ISSUE 1 FINANCING IT l45A7General Fund Financing - As noted above there are substantial needs in ^he community for the MSA funding apart from utilisation of it in conjunction with County Road IS. The most Immediate items would relate to the two bridges over willow and Old Crystal Bay together with work on Watertown Road. It is anticipated that most of the upgrading work on the streets would bring these roads to a 36 foot width which would provide minimum 32 foot width permitted by MSA funding together with a four foot I S: t?mrspecifications for each project were developed. Should the City Choose ^use^ the fa'ch^'^year ""f o^a of Road 15 It to^tal amount of the project. As native the City could use a tax levy commencing in 1989 an alternative t y . , should appropriately come fromto tand the portion It general t»*^««*^** would either be the cost to bond or *^®**'^**'^ ^**^?^*^ .f/wi int.rnal funds* utilisation of $230»flflO tb« IntsrMt the City of about $28,998 in in MSA funds » "*' If Vens'-i fund sources over the 13 MSA ®**' 4,\ V-'t*'**'- ' This'drops to about 17,999 at 8% *_ _t {nt.pest rates for AA rated improvement bonds i;r.Vo-t 7V."Vn\e»,*rra't ”orcf?y investments over the last six months have ranged from 8.7 - $.$• Bondlna 2£ ‘'lev ils?°the “ oiSt ?o‘’bo^“or fO^ internally would be predicated on the following: a.) Fund Balance and desired uses of ba-anca n cost'orboinig (about $12,999) I: $Sount to beVcially assessed (G.O Bonds for improvements must have a minimur. of 29» specially e***”vy’Limits (If bonded to the levy would be outside tha lavy limit) a ill K- over the next few months should the ?5i; i”?d*."to u.ra'S:i«:? rJI levy rather than its MSA funds. 4 Sewar Diatrict - The staff continues exploringdtorw Sawy ■ 11 ~r/m» «r » utility rate approach to fund aa special taxing district or ® ^ . recommended that this WS°999 twi ippr“"“t •"-> flldW levy 3. special Assessments - The major ‘t*”» ” "*'* lot ■CTTaButtlng ptopitty owners to fund the cost. - Curb and gutter - Driveway aprons - sidewalks The cost, for square footage outlined l.et time were approximately: - commercially toned and commercially uaad property - $18e00 per front foot I®': f ■■ I kT ?• f b L l«.r- b - Single family residencial ase property - $9.30 per front foot Generally the residential zoned properties are under 153 front feet with the nsajority being under 133. Exceptions to this Include; a.) Balboa property wnich has 550 front feet, and is currently undevelooed^ b.) properties that are ccianercially used but have a residential structure on then, and c.) properties that have more than one single family house on them. {Please see Attachment D*) If the City were to fund one-half of the sidewalk coats for the single family used residential properties, it would lower their front foot rate from about $2.00 per foot to $7.00 fpont foot. For a residence with 133 front feet the first year annual cost would be $70 principal plus $53 interest for a total of $120 the first year. This would be reduced to $70 plus $5 interest to 10th year. 4. Other Sources - The City has explored the use of other fundfi^'mechanTims to assist in paying for the regional cost of the sidewalks, such as charging the water customers in the area, use of a tax increment district, etc. Given the fact that the total cost of sidewalks ror the single residentially used properties is a total of $13,030 it is probably not cost effective to further explore those routes. 5. Street Lights - The staff has not been successful in Jeveloplng cost"“estimates with NSP for the project and would anticipate those would be available for January 11, 1988 meeting. 0. ISSUE 2. AGREE.MENT ADOPTION fHe City Attorney has reviewed the County 15 agreement and recommends we negotiate certain recommendated changes with the County to bring back to Council for final approval. ALTERNATIVES - Issue Policy - , .1, Accept staff recommendations. 2. Amend amounts or types of funding for the project outlined in theMeeting Action 1. f^dopt the preliminary plan as recommendations. 2. Amend the recommendations and adopt. 3. Table for further consideration until the January 11, 1988 Council meeting. It is not imperative at this point that the Council determine the preliminary arrangement of funding. The earlier however such a decision is made, the more helpful it is as the City will have to explore trtiether it needs to bond for the project or not. Issue 2 .Meeting Action I. Adopt I 2. Table RECOMMENDATION , ^ . Xssvie I. - Financing - It is presently recoinniendeG; a.) That the City utilize a general tax fund levy instead of Municipal State Aid Funds for the portion the City decides to pay of the project, b.) That the City over the next four months work to more fully develop its MSA capital improvement program. c.) That the City undertake the storm sewer district to j pay for the S84,3£J0 portion as a special taxing utility u: area, [ d.) 1u.i The City prelirainarly allot Sl26,303for the I assessments to the properties with the City picking up I approximately half of the cost for the residential n sidewalk, a.) That the staff be directed to set a special dsseaament hearing towards the end of the prior to September in order to certify for the 1989 taxes. f.) That the City determine over the next two months whether it should undertake financing out of internal funds or bond for the project. g.) That the City agree to undertake to the snow removal in the winter time on the sidewalks, h.) That staff be directed to do further work to determine if street lights should be constructed as part of the project. issue 2 - Agreement - It is recommended that the agreement be tabled “pend1ng negotiation on desired changes with the County. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by _, seconded by that the Council adopt the following preliminary financing plan: a.) That the City utilize a general tax fund levy instead of Municipal State Aid Funds for the portion the City decides to pay of the project. b.) That the City over the next four months work to more fully develop Its MSA capital improvement program. c.) That the City undertake the storm sewer pay for the $84,000 portion as a special taxing utliicy f nr area d.) The City preliminarly allot $126«0O0 for the assessnents to the properties«-wtth■ the CiL^ ep oly hal-g —ef—the esat——e4^e—reslJe.iLm \ •*' 'r e. ) That the staff be directed to set a special assessment hearing towards the end of the project, but prior to September in order to certify for the 198 9/^^;c^^ tsxss, - * f. ) That the City determine over the next two months whether it should undertake financing out of internal funds or bond for the project, g. ) That the City agree to undertake to the snow removal in the winter time on the sidewalks, h. ) That staff be directed to do further work to determine if street lights should be constructed as part of the project. Creating a storm drainage utility V. ^uMc Woim OM«aw ROSEVILLE RAISED S5)9.CC0 m ane yt«r from storm stwtr strvict cliargot. Tho city did not SOI up tti« uiiii* ty IS a way out of firiaoctai preotoms. But baciuse it is the rigni way to ap- pkPKfi anrm orainago. Tho advan* tagaa at tno utility arK • Raimaaa — Charges art based on how much of me problem the property owner creates. • Dependability — it produces con- avtem tunemg and « easily projec- • Dedicated funds — There is no competition tor use or mesa funds from other city aetiviiies. • tlMestrieted use Funds can be used for any type ^ acmmistraiive. planning, maintenance, reconstruc ­ tion. new construction, or omer use associated wnn storm drainage. • Legal delensibiiity — More and more special assessment projects are being challenged m courts, as benefits arediffieuit to ailocaie for properties on Mgn ground whien dram iheir water downstream. • Tea levy reduction — The tax levy can be lowered by no longer funding these eetivtiies from tax<supported general funds. Roseville cut more than S200.000 from its tax levy as a result of forming a utility. • Simplicity and fleaibility « Secur* system, explaining to the puoiie. and addbtg an extra tine on utiUty bills are not too dilfieult. and the fee system is sdsptaoie to local situaiions. Before decisions can be made on utility rates, much information is need* ed. Most will not be too dilficuii to get. but it win take some time and wont. Sources for such information include existing utility billings, financial records, capiui improvement pro* grama, budg^ time card accounting systems, zoning maps, end aerial mapa. Absoiuieiy exact miormaiion is not necessary; experience wiih me utiii* ty wilt enable refinement of fees, creous, etc. at a later date. Necessary Mormaiion indudas the Idiowing; ooepooeroreseAfeoarifio fSSSin* rsmeiiower Aueae woras Conpress and fauprMnr Snow. Dees existing law anew !cr the esuoiisnment of a sterrr. srainags ut.ii- ty? Fino out how much is being spent now ano on what acuviiies. Any prooosed Change requires an understanding of how things currently are done. Oetermme how funds are being ob* tamed and from whom. This >s very im­ portant. Try to breax me sources cown into grcuos such as residential, com ­ mercial. industrial, enurenes. sc.'^oots. vacant property, etc. This wni come m hanoy wnen property owners ask now the change will affect them it will also allow formulation of a rate structure fit­ ting your views on wno snoutd pay for the utitity. How does the present utility billing system function? How would it ooten- tiai.y be affected by adding inis new utility? What planning and admimsiraiive costs are anticipated? if master plans or updating of comprehensive plans are needed, mis should be known. For Roseville, (he new state law recuired maior punning «Mons a snort-term. Out noticeable ourden on the city budget. Establish the maintenance and oparationai needs of the system, even if they are not already being done. Estimate wnei system repieca* menis. enlergemenis. ana new facilities are needed, bom now and in . me future. Estimate oom me number of parcels of each type of zoning and me total number of acres of each type of zone in the community. This information preferably would inctuda data as to whai percentage of each type ol zone is vaeanL CaicuUte typical parcel size and percenuge Impervious of the venous types of zoning. You should be able lo do mu with e few sample caieuUiions tram aerial phoioe. Thu viuuy impor* tent inlormation is me focal pomi for crurging various property users. Estimaw the general type of soil end typical Slope or grade ol the normal parcel. Typical ramiaii data is also necessary. Determine me type and magnnude ol privately constructed and maintained ponds, holding basins, skimming facilities, ana omer suen improvements on private property, it a credit system is considered, its effect wifi have to be somehow quantified. Aeti2|l<alcuia* lions or field investlgaflCffu are not recommended, however; doing so would be too costly and time- consuming at this stage of the process. Decide wnai groups should pay tor the facilities. This suOiective decision is wnere me utility will most iikeiy suc ­ ceed or fail. II me utility is perceived as reasonably charging the rignt types of land. It will prooaoiy succeed, it me lee system is viewed as unfair, resulting m Charges of me wrong size or to me wro.ng type of land users, men it will prooaoty fail It elections are near or council memoers are feuoing. it may not be me right time to propose a new program. On the other nano, if there are fiscal, restraints, or it is budget time, or new dees are being sougnt. 'hen this may • !• lime to n*" zneas' u.’.'. j .... e to move, me most dif­ ficult portion ol me operation is next — deciding wiut me cnarge system will be. Each community will need a dif* fereni method. Roseville took me. following aoproacn; • Fee beeie — Experience had m* oicaied me mam besu for e siorm drainage fee would be Ihe zoning of me lend and the acreage of the partieuur parcel, il was concluded mat develop* ment of singie*famiiy. rtsideniial land would oe essentially similar ragardlasa of parcel size, soe smgte rate was used lor aU suen parcels. This simplified bill­ ing and eaieuuiicna. and followed me approecn ol me exuUng sewer uiiiliy. • Bxclueiowe and ahaegaa — Since me system was to redact increases m at ormweter bow caused by develop mem, vacant properly was not charged. Thu simputiad the eoiiaetion system, as sewer and water bills era sent to daveiopad paresis, not vacant ones. Anomar axeeption was made for public road ngfits-of-way. Most of mesa are owned by Iba aty itself, and to pay tnosa teas vwouU have simpiy meant raisinq oraoeny taxes, at wefi as eoi* I «i .1 ■cting from state highway and county rsvemmenis — a move viewed as :3i»icai:y sensitive. • Runoff eealuatlon tecimique — The SCSS tystem was chosen. It was fen 10 be fair, nattonaliy aceeoted. and tesible enough to establish a fee system m keeping with Roseville's • Rainfall and program levei — City staff wanted a rainfall that would maeie a system with minimal charge effects on singie*lamtiy. residential treoerty owners. But enough fees were needed to ofitet costs of maintenance. afarwSng. replacemenis. and enlarge- mom of Iho system. A two-inch total rainfall amount with antecedent ■noislure condition ll was seleeted. u$- ng Soil Conservation Service ftechnical Release no. SS. • Cfedtt ayatem — Since the city was maentlally developed and most of the aeileetion system already existed. <t «es decidad that up to $0H of the fee could be reduced by property owners grovfdkig water quality benefits and uo to 2S% by their reducing flow rate. Wet conda were determined to be the best way to improve water quality and •nine's tfop effidaney euive was used as the basis for determining that aaoocL The 2SH credit for slowing down water was broken into two poten­ tial atsos * 10% would be gramed if the peak outflow rate was cut to a rive- if that ir event. Charge reduetiona could-also be granted if a property owner could show the aelual dev eloomem on me^percei was much leas than standards set uo far tfte npnnai pareei of that particular isnduteipne. • pees* Using IheSCSIwo-ineh rain- fal and assuming the average tot wss cne-Otird of an acre m size, t ratio of jhaigse was dev elcped for each lend joe nne. Where dmiiar ratios existed or various types of land use. these waro-oomblnod kao one efeasifieation 'or determining Oie actual fee. Peas snge from S3.25 per acre lor cemotertes and golf courses to $65 per icre for commercia l, industrial, and warehouse owners. Other ctassifica- tions are; oarks with oarktng facilities; sirgie lamJy and ductex reS’dences; public and private schools and com ­ munity centers; multiple fan iy residences, churches, and government buildings: and imoroved vacant. The system does not assums identical percentages of imoervtousnesa on each land use zone. This was done to ensure that commerciat and industrial land owners oaid the maionty of the tees. It was felt that large, highly deveiooed oarcefs comaming exten- has resulted in S37.C00 worth of credits being given, reducing potential income about 6.7% Most of the mceme has come, as expected, trom commercial and :.hdustnaf orcserty owners. Once the utility is established, there are many uses for the funds. Any plan would be expected to metudo typical uses pjch as administration, planning." and routine maintenance o(..!^es. pumps, ponds, ditches, vehicles, etc. However, many cities have gone beyond such uses, including such ac ­ tivities as street sweeomg. leaf and If the utility is perceived as reasonably charging the right types of land, it will probably succeed. If the fee system is viewed as unfair, resulting in charges of the wrong size or to the wrong type of land users, then it will probably fail. snre amounts of asonail and roof area were contributing the msior water problems both in terms Of flow rate and water quaiily. The rate structure reflects this determination, while assur­ ing adequate funds for present and future needs. • Seleemenship To convince the decision makers, a table was oreoared comparing the imoact of the new fee with that of a lax approach to funding. This showed that residential costs to fund prooosed ectlvliies would be aimoit double if tax levies were used. whHe commercial arvf industrial zon- ings would pay Ultte more than half. Along with the fact that almost 'J% in new funds would bs gained Irom previously tax-free entitles such as schools, churches, and parks, this won over the city council. As fof Ihe public, news stories and mailings snsursd they understood what was happsning. They svidsntly ipproved. tor since the system s impiemtmatton m Aoni 1984 there have been very few com- ptafnts and few credits rsquested or given. Out Of more then 9.000 ac ­ counts. only 31 peoole hive asked tor credits, with 13 found to be proper. This grass collection, chemically puniymg lakes, weed cutting oi takes, erosion protection, educating citizens on fer- liiizer's effects, and other less obvious activities. Many programs atso include the reconstruction costs of old. deteriorated pipes or ditches, replacing or enlarging undersized systems, ond exoanding siltalion oonds. Also desirable is the construction of new facilities to improve treatment of runoff, reduce flooding or erosion, or serve areas that do not have a storm drainage system. Roseville incorporated all of the above into its system, except that the city proposes to special assess 25% of the costs of stormwater collection systems in as yet unserveO areas. Even in these areas, however, ponds. Urge trunk sswers. major ditch construction, stormwater pumps, and similar facilities era being funded by ihe utility. After experiencing the utHUy in ac ­ tion. it seems clear that this approach is fair, simple, provides deosndable and flexible funds, rtfieves the general fund, and can be tailored to lit any eom- munily situeiion. It worked for us, and M can work foryou. O AewANeeoNTtiiijAi«u«iiv isaa it f tl- I: ^ A w y • 'i TO: ntOM: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Adainistrato DATS: May 16# 1990 SOBJICT: water Resource Protection isaoz - At the Council's March 12th meeting during a discussion STproperty tt 1342 Rest Point Lane the issue eas regarding a source of water and looking into whether the City should require water conservation or source regulation relating to both environmental and also a sanitary issue. DtSCOSSIOW “ The primary issues in utilization of the water cesouree: Source A. Surface 1. Lakes 2. Streams B. Sub-surface 1. Individual wells 2. Municipal well and system usage A. Domestic/Sanitation purposes B. Commercial processing purposes C- Fire protection D. Supplement to natural moisture for lawn and garden iiwatering. S. Recreation Parsons in the City of Orono may use 1, 2# 3 or all 4 of the MMorVs passed originally in 1988 control the usage regardless of source when it comes to watering. 9ha clfev has not required how any specific source be us<^ for «y uStie u^ to this point*. The City whore municipal water is available that any property hook it, however# It does charge an avallabllitv charge to that 0toperty primarily because of the fire protection aspect to which a'mSi%Sl well wntrlbutes up to that property. 4'X J.< -A!, /—A. :'r t'l t' '' w li ■f. »'■?» . - _ ^* ewa^a i«aialation lost to the State the■Bs sir1rV.'Vi"^..VS."'^n; s -.r,v='.*;s necessary setbacks etc. SS5“if;«^SS:r»S‘i,y ‘r«t“/ict-,ns related to that: Fire protection Depletion of resource Potential pollution of selected sources AT.TZMIATIVES - Policy - 1. Determine what regulations, if any, it desires to undertake by source. 2, Determine any regulav >ns it desires to undertake by type of usage. 3, Combination of A and B. 4. Take no additional policy action at this time. Action Alternatives 1. Discuss. 2. Give policy direction. 3. Table for further discussion. 4. Take no action. evrnmMmtiDATXOII - It is recommended that the Council JS^lMSTfor conaideration by the Lake ?*• if that be undertaken. Additionally staff will work 1. Additional authority regarding well regulation. 2. continue an aggressive program for sealing of abandon when they are discovered. i..XK s?summer'look to see if they should be removed, if at al . 4. Moatioring proposals for use of wells to replenish Lake Hinnatonka or other schemes to di7ert water into the lake. (County indicated this week they would seal the last of their trails •} 5. Consider banning use of fertilizer and pesticides in the couunity if appropriate alternatives are available. (Reference LMCD's Draft Plan.) 6. Undertake when necessary development of the storm water aenagement plan. 7. Review recreational uses through the Lake Use Group. tlOPOSB) NOTXOH - Moved by , seconded by _, that Council after discussing the issue tableTt to the June 11, 1990 meeting. Ayes _f ways_. TO DAIS Mayor euid City Council FBOM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator February 25, 1991 SUBJECT: Storm Water Management Attachment: A. Storm Water Management - Concept Review Dated }2,^ ISSUE - 1. Determine If Council desires to undertake an overall storm water management program. 2. Determine if Council desires to) utilize alternative financings to special assessment for st^m ^^ater projects. IHTRODUCTION - At the Council's February 11» 1991 Council meeting Attachment A was presented for Council consideration. Council reguested it be tabled until March 11 ^ 1991. ^ DISCO •I I • ISCDSSIOW - Storm Water Management - The^asis for Orono's Comprehensive Plan if ••"'to reduce densities/^ the rural area since developing at that density would not/greatly increase non-point (storm water) pollution. This was/selected because of the concern that by Ssreate at least the/4ame» if not a greater problem# by increased density and there^re storm water run-off that would eventually end up in the laKA. Definitive techn^Ep4ical ^studies as to the specific run-off^*however, were never ealeulatco. development of a storm water management plan for the community would provide a more impartial basis for the City's Comprehensive Management Plan. In addition if the City were to develop a storm water management plan for the city it could then have it reviewed by ^ — Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and if in accordance with their plan# the City could then take over its own storm water management and Minnehaha creek watershed District would no longer * be Involved in approving such plans unless they were amendments to the storm water management plan. It is anticipa^d^’^^Oiat^ 3 storm water management study would cost approximately \PjT^he primary cost.being the necessary elevation mapping^^ the 'S community. ^ It is anticipated that the plan would not only provide a basis for: BA. ^pirical basis for the Comprehensive Plan B. Govern its own storm water management instead of r-- J- Minnehaha Creek Watershed District if Orono chose to undertake C. Identify areas for potential storm water managment projects D. Provide information for the City to deal with related such ass pollution of the lakes including hard cover/fertlizer pollution etc. ^^f^nclng Alternatives - Storm Water Management - The primary tErumF^t Attachment A was to outline ways the City could finance loue storm water projects. Additionally to the extent that It Bioney it could also look at using this to fund an overall storm water management plan. The utility approach is the one that for at least a portion of the^ community may make oooessary storm water management plans easier to implement. As an example we could set up a storm water utility in the Navarre Heights area and perhaps use that as a funding mechanism instead of the special assessment approach currently being contemplated. ALTERMTAIVES - -Policy iJL^ I Storm Water - 1. Direct staff to develop a request for proposal for storm water management plan. • • .2. Choose not to undertake. storm Water Financing Alternatives 1. Delinate what alternatives seem appropriate. 2. Direct staff to continue with special assessments as the only alternative. 3. Request the City develop a storm utility policy and identify the cost for such. Action Alternatives 1. Undertake. 2. Table. 3. Choose not to undertake. SBCOMMSMDATION • It is recommended that the Council direct staff to develop a Request for proposal for storm water mwagemenfc to ^3termine the cost of undertaking such. It Is further recommended that the Council direct staff to further explore the utility alternative and determine the cost for developing a storm ¥■. I t i A hr. % J, ' tiv. water utility policy with its Engineer. While the storm water wanag**™***^ plan talte<i about in Issue il is helpful in developing tha policy it is not a necessary step to be undertaken. PROPOSED MOTIOM - Moved by _, seconded by _, Council direct gtaff to develop a request for proposal for storm water managment plan and that staff obtain the cost for developing a storm water utility policy from its Engineer. Ayes _$ Nays _. cc: John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director Jeanne A. Mabusth^ Building & Zoning Administrator A I ■i 'x tif; ti;; I I'i.i W 36^1.4 TOx PBOM: OAtBx Mayor and City Council ST^WEnNSMark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato^tf^ ^ ^ March 1, 1991 StIBJBCT: LMCD Comprehensive Plan 1991 ^OFOhOi.t Attachment: A. DNH Letter Dated 3/5/91 B. LMCD Letter Dated 2/26/91 C. Letter to "Group of 8” and LMCD dated 2/28/91 ISSUE - Present to Council updated information regarding LMCD's Comprehensive Plan and Shoreland Regulations together with the results of the February 6, 1991 meeting. IMTRODUCTION - At the Council's February 25, 1991 Council meeting It was indicated that a meeting would be held March 6, 1991 to determine if there could be common ground established between the LMCD and the Group of 8 Cities on the management plan. CounciImember Jabbour and I attended the meeting. DISCUSSION - ISSUE tl 2 i«MCD PLAN « Attachment D outlined Orono's position regard!^ *the plan to LMCD and served as a basis for discussions on the behalf of Orono for tiie March 6th meeting. At that meeting LMCD Chair together with other LMCD members present indicated that they would support an amendment of the language in the plan regarding the Board composition and also the taxation authority so that it will be acceptable to the 8 Cities. They additionally indicated that while they could conceptually agree that to put in language that Appendix C is only a model ordinance and that the LMCD «K>uld not seek further involvement over their existing authority. Such changes address the initial three objectives set forth by the Group of 8 in December. During the discussion, Orono's fourth concern related to the status of the plan and amendments was addressed with concern expressed not only by Orono but also Mound and Minnetonka Beach and having the plan defined as to the role it plays visa-vis Metro Council and other bodies approval. Those present from LMCD agreed that should be defined, while Orono continues to urge others to look closely at Orono's fifth concern regarding surface use management it is not expected substantial headway will be made. As a result it was agreed that Wayzata would set up a meeting at which staff representations from the 14 cities plus LMCD could sit in a work session to redraft the plan language based on the 4 areas of conceptual agreement. LMCD indicated they would seek conceptual approval of these 4 area changes from their full Board within the month. (Metro Council will still be seeking a memorandum of agreement as to coordinated management of the lake as set forth in their staff memo.) Given the interest of the other 6 cities, a copy of Orono's letter to LMCD (Attachment C) i I- I i 5i-t- is being sent to tho Mayor's of the other 6 cities. ISSUE #2 - fiHftpfi,AWP REGULATIONS - In a related note. Attachment re<^ive^^on liarch Sth prior to the meeting of the 6th. This was written ]in response to the Group of 8 meeting of February 22nd and outlined DNR's position regarding what approvals were needed and indicated that the cities could either submit for application grants on their own or work through LMCD. They also indicated why they felt that dealing with LMCD would be more productive for all the cities concerned. They indicated in a 3/7 telephone conversation they would respond to Orono's indivdual request in 2 weeks. ALTBRWATIVES 1. Accept the information. 2a Indicate any other positions Council would desire to have taken on the matter. 3a Continue to push for issues that have not further addressed. 4. Table for further discussion. 5. Take no action. RBCCMMENOATION - It is recommended that Council accept the inlormation and continue to indicate to LMCD other issues that have not been resolved together with indicating the position the City would take in any futher consideration of the amended plan by Metro Council. Acceptance of any change in the plan would not go forward until actual adoption of these amendments by the LMCD. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by , seconded by _, Council accept the ^nfOfBi4^ion giving staff direction and table further discussion on this until March 25, 1991. Ayes , Nays . cci JoBllen Hurr, LMCD Representative, 930 Partenwood Road PHOMf MO. STATE Of ^DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RLSOl M«tro Waters, 1200 Warner Rd., St. Paul, MN 772-7910 March 5, 1991 MW 6 1931 :e The Honorable Barbara Peterson Mayor, City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55364 MB: OHM OPBRMTZro PBOCBDUBB8 POR ZMPLEMEMTATZOM OP 8HORELAMD MRBRCBMBBT LAND USB CONTROLS FOR LABE HINNBTONRA COMMUNITZES Dear Mayor Peterson: A muiber of questions have been raised by several of the Lake Minnetonka cosnunities concerning the above subject. We have reviewed our rules and operating guidelines. The following is a synopsis of sose of the concerns we have heard and how we intend to address those concerns: I. Isteraretation of Plexibilitv Rules and Meiahborina sewegMients Approval Authoritiest Minnesota Rules, Part 6120*2800, Subpart 3 states that "Local governments may, under special circumstances and with the commissioner's approval, adopt shoreland management controls that are not in strict conformity with these minim\im standards and criteria, Subpart 3A goes on to specify a number of special circumstances. Subpart 3B lists the possible types of alternative management standards that may be considered tdiile subpart 3C explains the process by which a local government requests consideration of an alternative approach. Subpart 3D outlines how the commissioner of DNR and the local goveriunent requesting an alternative approach are to handle such a request. More specifically, subpart 3D (3) states that "The local goverraents proposing the alternative control and the commissioner shall solicit the input of the public and other governmental bodies that could be affected (our added emphasis) by the alternate control." and subpart 3D (4) states that "Alternate shoreland controls must be approved (our emphasis again) by other units of government having adjacent (again, our emphasis) land use authority impacted by the alternate controls." AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mayor Barbara Peterson March 5, 1991 Page (2) Our interpretation of Subpart 3D (3) as applied to Lake Minnetonka connunities is that any of those connunities requesting any reduction or relief from strict conformity with the minimum statewide standards would be "affecting* the other 13 commxinities by using alternative controls. The commissioner and that local government then would have to "solicit the input of the public and the other governmental bodies". We Interpret subpart 3D (4) to mean that those comaninities that t e "adjacent land use authority impacted ..."« that is share a common land boundary, would have approval authority over each adiaggnt community's land use controls if the adjacent community proposes to use an alternate shoreland control. Given the above explanation along with all of the other provisions contained in Minnesota Rules, Part 6120.2800, Subpart 3, DNR felt that an appropriate way to "solicit input" by "affected governmental bodies" was to use the IJfCD technical review committee format spelled out in the shoreland grant agreement contained in our December 27, 1990 letter to each of you. Recall that there is no approval authority for local units of government or the LMCD mentioned in that agreement, only provisions for majority and, if necessary, minority positions. It was our intent to use LMCD as a facilitator or coordinator for each of the "affected" local government's review of any proposed alternative shoreland controls. He anticipated there would be no "voting", merely a discussion of each proposal for alternative controls. The agreement goes on to indicate that the commissioner would make the decision to either approve or disapprove each individual communities proposal for alternative controls that do not strictly conform with minimum statewide standards. The grant agreement does not address "adjacent land use authorities approvals". Mayor Barbara Peterson March 5, 1991 Page (3) II. HOW does DMR intend to address the approval of alternate eherolend centrele by **ed1acent lend woe autheritiee? since each LMCO cooBunity has at least two "adjacent land use authorities", ve expected that each of the 14 communities would be asked by at least one or possibly two or more of its neighbors to approve an alternate shoreland control. The procedure for this "approval" authority is up to each city. It is also the commissioner's prerogative to accept or reject any local community's proposed alternate controls. The technical review committee process would be used to facilitate each of the 14 communities review of its neighbors proposed controls. Following completion of that process, DNR would then formally ask each of the adjacent land use authorities, to "approve" the proposed alternate shoreland controls. He intended to use the shoreland grant process to facilitate both the preparation of each LMCD communities land use controls and the review of lach other communities controls. III. Hhmt happens if a loca.^ indicates it will not merticlmate in the shoreland grant process specified in the December 27 letter? Each community choosing not to participate in the grant process would then have to deal with DNR and its 13 neighboring communities individually. This means that if the community requested any type of less restrictive alternative control, that community and the commissioner would have to "solicit the input of other affected governmental bodies" and seek the "approval of adjacent land use authorities". Because the LMCD technical review committee will provide for more uniform and consistent review of proposed land use controls, review of requests for alternative controls (aka: flexibility) could be more time*>consuming and difficult to complete within the 2-year time frame outside the technical review committee. As stated earlier, regardless of the process, each of the 14 communities will be asked for input or for their approval of a neighboring communities alternate shoreland controls. It was the DNR's intent to use UfCD to facilitate and coordinate this process, hopefully through economies of scale. However, a community may choose not to comment on any of its neighbors plans. DNR would interpret that silence as a form of approval. However, it is each individual community's choice as to how it chooses to comply with the DNR notice and participate in the process laid out in the Shoreland Management Rule for enacting the shoreland management program. Mayor Barbara Peterson March S, 1991 Page (4) The grant process would also be handled individually; that in, each coomunity would submit its application for a grant to DNR and not the lifCD. The budgeted aaount for any individual community would remain the •ama. Any given community can choose to either participate with the Department and the LMCD in the technical review process or they can deal with the Ospartaent individually, but they still would be constrained by the "affected" and/or "adjacent" parts of the Shoreland Management Rule as discus' ' above. IV.lent? It is DNR *8 r view that grant agreement contained in the December 27, 1990 letter is a joint powers agreement. This is based on the above interpretation of "affected" and "adjacent" alternative land use control authorities and the formation of a technical review process to solicit input without approval authority. We feel that this joint powers agreement does not compromise any "adjacent commxinity*s" right to address any alternate land use controls proposed by its "adjacent neighbor". This agreement does not give LMCD any authority other than a facilitating or coordinating role. There is no "veto" authority in the existing grant agreement. We trust the above information explains our position with regards to this matter. We are hopeful that your community will decide to work with both the LMCD and the DNR in implementing the shoreland management program. If you have further questions or desire more information, please contact Ed Pick or me. Sincerely J^in Line Stine Regional Hydrologist, Region 6 V I I cc: Gene Strommen, LMCD Kent Lokkesmoe, Acting Director, Division of Waters Paul Swenson, Acting Administrator, Permits 6 Land Use Section Ogbasghi Slum, Supervisor, Land Use Unit Peder Otterson, Shoreland Supervisor Ceil Strauss, Area Hydrologist I'- [ - " TT^ V [ c •-jf « ** V ?_ • . ^ y0%.^ ^ LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICTFebruary 26, 1991 /|*mv2-4<Kev:T- O TO:LMCD Member Mayors LMCD City Administrators LMCD Board of Directors ifisai FROM: Executive Director Gene Strommen SUBJ: March 6 Meeting to Resolve Management Program Issues Raised by Eight Cities in Resolution of December 6, 1990 In lieu of the opportunity for LMCD to join with the Met Council staff In calling a meeting to review the Long Term Management Pfogratn issues raised in the December 6 resolution, and the subse* quenc Met Council staff analysis of the Management Program, mayors of the eight cities participating in the dissenting resolution have agreed to initiate a meeting at 7 p.m., Wednesday, March 6, 1991 at the Hayaata City council chambers. This meeting follows one that was called by the eight city mayors' group on Friday, February 22. The Friday meeting's primary con­ cern was that of the shoreland rules adoption process working through the LMCD as the facilitating agency. Appendix C and Its flexibility provisions were again brought into question. The im­ provements over the DNR Shoreland Rules benefiting Lake Minnetonka municipalities were cited as justification to keep Appendix C in the Nanageaient Program. The meeting concluded that the shoreland rules role in the Management Program must be resolved first. The DNR representative io reviewing the agency's position on its flexibility standards. All LMCD mayors/council members/administrators and LMCD Board ibera are urged to attend this next meeting of March 6. Met Council staff representation has been changed as of 2/20, Jim Uttley, Senior Planner, now undertaking this responsibility. Jim will advise of his procedure within the coming week. Thank you for reserving this date on March 6. ERSiJim - . il£ ■-•Otwv# • * ^ . .T,. ■r . _ . ■ •.MS* •• ■* ^ 1.-^ — .. . . ^ a • •• ri imm -- - • ^ ♦ a- a. * t...«« , If#*. . r GfiCNCP CITY Post Office Box 66eCry«ul Boy. Mi On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka February 23, 1991 Mayor Robert Gisvolu City of Wayzata 1515 Birch Band Lane Wayzata# MB 55391 subjact: UlCD Comprehensive Plan and DNR Shoreland Regulation Dear Mayor Gisvold, A. you «r. the L.MCD has•*t.BsioB frcSr rabcuaty 4th to attempt to wock out o^iflcations of Its proposals which will be acceptable to the cities. Orono realises that the major concerns of our »»)[ frUVde'to*Srrhir dTsVs^iVns^ ea fehe rVIthat represents input to their 90 day process an 2*fo“low-up S the FebVu'ary 22. 1991 «o«tin, of the 8 cities. Ma note with some concern, but little surprise, that uSSl:"".” ffltnasa tha currant situation. In a ralatad aattar# you no doubt had torwardad to 7®“* ■uoiNNcaza B.4I3.TIS;isnunon a riMANCz - «n>ust PUBUC woaxs • 40*019 r-- .r-i': -n, ■/ C' r. I:'' V?'r?- 1;'4''' P^‘- . Mayor Gisvold February 2B, 1991 page 2 concerning ONR shoteland regulations. Therefore we encourage you to apply directly to the ONR for your share of the funds ONR has allocated for your use through L.MCO in dealing with its proposals. If successful you can then leave the proposed agreement unsigned, or rescind your agreement if already made. Our joint efforts to obtain modifications to the current proposed plan seem to have bad some success as indicated by David Cochran at the February 22, 1991 meeting of our cities. Orono can all build on both that and the testimony to the Metropolitan Council. M* trust, therefore, you will accept this Xetter as presenting our own suggestions and views and not as an attempt to exert pressure on your internal affairs. Sincerely7\ Hark B. Bernhardson City Administrator Bnelosure cc: Dirk deVries, Metropolitan Council Representative District 13 bcc: Allan Orsen, City of Wayzata JfidTKX CITY of OROXO Pou Office Box €6•Crystal Bay. .Miao 55323 •Maaiopal Qffle— On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka February 28, 1991 Mr. Eu9«ne R. Stronoen, Executive Director Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 900 East Lake Street Maysatar MR 55391 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 Structure - Based not only on Orono*s continued opposition a« alteration to the Board, but now to the apparent reluctance of Suburban Hennepin Parks and Metro Council to participate as Board members, Orono desires the plan be amended to retain the Boards original composition. (Me suggest LMCD obtain letters from ««ch of those agencies stating they do not feel such is appropriate.) As an alternate LMCD nay desire to amend the composition of the Board to more accurately reflect the financial contribution and/or shoreline on the Board. Shoreland - It is Orono's position that any LMCD beTng involved in the shoreland area be deleted patticularily Appendix C and allow either Metropolitan Council handle. At most the plan should only Indicate the regulations and objectives in the Plan are a mcdel that has DNR acceptance and that the cit^ies then indivUually deal with DHR in development of their own regulations. additionally requested that LMCD also support the cities BUBIMNG a 20ftlf«C • 47>138T msnunoN a rvuNCX BU'Csant PUBLIC WOSKS > i Mr. Eugene R. Strommen Lake Minnetonka Conservation District February 28, 1991 page 2 of 3 individual grant requests to DNR for the monies that were originally earmarked for the cities through LMCD. Finally the LMCD should limit its role regarding additional parking spots for public accesses to that of determining any adverse impacts on the surface use. Surface Uae Management - The City of Orono would again encourage change in the emphasis of the plan so that the first priority is the handling of the existing safety problems on the lake before allowing additional access growth on the lake. 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 also feels that the plem should address that LMCD should have not only control of the surface but also below the surface, currently ONR "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, the broadening 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. Role of Plan - In light of Metropolitan Council assertion o^^uthority 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. Mr. Eugen« R. STrommen Lak« Minnetonka Conservation District rabruary 28, 1991 paga 3 of 3 B. Tba process for review and amendment by LMCD of future plan amendments and the extent of review required by other governmental bodies. C. Specifically address the relation of LMCD actions to the comprehensive plan and bow preceived or actual inconsistencies between the plan and LMCD actions are determined together with how any such Inconsistencies are to be resolved. To the extent that this plan is approved by Metropolitan Council, LMCD's defining the plan role would then have Metro Council's concurrence. We remain open for further discussion. We are encouraged by Nr. Cochran's statements of February 22, 1991 on deletion of shoreland regulations from the plan, retaining the current Board oonposition and deleting reference to gaining additional taxation auMority. the Orono City Council. k S'. Be^sakrardson City Administrator i. y eet Mayor and City Council JoSllen Burr, LMO) Representative •r r.' -T t.-f-4-. pfw • •f. N N-- I ,s i:r hk- p r.V i. 2:891.4 TOs DMBs Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrate February 28, 1991 jtH SUBJECT: Strategic Planning 1991 'Q Attachaent: A. Strategic Planning Memo Dated 2/11/91 ISSUE - Determine what Council desires to adopt for 1991 Strategic Plan. IBTEODDCTIOM - Attachment A was presented to the Council for ^beir consideration and tabled until the March 11, 1991 when all Councilaeabers will be available. ALTERNATIVES 1. Adopt. 2. Amend and adopt. 3. Take no action. 4. Table for further discussion. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that after Council indicates any changes they would like to make, they adopt Attachment A as atratagic planning which will be incorporated in the City Administrator's Goal Setting for the 1991-1992 timeframe. PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by _, Council adopt _ as an outline for its Strategic Planning process for 1991. Ayes _i Nays _. 21191.7 tOs DA1B Mayor and City Council Mark E. BernhardsoHr City Adninistrat February 11, 1991 SOBJICTt 1991 Strategic Plan r PKI it ■ I Attachment: A. Strategic Issue Development Memo Dated 1/2/91 ISSUE - Determination by Council of a strategic plan for 1991. IMTRODDCTIOW - At the Council's December 3, 1990 budget meeting It was determined 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. ALTEBRATIVES - 1. Adopt. 2. Amend and adopt. 3. Table until March 11, 1991. 4. Take no action. RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that che 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 rW-r; l«tl IfWlTWlC IttVf WlLWWtiif Mvrch »rvil i«fi matwic Jmnm Ortetor ttititf A t #rati ii«» riMMifif laett Ce^« Cawkell tnKlfe Whmwm%mm4 II ml«» ft totim t« IMM %• pirl«i IM ft Mftav elU«i tn iMI l/9t •I m U CmiiOT • ft Mvtcll fiMMilaf \Mm til 99r*imm fC 9t CItf tMUfttiM tl C«Hiaallfa« r«c«lv« trafflr ft* ll»|il»« af op4lo*« fUMlftf tft Cl—ell C«M|Ml*a |«^l***fit »•< f*r p,•1 1'^'tl -#1 •ptiMft ftlt*etl*fi 1/19 Wm^mwwm pvfttir ft**rlM fftftrr %• vlftllft ■l*ff ttftftft/orftli tftf K/CMftell tm »t I Fr*«r*t f*r •ftoftloti Oraifift«ie«/ft**i rvftlic h«ftrl*f til ftfiTt fTFftftftt *rii*** iltaetlo* ftttMle/rrivat* ftalaralM ttttU* dftt*ctle« l/tl 9V***nt IftftM t* CmnicII 1/4 rc 4ft»ftfttlfti» Fv***«t t* Covneil rc Part far ^afrafts af aalfftftaiftaaft latataat Ilf paaltlaa ftaaalar a«fta4«lal lap acftaPaJa/locatlaa ef aatar ir/ftamt iatavaarter iapaaftrat < laaaft/aalataft ftftaaaa 1990 riaaaelftl 1997 ft*«9*t ptallalaatf rtaaaat 1997 ftaftotl to caaaeil ItOOOflt 1997-7007 eopltal 1997 Tvatft fta Tftoatlaa ftaariaf 22891.5 V r‘ r ris* ?v. TO: FK3M: DATB: Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato February 28, 1991 SOBJKT: Stubbs Bay Sewer Attachnent: A. Ziesner Letter Dated 2/22/91 B. Code Section 12.30 Subdivision 4 Requirin9 Sewer Connecticm Within 16 Months ISSUE * Deteraine whether Council would agree to a IS to 20 year assessaent deferral as requested by the ZiecT'err:. mTEOpOCTIOW - have been on a area set aside Interesting to tank, and that who are on the The Ziesaer's built a new hoae three years ago and holding tank ever since, although they have the for primary and alternate drailfield sites. It is note how much it has cost them to be on a holding information may be relevanc to other properties brink of having failing systems. DISCUSSION - If the issue of Stubbs Bay sewer would be deemed to be '''dead* for the next five to ten years, the Ziesmer's would have at least some use of a new mound drainfield system, and have it substantially paid off, before sewer was assessed. However, if Council expects to make a decision on the the Stubbs Bay sewer question within the next year, they could be hit with sewer assessments at the same time they are trying to pay off the septic system. An alternative would be to assess them at the time all other properties are assessed, but grant them a delay for a certain number of years similar to a Senior Citizen deferment, at the end of which time all principal and interest would start to be paid (staff has not explored whether this would be legal). Generating Interest in the Stubbs Bay Sewer - As Council is aware, and as noted in the letter, a group of individuals have been exploring ways to generate additional interest in and acceptance of the Stubbs Bay sewer project. Staff has explored options with this group and provided them with additional informational materials to assist them in generating interest in the Stubbs Bay area. The three strategies that may assist generating interest are: A. Require that any currently failing systems must go on holding tanks effective on a set date. B. The City could assist in some percentage of the costs by purchasing *reserve capacity” for future connections & \ outside the project area. Pursue construction only of the higher density northeast and northeast systems, leaving the balance of the larger properties not served, with the City possibly purchasing reserve capacity for future use of the larger properties not served. ALTEMIATIVE3 - I. Accept the information. 2. Table for further discussion. 3. Take no action. KICONHBIQDATION - It is recommended that Council table this matter peeing race ip*: of additional information from the neighborhood ^oiip until the April 8, 1991 Council meeting. PAOPOSED MOTIOH - Moved by , seconded by __, Council table this matter pending receipt of "Information until the April 8, 1991 Council meeting. Ayes _, Nays _. /• TrtK^^xJr fi To: Orono City Council Prom: Todd & Marie Ziesmer 3440 Bayside Road RE: Stubbs Bay Sewer Project FE3 2 2 1991 Dear Mayor Peterson & Council Members. 'Sm s r'Jsr.is’r.T’JS srsrs “2 :r»n; ” sr.r SC' r srr^.nr ^ eeundi it iwndHng tt this tun*. Wt realize that this has not been an easy 25d*S tSS?*ne ‘ilS^T^ aiMi Mike Gaflron Mark Bemhardson and 3 other interested neighbors to get more ------ mose opposed. This meeting lert us even more coneemed that the setver v«nl come through tor quite a while yet. not without some «~f.fi«i help tfom the dty or some type of subsidy from the state. The main iMSon ter this lener is to ask lor a grace period tor us in the evert that the ir--r does come through. We would like to have a septic system ^ we live estimates from $8,000 to $10,000 tor this Job to be ^ “rm^S^g-our^eTnd^^^^ 18jisr?s;3Ttiri'"«n j« "iiiii ^ '*• would hava to bagin paying for ttia sawar. Please seriously consider our request and call us at #476^364 it V®” IJILar quMtions. We vwuld appreciate your prompt attention In dealing with this matter. Sincaralyt S 12.30 f E'-I Subd. 4. General Provisions. !5^Si« .1.11 ~ t‘..t..... «.p.... .< i> ■■ ."-.1...».».. according to the provisions of this Section. B Jurisdiction. The provisions of this Section .h.ii Aonlv to the sethod of sewage disposal from every building within the^City intended for human use or habitation, whether such «“u “!SSr.ry or ....on.l, cg.cdl... o£ th. dat. of original construction or use. 1, The owners of all buildings where mmtmmr 4« available or becomes available, shall connect the KildingJ to thi City sewer within 16 months of the availability of «•-« -ccordln, to the^provi^slons^of^the City^ C^e. been coepletely connected to City sewer shall be exempt from the maintenance and inspection provisions of this Section. C Standard System Required. In areas not served without a variance thereto. Source: City Code Effective Date: 4-1-84 a D. Variances. Should the City find that any of the orovisions of this Section are not applicable to ^he design, location, or construction of a specific system, citv may unnecessary or unintended hardship to the owner, intentSJrli? such variations therefrom as are not contrary to the intent and purpose of this Section or other applicable law. X, Variance applications shall be reviewed by the City upon written request of the owner or the owner s agent. 2. Variances, when approved, shall be aajject to all conditions and requirements established by the City at the time of approval or thereafter. 3 Alternative system designs shall be reviewed by the City* who shall approve, conditionally jiy 111 cSt. lneurt.d by th. City In the review of the ptopoeel. 4- ORONO CC 493 (4-1-84) 3591.2 fOt Mayor and City Council Hark E. Bernhardaonf City Administrat March 6, 1991 UKTt Municipal Board Process I880E - Updata on the current process with the Municipal Board. IWTEODUCTIOW - Negotiations between the parties are ongoing. The nature of these discussions will be presented during the City Attorney Report in private session at the March 11, 1991 Council ting. PR0P08B0 MOTION - Moved by seconded by that Council accept the infornation regarding the Municipal Board process for further discussion during the City Attorney's report. Ayes , Nays Tos Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator 22591.2 Co. John R. Gerhardson* Public Works Director Datat Pabruary 25» 1991 Snbjacts Yard Waste Drop-Off Progreun 1991 **«*»In 1990f the City of Orono Public Works Department established and maintained a Yard Waste Drop-off Program for the City of Orono. The City of Spring Park requested to use our drop site. The program was necessary to establish because leaves and grass clippings were no longer allowed in a land fill. The program allowe d residents of Orono and Spring Park to bring their leaves and grass to as every Saturday from mid May through November# 1990* During the times stated above# residents dropped off approximately 407 cubic yards or 150 ton. Total collected public and private amounts to 225 ton. The yard waste was collected at our site in Crystal Bay and transported to our cosq>ost site at the previous Orono sewage treatment plant. The program costs amounted to $7#650 minus 4#044 reimbursement from Hennepin County leaves a balance of $3#616. This cost is covered as part of the $12.00 annual recycling fee. In order to receive funding from Hennepin County# it is necessary to established the program by resolution. - To approve Resolution #establishing the 1991 Yard waste Program for Orono and neighboring communities and submit an application for funding reimbursement from Hennepin County. Proposed Motion - Moved by _ _ _ Kesolution # establishing l‘>91 Yard Waste Program for Orono seconded by # to approve and neighboring communities and submit an application for funding reimbursesMnt from Hennepin County. Ayes ___# nays Tbs Mayor Grabek 4 Orono Council Members Mark B. Bernhardson# City Administrator Forwarded recommending approval. I,-r t b*-' r > >. ■ A RBSOUITIOa BSTABLlSaiVG A YARD NASTB PROGRAM FOR TIB CITY OP OROHO & ■BIGHBORIMG OGMMDMITIBS RBQOBSTIMC RBINBORSBiarr PP^ RRHinEPIN O \g the City of Orono existing under the laws of the State municipal organization .xnnesota; and WHBRXA8* the City of Orono wishes to participate in the reduction of recyclable materials being disposed of in land fills; and WHKRRA8* the City of Orono wishes to cont e its yard waste drop-off program for the City of Orono and .4eighboring lunities who wish to participate; and r the City of Orono requests funding assistance for the yard waste program from Hennepin County. MOW, TinSFOSB BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orono City Council does hereby establish a Yard Waste Drop-off Program for the City of Orono and neighboring communities who wish to participate• MB XT PURTHBR RESOLVED, that the City of Orono does hereby request reimbursement for part of the cost of the Yard Msste Program from Hennepin County. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono at a regular Council meeting on March 11» 1991. Dorothy M. Rallin, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor 1 • - • rtiiimi j r 3891.1 C- TOs Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator PBOM:Tom Kuehn, Finance Director • DATS March 8, 1991 A SOBJBCTs Adjustments to 1990 Adopted Budgets ISSPE - Approval and authorization by Council to amend the various 1990 departmental and fund budgets. DISCUSSION - At the end of each year a review is made of the General Fund and Special Revenue Funds to determine the need for amendments to the respective budgets of each department or fund. The preliminary results indicrte that the 1990 General Fund expenditures as a whole are approximately $38,000 under budget, while the 1990 General Fund revenues are about $50,000 above the estimated amounts. The General Fund therefore has a total favorable variance of $88,000 ($38,000 under spent plus $50,000 increased collections). The Special Revenue Funds - Park Fund, Equipment Outlay Fund, and the Building Outlay Fund need amendments to revenues and expenditures. A summary of requested amendments is presented in the following discussion. GENERAL FUND When the 1990 budget was adopted provision was made in the General Fund Special Projects/Contingency Departmnet to appropriate $17,400 for salary and retirement benefit adjustments in accordance with the adopted 1990 compensation plan. At this time amendments are required for several departmental budgets to re*>allocate the $17,400 personal service contingency. There were several events occuring during the year which have had an impact on certain departmental expenditures. - The recorder position was changed from part of a full-* time in-house position to an outside contracted service so that the additional time needed for in-house clerical use would be available. This results in a $3,000 increase to the consulting service of the Administration Department. The Administration Department also needs a budget increase to personal service of $2,700, maintenance of office equipment of $850; printing and publishing/office supplies of $1,100 for a total of $7,650 increase. - The assessing service for 1990 was originally budgeted r.:* t: j as an in house position with additional clerical staffing. As the situation has instead remained as a contracted outside service the assessing budget should be reduced by $10,060. - The actual general legal costs for 1990 have been significantly less than anticipated so the legal budget can be reduced $35,000. - The City normally purchases squad cars once a year in the spring. However, due to an early retooling by the auto manufacturer the bidding was done in late 1990 for the 1991 model year. In fact, the City was able to purchase the 1991 cars ct almost the same price as the 1990 models. An increase to the 1990 police budget is required to cover the additional costs of $39,050. The 1991 budget will be reduced by a corresponding amount. - The Animal Control Department costs for 1990 were increased due to additional patrol time and dog boarding expenses resulting in a needed budget increase of $650. - The Street Department experienced greater than anticipated personnel service costs for regular and overtime. There were two employees hired and one retired during 1990 and a restructuring of the public works functions. The increase to the personal services budget is $18,500; however the net increase to the overall Street Department budget is $14,000 due to budget .*e-a locations within the department. ~ The Recycling/City Clean Up budget, created in 1990 needs a net incr^tasr of $650 at this time. - The Special Police Services, and Consulting for land use applications was a first time budget in 1991. This budget did not originally include the police special services, which has been added after the fact for 1990 but is included in the 1991 budget. Due to this late addition and the conservative original appropriation there is an addition of $13,400 for the consulting and $7,550 addition for police special service, for a total increase of $20,950. - The Special Projects ' contingency budget is reduced $17,400 for personal service budget reallocated to other departments; other consulting contingency budget reduced $7,550; and special projects budget reduced These are offset by a needed appropriation for the City share of the Hoodhill Avenue special assessments. There are re-allocations presented for other General Fund departments as well as for those departments already highlighted. However, all the remaining re-allocations are internal within each department and have no effect on the total department budget jV. U' f-: f % ft fM ■ or the total General Fund budget. Sumaary of General Fund budget adjustments. Bq^nditures Adopted Requested Amended Deoar taen t/*Pu r po se Budqet Amendment Budqet Adainistration $ 159,470 $ 7,650 $ 167,120 Assessing 81,020 (10,060)70,960 Legal 222,200 (35,500)186,700 Police 1,041,650 39,050 1,080,700 Aniaal Control 11,260 650 11,910 Street 457,800 14,000 481,800 Recycling Pickup Special Consulting & 31,000 650 31,650 Police Services Special Projects/Contingency 24,750 20,950 45,700 Personal Services 17,400 (17,400)-0- Professional Services 25,000 (7,550)17,450 City Share Woodhill Ave -0-2,290 2,290 Special Projects 27,100 (14,730)12,370 TOTAL General Fund All Departaents $2,924,010 -0-$2,924,010 IINItIINItNnnnSPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Adopted Requested Amended PARK FUND Budqet Amendment Budqet Special Asants - City Share $ 680 $ -0-$ 680 Fence - Navarre Park/Playground -0-780 780 TOTALS 680 780 1,460 IMP t IQOIP OOTLAY PPWD Capital Outlay 1990 Budget ■aarganey Prap - Siren Asphalt Roller/Trailer Talapbona Syataa $98,500 7,600 -0- -0- $(16,230) 8,240 23,500 10,630 $ 82,270 15,840 23,500 10,630 TOTALS $106,100 $ 26,140 $132,240 BOILPIWO OOTLAY FOND Profaaaional Services -0- fviM' $ 42,050 $ 42,050 Significant aaendaents are highlighted - The emergency preparedness siren was budgeted one-half in 1990 with the balance to coae in 1991. However, the siren was bid and installed in I- if'. r--' •■ ^.:- i"r l!;- 1 J:' 't' &' tf t it it- -f 1990 thereby necessitating the budget increase. The telephone systea bid was awarded in early 1990 but was not originally budgeted. The prior system was creating severe problems forcing the City to replace it. The asphalt roller and trailer were budgeted in 1989 but not bid until 1990. The $16,230 reduction in capital outlay reflects mainly those items not pruchased. In the Building Outlay Fund the professional services are for legal, engineering and various approved contracted services from Boarman and Associates. The budget adjustments to the Special Revenue Funds are funded as follows: - Park fund - from revenues • Improvement & Equipment Outlay Fund - from use of fund balance of $50,280. Fund balance at 12-31>90 is then estimated to be $212,568 - Building Outlay Fund - from use of fund balance of $1,450. Fund balance at 12-31-90 is then estimated to be $2,221,527. Special Revenue Funds revenue budgets amendments are as follows: PARK FOND Interest income Park dedication fees TOTALS IMP t EQUIP OOTLAY FUND Oser fees Miscellaneous Interest income Transfers from other funds TOTALS BOILDIMG OOTLAY FOND Interest income Adopted Budget $ 10,300 10,000 $ 56,36(5 Requested Amendment $ 2,800 42,200 ^ 45,d0d Amended Budget $ 13,200 52,200 $ 65,300 $ 2,860 -0- 22,000 700 850 2,550 (5,000) -0- $ 3 $ $3,560 $ (1,600) .710 2,550 7,000 700 $ 81,960 sa $ 30,000 $ 10,600 $ 40,600 TOs FROM: Mayor Peterson and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrator Forwarded recommending approval. h-.. r r r- ;4 I 1 PROPOSED MOTION - Moved by seconded by to approve the requested budget amendments to the General Fund departmental budgets. Such amendments result in no increase in the total 1990 budget of $2,924,010. Further to approve the amendments to the Park Fund, the Improvement and Equipment Outlay Fund, and the Building Outlay Fund expenditure budgets and revenue budgets as presented with the increases to be financed by use of available revenues or fund balance as needed. Ayes __, Nays __. r: 3591.3 TO:Mayor and City Council Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato DATS: March 1991 8UBJKT: Administrator's Information NORTH FERHPALE - As you will note in Attachment A, for their class project* three Wayzata students have undertaken generating interest in an upgrade to North Ferndale. The Cities of Orono« Plyaouth and Wayzata have discussed it in the past, but because of the three city ownership of various sections of the road it doesn't per se qualify for MSA funding. The cities are currently esploring with the Municipal State Aid Coordinator whether an exception can be given or if ownership would be allowed to qualify and if so determining what arrangements, if any, could be made to have it undertaken. In addition to the Issues of costs regarding an upgrade would be issues related to leveling of the current road, greater width which would be added to the east, as Plymouth has an additional 7 feet of right-of-way, together with the addition of a bike/walking trail. It was indicate to these students that a major stumbling block may be the support of the neighborhood for such an improvment and whether the safety improvements together with separate pedestriam/bike trail would off-set concerns regarding increased speed together with greater width on that road. Staff will keep you apptaised of any developments. A^H CARLSON DEVELOPMENT - As you may recall the Council had given s preliminary plat approval to the 16 lot subdivision of Alan Carlson on Watertown Road on 3/11/90. The preliminary subdivision was contingent upon approval by various agencies. One agency. Environmental Protection Agency, chose not to grant the approvals needed for crossing a wetlands. As such the property owner is coming back and reopening the application with a new plan. The necessary public hearins for this reopening of the application will be held with review by Planning Commission and this will then be brought before the Council at the appropriate time. PLASTICS RECYCLING - As noted in Attachment B the first month of plastics recycling has already resulted in citizens recycling over a ton of plastic materials. CONTRACT KENNEL SERVICE - The recent death of one of the owners, who because of the prior extended Illness was not involved in the business to a great degree, should not have an effect on our service according to the other owner. JANOARY RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS - See attachment. WIRE TRANSFERS - See attachment. ADMINISTRATOR'S GOAL Si^TTING • See attachment. 5 ;-i; ■ i: • f t ‘ P‘1- I> » i'^ €■; - t ' ^'ifr The len^tn or Fernual** Roao s t. re r t:r.; ns^ fruit. »ouni> Koa.; lo rVayzata Boulevard po:>es a constant, threat ped«strians. and motorists v»ho use the read. attentio\>. ' * dangers .'le salet'- '»I t;ie It retiuire.s i .nmei . a t 1. 2. 3. •4. 5. 6. 1. 2. 3. 4. no t providing a sufficient laneFerndale Road is narrow, therefore for bikers and pedestrians. Ferndale Road is hilly, therefore making it difficult for a motorist to see a biker or pedestrian up ahead. Ferndale Road has becaome a high traffic area. It is the only exit out of many of the neighborhoods and is frequently travelled by bikers, pedestrians, and motorists. Ferndale Road is located in a residential area, near a s.ho. i (Vayzata Vest Junior High), and the Luce Line. The ru.i.i constantly used by children md others. >et tlier- : .s r.o hiAe *. ensure their safety. Lack of a bike lane also increases the a night biker or a speeding driver. Ferndale Road is in a state of disrepa more difficult and increasing the risk sharing the road. HISTORY risk o an ace en;:r. o • * 4 I r. therefore making driv.ng for bikers or p«'destr.ans ru ri'i nea a On November 1. 1984. a letter was written to Mayor David Davenport from the Ferndale North Homeowners Association regarding the hazard of Ferndale Road. The letter is attached. It was stated, ’the traffic volume has increased dramatically and the condition of the road surface. 1 ack of a pedestr’an * ra i ! . ■ h-* b. hills and no shoulders require immeuiate attention. .\s of thi« time, Ferndale Road still poses a safety hazard to ai: involved. The attached page entitled l9S0 Ferndale Hoad Information .ibt.i from the Orono Police Department indicates that Ferndale Road ;s driving hazard, thereby posing a threat to bikers and pedestrians'. No reports could be gained from the Plymouth or Vayzata Police Departments. Ferndale Road from County Road 6 to Vayzata Boulevard has been approved as part of Plymouth's Capital Improvements Program. A copy IS attached. Ferndale Road's improvement was originally approved for 1991, but was postponed to 1992 due to funding constraints. While its approval demonstrates the city s awareness of the safety hazard posed by Ferndale Raod, there is no guarani--'' that the project will not be postponed once again. The proposal also only proposes the improvement of Ferndale Road to the southern limits of Plymouth, thereby not providing for a sa'e lane all the way to the Luce Line or Vayzata Vest Junior High. The attached petition includ.u? 122 signatures indicates that the public is conceited with the $i>f'ty of bikers and pedestrians on Ferndale Road. w :V. V c; 'j. iriU: ff' ,r •’V-',r-rP. u’>-/ I PROPOSAL I* rom We propose that the cities of Plymouth. Oron*). and Wayzata undertake a joint project to install a bike lane on Ferndale Road County Road 6 to Wayzata Boulevard. With a joint undertaking, the cities could avoid the cost restraints by «Iividing the cost 3 ways. The cities could follow through on Ferndale Road's improvement as planned in the Capital laprovenents Program, with the exception of the added extension to Wayzata Boulevard. In doing so. the cities would remove ■any of the hazards to bikers, pedestrians, and motorists on Ferndale Road. tktUlL.I mt»di a m NAP f CS It 19 20 21 22 23 f, 25 29 PROCKAM XEAS. CAPITAL IMPROVEHEirTS PPOCRAM sTugrrs Btaai « \ 1 1990 2 1990 3 H9I 1990 4 ^ 1990 3 1990 • 1990 7 ^ 1990 • 1991 1990 - ^ 1990 wn 1991 (todiiM Read - Ireckten Lana to Co. Rd. 2A Co. Rd. 6 * Farnbreok Lana to Co. Rd. 101 Co. Rd. 101/lAth Avo. - Traffic Signal Co. Rd. 9/Annapolia Lana - Traffic Signal Co. Rd. 9/Vin««ood Lana - Traffic Signal Waat Hadicino Uka Dr. - Co. Rd. 9 to Sciwidt Uka Road Sclaidt Lake Road - Vaat Madicina Laka Dr. to Finawiaw Lana Co. Rd. 9/Nachan Una - Xntaraactiona teproaaawnc Straat Raaurfacing/Racenatructien Hadina Rd. - Co. Rd. 2A to Vickaburg Una I99t Idax 11 12 13 14 15 14 laal 1991*^«^^Farndala Road - Co. Rd. 6 to South City Limits IR4I idai 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1«91 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 1992 199*1 1993 1993 1993 1993 1993 Farnbrook Una - 27th Ava. to 34th Ava. Zachary Una/South Shora Dr. - 10th Ava. to Sunsat Trail Vallay Forga Lana - 10th Ava. - Highway 55 Frontaga Road 26th Ava. - Kilaar Una to Hadicino Ridga Road Zachary Una/C. Madicina Uka Ilvd. - 36th Ava. to Hadicino Ridga Road Co. Rd. 10 - Hathan Lana to Sycamore Una Horthwast Blvd. - Co. Rd. 10 to Pinaviaw Lana Straat Rasurfacing/Raconstruction /3V3C*'A**. Co. Rd. 9 - Polaris Una to 1-494 Xanium Una - Co. Rd. 6 to Highway 55 Zachary Una - 36th Ava. to Co. Rd. 10 Horthwaat Blvd. - Schmidt Uka Read to S6th Ava. Schmidt Uka Read - Vast Madicina Uka Dr. to Orchid Una Farnbrook Una - Schmidt Uka Road to 47th Ava. Straat Rasurfacing/Raconstruction Farnbreok Una - Claciar Una to Harbor Place Add. Dunkirk Una - Highway 55 to Co. Rd. 9 Xanium Una - 30th Ava. to Horthwaat Blvd. Street Rasurfacing/Raconstruction HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Novaiiber I, US'! Hayor David J. Oavanport PI youth City Cantor 3^100 PlyMOuth loulavard Plymouth, HN 55^7 Oaar Mayor Oavanport: On bahalf of tha ISO faini I ia$ represented by the FNHOA, the board of directors has requastad I send an outline of positive observations and a list of concerns for your attention and foItom*through. First, wa wish to command lob Nesbitt and his personal help with our neighborhood crime watch program. We have organized the entire area and now await tha entrance signs (hope we can have them in before Thanksgiving). Second, the police department has been very responsive to each need for help—we really appreciate their dedication. Third, the free dumpsters for our annual spring clean-up are well handled. Finally, the winter plowing efforts are greatly improved and we appreciate the earlier response after each snowfall. Thank you for these community benefits. Our concerns revolve around needed safety precautions. These become more ouvious in this sector of Plymouth as the population grows. First is Femdale Road between County 6 and Uayzata Boulevard. We have had the police department (via Bob Nesbitt) do a traffic survey of this section of roadvmy in wune and found to my surprise that 30% of the traffic was within the speed limit. This survey was prompted by our concerns with the growing volume of pedestrian traffic each day. Ferndale Road unfortunately is no longer the quiet "rural lane" of past years. We obviously don't want a four-lane road but improvements must be mrde to avoid additional personal injuries to pedestrians and to avoid auto collisions and near misses. The traffic volume has increased dramatically and the condition of the road surface, lack of a pedestrian trail, the blind hills and no shoulders require Immediate attention, if the road were to the above standards, kO m.p.h. «40uid be acceptable; however, under present conditions 30-35 m.p.h. seems more probable but still dangerous. Secondly, we need street lights at the three entrances to Ferndale North. Unfortunately, the present monument lights are frequently vandalized and really are not considered street lighting. Jay Johnson of NSP has reviewed with me the physical situation of a "hanging" vapor street light at each entrance. The existing poles are more than adequate in wiring and location to provide this safety need. There are only two lights on Ferndale road now and neither one Is near our entrance. Lighting to the general area would greatly affect the safety of alI concerned. homeowners ASSOCIATION w , rtf all of US in Fcrndale North that the Thirdly, it Is the serious essive for the conditions. Although ,Pm4 Unit »!thi« pStle* d«parti«nt) ,.v. »o claar evidence of ‘P*****"’ 3i^^igh^ another 100*^ over sho^s over IW ch.^«« •;«j;/nreets are used by all driving eight years In our ®!TJ"J‘„I;ed many near misses of young children. age levels obviously starts «ith the parents, but oursThe responsibility of child care oo | driveways and front yards. Is a neighborhood with ? «Unt toward the street causing a slide Hany of the drl^ys SnVrs are defensive; however. effect for *>*9.'^J*‘*'4*^* I^w *ittle regard for this safety problem. Our the sajorlty of observations sl^ i t „,.oblems; our block reps try Monthly newsletter has '’*5 “’*!’J]J,“^4ect^ I’m sorry to say. School buses as to spread the word but -^^^ttle ?nw culdesacs and speed on Men have Our^citixens have called the bus companies3rockton Lane and bth Avenue North. Our citixes ^ drivers. «d I, h.lp. for r^rin«r or «r.«5 « oo. b.ncho.rk to Thank you, Mayor “•'"•?JJ*'J;4^irrAs$ocat'io!5^*irPly^ith*^ All of usir?;‘rS5:.”w™^irrr?rp:i ....... ............ Slncefply, •^Steven J/ Musatto ^ President * FNHOA $JH:sb W‘' ir- :!■ I r He are concerned with the safety for bikers and pedestr« on Pemdale Road. We would like to see some action taken to widen the road or create a bike path. 1. 2. 3. 7 ^ ^ $ ^ J^', > ;r,:Lr- /-y ^ /V #f. 7e • t « • • ^ "" ^ ~ r I iir I ^ - * ^.• “* /- - 11-'o-vi. •'^.\:.^ * w » % Hj^oi i^i'7 /ytcit^x^jL^ Zjl.\^k z.^' 13• \IUtt/i^ -r^O ^') /zs T.£.a^o<^ L'U.'' yicU^r: It ~r 15./a.'-v>tJ :/ 18. 19 . fi / 16. .'.'iW« • « * n.f - .V:—• . - ^ . ^ 7' /.. y -■ 'V* - • -■ ( tl 0^' >• .. ; /r^'.’^- -7 ^ • ------ 20* K^\j iSoorSrncl n2.»0-2.1 Aye Ho-^ PIm moii4-Vi 5S*#.a4.7 31. '^juJpcci-^ rr.n>r^ 22. ' £*/^c. • ''7 i.? ;' / -r- ‘‘ " ■23. 24. /?C-iVv/r 'Z *•• . '^ ‘-4 ^ ^ . / ^ ^ 25. .V / ^ :. *•#r *— # C-' ♦ ' r k.i' if' •'-> - W« are concerned with the safety for hikers and ped€'^rians on Ferndale Road. We would like to see sone actj r ^aken to widen the road or create ^bike oath. ^ ^ 28. 29. 30^ X^4 // ycai4*>^ 32. 33. A.O. j---? 34. » f iu:?s I ^^■*'- . >' -^ •'oo\v\a\^ OV\ i t ' ' 'esc‘4'r- 37. 0'^®\'»^9w Q 4**^' / • ^ ^ • 'stu^ *b**6 39.t^<^4^ - Fv'm ; •-"*5“ 3 .»* « % ^ 40. f -b 99 XJ^ 41. 42. 43. r:;; -Z ■*»-w *^. • •'• -* v,. t * 44. /y*-^, ..rTTU^ . / 45. • « • > 46..V!;e^i:^cc * f *f 47. 48. ^•■^’■^4. t so. \^j.Ajk..LX^ — • "^C .w >r -•4<' • ‘ U'^.'i m * * •m m ^ s » » r* • • ‘■‘^' V-^ **'"W - “'jC xjj t x3. • « LaAi. i h a II- W« ar« concerned with the safety for bikers and pedestrians on Femdale Road. We would like to see some action taken to widen the road or create a bike path. SI.; * ». V* o • 0 ^4 • 52. \ 53. 54 -OtLLt.(r.V^./?X 7-TLSt=» ,v. .riUM Llr^A3 if r'.-A V-'—•- • lirC- lodHiaU-U_cui .sr ^ i.*' >-• _ . I Zco Av^.r . • » I ^4 i i> . f I » • • •• j- -*• » m ^ /: 60 V 52. f4tk^^ ,3. /3 rs^ ^Co'lv* y.^^rf\ <7WVo i0 ^ ^ • - • • \ V I i i / 65e 55- O 67. 69. ^ . 2>-3» K.wwWitt3ju sew- i • m ' ^ . >;t 2r' “ .•y4»V*i> • w -. - ' u 70. / , • Wi/ /r^r/ Vs :c' « • i w «i» 71. « p ' 0 ^ ^ ^JL • • #• • •• ''^•<^.*2, c .L • / • ' f*^. 1^' ir- I-m ;-k. i\ ■w^,1 1} 1.? f- h/ 0.m fe ^.■ '.iaivVi:. H« ar« concerned with the safety for bikers and pedestrians on Ferndale Road. We would like to see some action taken to widen the road or create a bike path. —- ■> , •’*4 * 75.I -- i • g ^ J .* 'iSjl ^ ' • * ' • ^ * « • 76.cL 77.J- 79. » ' f80.- * 81 • .<• •.*- J '/ •• 4 82. • ,# ♦*-•. / 83. •*• Sbxcu Tr. -.• • fl^ •^r fl J ' • 1 - * '- n ./ .r f\ .' ‘ *. ‘ / 85. 86. 87.•vo:/* ‘ 0 ^ ^/ w-y. 88. OsorerN >VK%.v.,vtiV( --C. _ C.l\ a.y SwT:y 89. 9®- i^vi»c 91. |lL(\/V‘iC b^0-V>' »2- 93 ,'" ■ Pcdvc*^ i ^ ^iC i 7tA.v'tV "^Zi^ '• V233C' ito^^V'iA, •y »*• l^vV.uwa. »«..L-,. .. . -i ^__ 97 .'Ti^'t** .'^ rK/7J^-~ 99. M':'. / V u / ^ ' h L. r. B-rl •f PJ f.; k';i.'MA We are concerned vitn the safety for bikers and pedestrians on Ferndale Road. We would like to see some action taken to widen the road or create a bike path. IZHS (SkMe-/(W. SS35t ! f / 1 ^ / i' ‘ m f 103. 104. .-/S ' • A<: ^b -■-7 7 > 105 106. 107. 108. ^ /J7^^ ic.v'£.4«- w <' ^ ^ 1 • ’•/* ^ ■u r . *■--------------'.• .\ur" ^ '^0-7 >7 . .- ✓ * Z' m ^ /7f/^ ^ / 5^’ —)/-^J.W..^— > ^ 115. -»>*'•»-' 7_». ' 6>,. ? , — '•iws ./(a • . V , V 116.----. >iicts^ ^Sc * *cxo ! C c * I117. fTat -fir «.\>-slr.‘tf' il.t • ,,./; .,: r, > ' o / ’ / ' ’ // / /*^1.^ **,>v /-^118. ^^W4eOw ^Udiv 7^'/ -^v4<: 119. ^ieA. u/lcteCuW- }4vidr-Td^c. Or^U. ^ 5'5’j‘i; \ .1 M diL^ f ^ .) -L.3'^ ^ i o IX ..V>:rj .• •111.>, . ••.n~r^\,"-i--yrv S-- ■ r.;-. "LV ir % ;j.-' < I- ■w- it'- % •a: •■% t^> V.- V . “orn>Jj»le Roac3/16/70 Tr At 1 c Vx ai ot ZZ.:F erndale4/10/90 '-r "TiDert / Damage Hcz X deni: 1 sr Ferndaie 5/24/90 10/3/90 Hir FD Accident fyV^M^A Q' Trat'fic Oiol •■ 4-5 i Ferndale Ferndale 10/30/90 Tj-af-fic Viol S'/O Ferndale ll/23.'°0 Froperty Damage Ace X aont • "^05 Ferndale F Tbt Mark E. Bernhardson* City Administrator John R. 6arhardson» Public Works Director /jrmQf(/ii€ir ^ Datot March 4, 1991 8objact« Recycling Tonnage Report Attached for information is a copy of the Tonnage Report for recycling for February 1991. As a side note# the contractor has separated out the pounds of plastic pickup for that month. It is very encouraging to see how well the Orono residents are responding to ouch an important program. ■ r '■K PCLXA DOT RECYCLING .^•'FA II • k P ;iTv: MNM3f3 ei2) 5t2-Y30S ^METPO) 70! ./'i’hiiF'Amn/)----- f/?0/7.* P(Qk A D07 RiCUCLl^C DA7€: -^//<?/_ 7A« c.haA,gA due, ^oe cu<zt-i-i.de recycling 4o • monih o/. PC^a.^e /tetni-i. pauneni, i.o PoLl^u Doi. Recyei.,Lng$ P,0, B ok ^62, Bu44a.io, /7/V. 55 37 3. 7he punmaty f.oe cueH-^ide /tecucJ2ng 4o't the month -i-i.* PICK UP DA7i • • ti, //y. an^M TCX'.VACl i 07 Houses //H3:g£ ^ Z/i you have any queAtlonA, on would like mane Inlonmatxon f.eel /Lnee to call at 682-7305 on metno ^r7-dJS4. Thank you, Sandi. Sixty- Polka Dot Recycling tOMNiunr or i roi CITY OF 09tCmO ttm, DZSMmsnoBirrft jw oiOMCit OF JAHDIUty 1991 nOlWXM 1/1/91 FIIDIK 1/31/91 ratMt BODGt? ic) 1991 ttJUISF 19 imrcsT SOLD a,O40.3CO 44,000 •4,100 149,440 440,000 •1,030 24,200 103,200 17.000 •9,740 191«950 15.000 133.*40 SOU,iiO 13.000 210,790 124,430 7«ii0tl49 104,S49 3,415,400 tOIMO LOT n 7«9I4,399 241,094 324,119 4,197,790 fwo ioiiiuunr - I99it •IWOV •DOGtt • OF #U0(2ET % : •VMM 0 1,,997,240 0,0% m •Ummm • iwnlt.9,973 123,300 7.9% IMMfM. >MMM 0 190,700 0.0%w - -ObM tM ,MV 192,049770,900 19.7% BV ,Mm, • vwfatt.90 119,190 0.1%t.,- • .m. m XMMt.4,497 53,370 9.4% vra,* vk mm. Mil,,0 120,370fe;OtM,197)14,700 -0.5% ton, MVMn IM .M 9 orvoo5,5% 018909 tOTAI. ■OMR (C) 1991 % OF BUDGET 220,2673,040,260 7,2% a 11,100 0 - 15,940 61,350 25.9% 509 102,690 0.5% 107 560,000 .0% 491 17,690 2.9% 154,500 154,730 99.9% 0 110,540 0.0% 0 39,190 0.0% 477 102,610 0.7% 9,285 194.310 4.9% 32,475 552,600 5.9% 37.070 78,510 47.2% 33,959 253,740 13.4% 1,900 555,900 0.3% 36,205 76.660 47.2% 4,696 107,400(a) 4.4% 49,258 5M.339 6,019,360 TFAISF OUT IWVEST FUFCR CASI •ALMCB 1/31/91 XMVBlt •ALMICB 717,924 170,451 0 304,920 2,225,934 <1,340> 722,410 305,779 494,143 131,781 194,261 97,144 444,465 214.243 ^•5,490 404,105 194,474 27,341 1,494.021 0 1,494,021 (7,427,924) 7,427,924 49.944 7,427,924 0 2,999,394 532,724 4,271,050 0 2,793,024 393,941 7,717,029 TOTAL 1991 CA8B 4 XNVBSTNniT 1/31/91 •7,713,470 90T9 (a) Golf epor«tiR9 fund budgnt doos not includo nnount9 for purchnaon for ronnlo or salon tax collaetod/roBittod, Tho rocolpta budgot projacta groan profit - not total rocoipta. (b) Goooral fnnd roronnoa rocordad trill not oqnal rocoipto colloctod doa to raeolTablaa blllod in otbor neoounting poriodn and nofi*ravonua racalpta. non (c) iodgat anoonta inelnda achadulad tranafara, do not inclndo fund balanea uaaa, addition#, or dapraciatioo. i' 5 * , 12690.1(81) CIT*' or OI«K> IHVB8TNBHT TRAMSACTIO^ • BLICTIKMIC WIIB TRANSmS FBBROMtY 23, 19fl TO MARCH 4, 1991 HATH TRANSFER FOR FROM TO AMOUNT 02/27/91 ProcMds froa Comercial Paper Matured Norwest 1st Bank Lakes $ 252,000.00 02/27/91 Purchased Comer cial Paper Net of Coaaercial Paper Matured 1st Bank Lakes Da in Bosworth (220,343.99) 03/04/91 Interest Received on Fed Fara Credit Bank Bonds Marquette Bank 1st Bank Lakes 16,010.56 •fl7 no* IMV *« 9ID- IM « 1 mr IMO • 3B L 19»1 OtaCt 0V3Q/)0 id OS/29/10 07/31/90 09/07/90 0»/2*/90 10/30/90 lV»/90 12/31/90 01/31/91 02/28/91 AB OQM. AMK (XtTECTIVE DATES STATL'S V. h- I’ . 1. ccmxm tmmjcptmr A. Highway 12 I. (ItilitiM S«i«r - Part I Install 09/01/89 Sewer • Part II Miter SystflB Main Install Install 07/01/90 09/01/89 Hell (6 HontlH) ^!a^n weu 04/01/90 12/30/90 Tower (9-12 n ontha) Plans Specs - Order Award He9otlation on utilities (Lon^ Lake - Medina) 07/01/90 Oonpleted 1/30/90 esoept for testing/grading 7/9/90 &igaged separate contractor to coaplete Assessed Part l 9/24/90 1./22/90 «*easibility Study to Orono Plant Ordered - 4/1/90 - Feasibility study reoeiead Project Ordered 7/24/89 Cnwemoed Construction 10/27/89 & U/13/89 Ookpleted 12/15/89 (See Sewer ?t I) Assessed Part I 9/24/90 Cleaning and Test Piaiplng 8/10/90 Bldg/Pin? Bids Close 7/13/90 Revised Contract 9/10/90 Additional work on weU ODS^etad 10/90 Pu^ house CDnstructicn/1/91 ester lor ooipletlai. All but piap controls installed. 2/12 Authorised Plans/Spees Awaiting location deciaion water dlscueeion 10/25/89 with Medina - ?!adtna to meet with affected resldmts 1/90 to disoiaa L:y hXA GOAL AFn CBJBCnVE STATUS 1. *ii 810 *89 SID *90 810 2. Umq t8ni QDcridbc Opgrade Study •90 3T0 3» 1^2 Safety Impco mxrr initiation or Oidertate oorrite selection stuSy with MiDOT oonsultant 4 surrounding cities 09/01/99 6/30/B9-AMaltin9 Raaponae tzm central Offiot on Oonmltant 07/07/89 Delayed until at Laaat U/30/89 Qovrnoc*! Traiaporation Safety Mtg 10/26/89 U/15/89 Qaaaiaaicnar Lairina mounts oonaultantyHiOOr oocridor aalaetion atudy Boward Naedlaa aelactad aa oDnaultait 02/90 Taka appropriate planning stapa if nsedad in potential oorridora 12/90 Oonaidtr Tranaportaticn Consultant 7/90 Preliminary pltMi approval anoDuraga stoplight wiUow/12 07/90 Adopt if appropriate Hork with S5o?^cn right-of-««y/frontage roads 12/90 May a Jim ■aatlnga dtleyad to July July ntgs consultant lay^ initial work plat. OaBv>lation of study targttad for 7/91< Orono objactivaa aubiittad 9/20/90 itekahop held 12/1/90 Second workshop 1/23/91 Diractad Pljmlng Gam rawiaw iiino—iilition of isauaa to data. 1/2S/91 Plaiaiifig Comiasion 2/27/91. t of ibla5/14/90 Oil consultant to study. 6/25/90 Author iaad raquast for aacvioa 9/10/90 Diractad uaa of Dahlgran Sbardloo a Oban 7/01/90 5/15/90 Anticipata signal warrant analysis to ba oonplatad by V30. Ooiaicil authorlaad 6/25 in Baaolution. warrmts byindication is that it will 1992 data. 6/25/90 Adopt approeal rasolutioi for safety b^Komwnt oontingant on thair installation Anticipata bid aiard 1992. Actual oonatruction 1993 in ordar to install li^ts in oonjimticn with projact. Staff mtg with fWXTT ra: Plan 2/91 ‘r •• p-'' ,1^ : ... I i u ^ ^ 'Ni# fi. / t:' I ‘ V.' I MB i. ca QDM> KOi m oBmjasmr oontiiuitd 0, Havarrc Mevelofaent*li STD *i9 SID 90 STD C. Oomiity Ttansportati^ Pljn 90 STD 90 STD D« Qounty Ro^d 116 •07 SID •88 STD •89 SID B. Stoni Hicer Ploi OBJBnr/B Determine project aaope' directicn Oeterminp beeatificition plan iiHle—nf tion if ney QDi|>Iete Master 71anninq« if asproprlate Determine need for Tax Increment District Determine Interest in Christmas lighting O^te capital project guidelines Bridge bending program Undertake capital budget designated projects Preliminary plmi review Monitor actitn by CMty as to its proposed construction DATES r OL'39 12/90 07,'91 09/90 07/90 07/90 PubUc/Pfivate street - review 09/90 policy Aa^jertain available mssving Develop RFP for study if appropriate STATJS 1/12/90 Tabled for additional InforMtic^ 4/7/90 Discuased poaaible inclusion in a long term Omp Plan 8/27/90 Present information relative to .ssus 2/27/91 Orono/diayrata/Plymouth discuss*^ n of Morth Pemdale. Old Crystal Bay Road brl<^ siteitted x staff revisw 10/90. Siteitted to State 10/90 10/22/90 ODuncil authorir^ wicy takeo* tr of Lafayette Ridge. 1/28/91 Cbmcil oenverts Hear Ln to puB'ic street. 2/27/91 OronuAliytata/Plymjth discussion of north remdale 12/4/90 Medina approved final plans/gr< its existing easements. 1/1/91 Medina GDuncil resinds action. 1/27/91 County deletes 116 froii. plan. Included in i^iew of Storm Hater Hgt On lexis Tb Owxici: for 2/U/91 mtg. Table to 3/U/91 mtg. AREA GOAL AICA OBJECTIVE DAIIS STAnS !• CXmJNITf DEVELOPfOrr contimiad *90 STO ,'4 G« Oonunity Development Direction and Progress A.) Lake Use - I/O coit^cehensive plan 01/91 - Develop City specific objectives B. ) Mbrk towards service and results oriented *No Surprises* process C. ) Conp Plan Response to >tetro Coaicil - Sewer - Transportation D.) DNR Shorelind Regulation 08/90 10/90 07/91 6/28 and 7/12 discussed City ooments of public review draft with (/CD's Advisory Odnmittee 8/^4/90 Received revised draft. Tb discuss 9/10/90 . 9/26/90 UVD Board to vote cn plan 9/26/90 UCD adopts a portico tables balance to 10/24/90 10/24/90 UCD adopts plan with aaendnents 12/10/90 Oouncil adopts same resolution as 7 other cities, 1/15/91 Pietro CJouncil staff reocmnends 6 mo. s\* spens i on, 1/22/91 Metro O oisk :!! Systems Oomnittee gl*/es "Contingent Approval". 1,^23/91 LMC? grants 3 rao. hold. 2/22/91 Groi^ of 8 mtg sets mtg for 3/6/91 1/90 Metro Council grants extensicn 2/15 & 23/90 staff reviews issues 9/24/90 fUnimal changes to Planning Coninission U/26/90 CDn^rehensive Plan 13 directed for siimiissian. 12/90 Developed work plan/started initial steps. 1/91 Staff develops initial Draft to include update of floodplain regs. 2/11/91 Oomcil approves shore land grant resoLuticn AFCA QCML AFCA CBjEcrr-T OA'SS STATTS P .1 • • * 2. EWnriOWNTAL PTOTBCTION *90 A« Stubbs Bay Determine assessMnt area interest 07/90 Engage an appraiser OB/90 Oonsider development moratorim 10/90 If Appropriate - Prepare Plans k Specificatiois 10/90 - Project bid 12/90 - Assess project - Hold Hearing if appropriate 01/91 - Order project 02/91 - Bond for project 03/91 - Cosrrenoe project 04/91 - ODspiete project 10/91 7/31/90 letters sent to area owners 9/24/90 Response limited. Tb use interested neighbors to assist. 1/22/91 Additional information tranaaitted to Ad Hoc groi^. • 89 5TD B. Solid >Zaste V^'^ement r Review recycling efforts Determine if further solid waste regulation appropriate Revi«# organized ooUection if needed Review program performance Rebid oontract for curbside Review Inc^tl^s to Loprove participation 36/90 12/90 09/90 10/90 10/90 02/91 3/'26/90 CoiTpost plan adopted a/90 proposed chif^r in 1991 budget 10/90 Staff determines not needed for 1991. 10/90 Oontract reviewed in process thru West Hennepin Recycling 12/14/90 Received bids for 1991. 1/14/91 Contract awarded to Polka Dot. 2/91 1990 performanoe 28% /90 goal - 10% /91 goal - 16% No incentives needed for 1991 J--' C. Metro Waste Replacement Project Lift Statiai 10/Lift Static!) 43 Replacement Ooipletion Oonpletion 10/01/89 Delayed to at least 12/31/89 Expect 1/31/90 oaklet ion 07/90 Bid awarded 6/10 for work ooqpletion - Obneenoed work 7/10 after Bond aonp«iy release. CoBpleted 10/1/90 h'- Al»GCAL AICA CBJBcrrvE DATES STATE’S ■4/^ 3. QRGAKIZAnClIAL DBVQa>mir '90 SITD A. 1991 QDiiicil Goal Setting OoraMRce Oo^plete B. 1991 BiK^et Proorsa Assessment Board of Review Prelindnary Budget guidelines Capital projects guidelines review PreliiBinary mill levy acioptian (Ttuth in Taxation) Hearing 07/90 6/25/90 - Suggestion to Cotaicil for *91 09/90 11/9/90 Cbuncil directs tabling to 1991* 12/21/90 Ttviflaitted Strategic issue Development 1/91 Discussing «rith Gomel 1 2/25/91 Draft of plm presented tabled to 3/11/91 05/90 Coipleted 5/3/90 07/90 Presented Initial Guidelines 7/31/90 08/90 Initial revised plan 1990-2000 09/01/90 Adbpted Initial levy 8/27/90 12/90 12/3/90 Held hearing/oontinued hearing to 12/18/90 12/10/90 Adopted Budget/Levy Resolution Final levy adoption •90 STD C. 1991 Legislative Plan 12/20/90 12/18/90 Adopted 09/U/90 2/25/91 Adopted r v_. K' ■ >1 Am GOAL Am OBJECTIVE DA’aS 4. SEIWXCB DELIVBCf *90 STO k* Facilities Upgrade Oan|)lete Citizen Beview CDniiittee 07/90 If tMertaken Site acquisition, if any •87 STO •8$ STO *90 STO B. Ldig Range Financial Policy Select architect Design Final plans/cxksts ®lans/specIfications Financing Bid a%Acds Develop balance of policy 09/90 C. Business Strategy Plans Police “ Update Golf Course -09/01/90 - ■ CTATJE 6/29/89 Bus tour of facilities Meeting set foe U/8/89 11/8/89 Mtg directed develppnmt of tim guidelines to ODuncil U/27/89 project estiaates/finaneing to Ccxsxril 12/11/89 1/28/91 Discussed Issues/tlpcoaing workshop tabled to 2/U 2/25/91 Set facility workshop foe 3/27/91 8/22/90 OconclL^aclllt-es Oowaittee rttg. 9/24/90 Established 10/22 for site discussion 10/22/90 Site discussion. Oxsicll directs tiorkshop on all informatia) be held. 9/90 Five year financial projection oospleted in ccnjuncticn with facility review for 10/22/90. Ir: AREA OC»L A!» 4« SESma DS^lVERf Continoed 0- Service Rpvieim *90 sm 0BJECTI%T E^ineerinq aervioes oo^lete DATES 08/90 STATUS •90 STO lifigal aervloes ooH^lete 09/90 r -• » L’'' t, r:- f: r ■i-.I'.;-. S. BtMMI SESODRZS •90 STO A. Oo^pensatlon Ijiplewnt Bujloyee Reoognitlan 01/90 Focmilate City en^loyee 06/90 developMnt Explore performance incentive 07/90 program Q[plore "Cafeteria Benefits*/ 07/90 IBS Sectldi 125 Plan €. mpxEnm f.Tidertake Lono oontest first/cloee 4/6/90 Lt '90 Oonmittee selects winning design. 1/8/90 Presented conceptual discussicn to Qsuncil 8/27/90 Presented informaticn to Council. Tabled to 9/10 9/10/90 Award to Safe Benefits to develop for 1/1/91 11/19/90 Adopted plan 11/29/90 Qiployee introductory leeetlngs held with 12/9-4/90 sign-up meetings. 12/90 In place for 1991. 1/14/91 Adopted Personnel Rules alteraticn in vacaticn areas 1/28/91 Adopted i^xlated policy i \1 % FOR MEETING OF March 11, 1991 /» 1 ; *r‘.:i I Special Events -L. Cramer Designers & Builders Parade of Homes 2109 Sugarwoods Drive April 7-21st Residential Kennel - Wayne E. Carrier 1376 North Arm Drive Wi.lli Hoyes/H. Zohara 565 Hanlon Avenue Ross B. Nathanson 2420 Countryside Drive Septic System Installer - Thompson Plumbing Corp t 15001 Minnetonka Industrial Road Widmer Inc. 4250 Creekview Circle 02 22 •?’10:40 the :ir.' GF CPCNC 612-473-^^7 003 PARAOBS i 8PBC2AL EVENTS PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OP ORONO# MINNESOTA Phon« Numbart 935-8482 Nama:Lawrence Cramer Address t 5500 Lincoln Drive, Suite 180 City, Stats* Zlpl KHina. MN 55436 Permit *t Fee: $50.77 I- tb ^ ^ 1991 Location of Parade or Events 2109 Suqar woods Drive, Orono, MN Persen(s) and/or organizatlonCa) Handling the Event:CF jiiOliv Lawrence Cramer - > - r t. •*'•••.— u*t » ava ■ **fW*> ,.i k. “* \ vtv -w' J. wv»t • w Data of Event: Anri 1 7 - April 21_ _ _ Hours of Event; m-F 3rtf'/ Sat3:sun Reason or Purpose; The soring Preview ■ ^ » «^Vr \ ! VV r \-,i vij t»T.*».< V 4 ' iV I » 4 %/ ■ ► ' -W* “?C Insurance Cowpanyt st. Paul Agency Inc. Amount; $4,000,000 Copy of insurance certificates to be submitted with this application. Z am aware of all applicable State and other lawa regarding parades and special events and wlii^abide by same. I also agrse to hold ths city of Orono harmless from all liabilities that may arise directly or indirectly from the parade or special event apr ’oved by the granting of this permit. - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - — - Signature / i i Date 2/22/91 Approved:Denied t By; Remarks x KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Effective January 1, 19 9( to Decarxer 31r 19 i/ Owner:/l - ^'C V A/^ jr c --''•'v’’ 0Property Addrass: (include city and zip) Mailing Address (if different): Phone: (home) - i" 5^- 0 9 S L.^ .O // ^0 (work) RBSIOBHTIAL Kennel License Information: $25.00 (payment must accompany application) Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time: (over 3 months of age) Principal Breed: ^-) / Purpose for more than 2 dogs:- J..'. c?-.}' // ' f”- ▼ * V r'Oca * » w*»'U*wW -crrrr t I air*» a ^awwv'V vvv ■■■ ■ m;. Ifwl * .V i';}S/ 71 i<£L£J>T-T>^:\ YSU ••i. V k.VW 4 -^V'X ‘ 1 I-* • “ ,• — aw.' Dogs normally kept:inside kennel struct COMMERCIAL Kennel License Information: $150.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business: Business Activities:______________________ (<»v aB»p 1 g? boarding^ breeding, veterinary cara, recai 1, etc.) Normal Business Hours: After Hours Contact: (name)_ (phoneT Dog runs/exercise areas are:inside outside both The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel License as specified on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that a kennel license is permissive only and does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation; the undersigend hereby grants the City permisssion to inspect the premises prior to license approval and at any other reasonable time during the license duration; and the undersigned agrees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any special conditions imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approval. Appi^ent D*te XeMei^Inspected^by j/JaJUJ^ Date j Q - ^ O Recommends Approval__2C_^ Denial KZNNEL LICZNS2 APPLICATION Effective January 1, _ to Decerther 31, 19_^ * I ^1 Owner: ‘Ay,-/r In /S6sProoerty Address:_ _ _ _ (Incliide city and zip) Mailing Address (if different): Phone : (home ) U’V’fq ^ 3> ^ A //•A-h€L ^ S'£2"f- (work ) V 7- 3 ? -'^hujcK _ Or or^m) nrr^^r r ^itrntck. f « a' < V“»’V*VW\A A W A *,’w*\-'VVW run- 01 SI ri :-5.56 r-K M to afV rVii RBSIOBIITIAL Kennel License Information: $25.00 (payment must accompany application) Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time: 3)_ _ (over 3 months of age) ^ Principal Breed: ^^ j. X.* wwi »*v,A # a • Purpose for, more than 2 does : 5 ^Oaia ^eCLJiA^r^ 4tl// 0o*\^ ^CLJCnUCf L.U^iC .^c.lcAt, <.-iyhall a!x Oy • Dogs normally kept: inside _____kennel str-’Cture iSe^’C ,V /<??? Name of Business _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ __—-- - - - - - - - -—- - CGMMERCXAL Kennel License Information: $^50.00 (payment must accompany application) Business Activities: (exsunple: boarding, breeding, veterinary care, rer: Normal Business Hours:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ sraiT, etc.) After Hours Contact: (name)_ (phone) Dog runs/exercise areas are:inside outside FEBbJ;:# The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel License as specified on this form: the undersigned acknowledges that a kennel license is permissive only and does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation: the undersigend hereby grants the City permisssion to inspect the premises prior to license approval and at any other reasonable time during the Jir»ir“««ts*of ^ 5-36^ including any »P«cial conditions imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approval. Date' For City Ose Inspected^by aKennel Recommends Approval Date sLrh/ )4 Denial Owner: KZSIHBL LZC2NSZ APPLICATION Effective January 1, 19 *9 I to Decenber 31, 19J7 0- _ _ _ _0 i.3 Prooertv Address: Jw \-L-'Inclu- -- - - ^(include city and zip) <^,6/W 4 ^ /K/vjtl. 5'iT3i ^ Mailing Address (if different):_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Phone: (home) /6 - 6_ _ _ _ _ _ (work)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ BBSIDBHTIAL Kennfe. License Information: $25.00 (payment must accompany application) Maximum No. of dogs to be kept at one time: (over 3 months of age) % I ^ ^ ^ /i Principal Breed: Purpose for more than 2 dogs: Dogs normally kept: ' A t < inside kennel structure :CIAL K-nnel License Information: $150.00 (payment .st accompany application) Name of Business: Business Activities: •1 17 .-'i.-rrrc :k;» .A • »v -XTj^ Ti T«T ■ „ ' ' ” 1 * •*." ■» ^w.'VWwV UWV^ iWA I A \J"' (example: boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.)A . - O Normal Business Hours: After Hours Contact: (name)__ (phoneT Dog runs/exercise areas are:inside outside both The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel License as specified on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that a kennel license is permissive only atiH does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation; the undersigend hereby grants the City permisssion to inspect the premises prior to license approval and at any other reasonable time during the license duration; and the undersigned agrees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 5.36 including any special conditions imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approval. fi. /] licant Date For City Use Only jy > ^ n [} Kennel inspected by — Date_ Recommends Approval__)^_ Denial_ _ _ nex 4jM V ITTof ORONO Cryatal Bay. Minaaaota 55323 SEPTIC SYSTEM INSTALLERS - LICENSE-Jl??2:TCATION BUILDINC a zoning - 473-7337 assessing E—^??£ nam^\V>r>T>rN«p£ar’r\~^\ O ■ _ Wa • /V ^ V'<~. t»<~W-(/»0 — 1. 2. 3. Business phone _ Residence phone 4. 5. Name of applicant or company representative holding MPCA certification \W^fw^«^ ~3~- r^vJrl - - - - - - - - - - - -- V InstallerTvpe of certification held: _ _ Site evaluator _ _System designer Is this a Provisional Certificate? _ _ ST w444»k^ C Certificate No 6. a If no Certificate is held, provide evidence of attendance at one of the On-Site Sewage Treatment Workshops hexd immediately prior to the current construction season. • Have you ever held a Septic System Insta^ller license in Orono before? ( Most recent year Have you ever had a license rev’oked? ^)0 When? Where? U" w 10. Do you do Municipal Sewer hook-ups? Yes Do you pump out septic tanks? Yes No ./ . T .A vw • »f • No V / . Tli V' A - Ik:ii£L}(^____ -.1* tTT.-CI Ato*. -- V» VV :57» ^ vri## fWW - — - • - • . »,/, y *_ W CiTJ 1 k 4 V s. :“.V i / i V' • ' A ■V' ^ ^ _iZ SUBMITTALS REQUIRED: 1. $25.00 license application fee. 2. $2000.00 license and permit bond na.ming City or Crono ^ obligee. The State Plumbers Bond will not be accepted. v' 3. $10-30-100,000 minimum Certificate of Insur? ,e. 4. Copy of current MPCA Certificate or evidence of attendence at On-Site Sewage Treatment Workshop held immediately prior to current construction season. LICENSES WILL NOT BE PROCESSED UNTIL ALL ITE.MS ARE SUBMITTED. List persons other than applicant who are authorized by you to spply for permits under your license, . **^=5rri v4.t2r«c»*<. crKJUt^^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 Ordinances of the^ity of Orono. Date ^ - / -^ - ^ /Applicants Signatur^^ TY lY Reason for denial; __ _ _ City Council Action Data Date license mailed _ _ Approved Denied PTYof OR Crynai Bay. Mioaaaou 55323 BLILDtNC 4 ZONING - 473**35”' ASSESSLNC 5Z?TIC 3YS^^ i:;STAI.LZ3S -LICZMS3m??LlCAriCM 1?.'- ’jL_i Widmer Inc.1, Business or trade name 3, Business phone <6121_446rl:i95_ Residence phone <612) 466-dB67 4. N.™. of applicant or cer’tification _____________An^r. ------------------------------------ 5.Tvoe of certification held; — instai-er * Site evaluator _ _Systen designer Is this a Provisional Certiricate; ^- P’lmper Certificate Mo. 8 . T j Avide^^ce of attendance at r.-™a.iatal,1 prior to the current construction season. - j - e,e-.«5-af" I'^steller license inHave vou ever heid a Se-w-w s^Sw—> nave ywLk^c'<ts- vea’* ’Orono berore.' Yes MoSw--------u / - *r -,-— u^/4 a 1 if'f>'*se r® VC Iced? Mo When? -{]^ve you ever had a iice..se — Where? _____- ■• ; NoDo you do Municipal Sewer hooJc-ups? Yes_rr-v rc • X • I V9 » lb. Do you pump out septic tanks? Yes SUBMITTALS REQUIRED: OfC 1. $25.00 license application fee^ No t" •r*»f :3v^' Af . 'I rCi^ V J -.*! ^ r«mlw rrTjT V 4 n IL ... AtW n.‘ /w ix 1 S25 00 License ^ -.v>.^uv2 I2060 00 licanaa'ind permit bond namrn? Crty or Orono a,l-»e» JZ- 2- ”000^00 i-o^ plumbers Send will not =e acoeptec. j4^3. !li:30-100,000^«i^^u»jertifrc« -.r\- bf — - - r * .VWI •ij L ^ ^ f ■' * t •, .•''/•♦ JA/ JlC»~wv'va *¥x - r-v A a . •• -4 -c y\- of attendence ^ ’ at^on-Site Sewage Treatment Workshop held immediately pyior to currant construction season. LICENSES HILL NOT BE PROCESSED ONTIL ALL ITEMS ARE SOBMITTED. ‘p^!y‘isr?:r:srun'5rr ■ o*?‘Srst:Sf^:i gSSe^-L-aSS^tbS^S^dlnlnilro'f^lbe^Citv oi Date 2-6-91 Applicants Signature staff reconnaendatio Reason for denial: City Council Action 03/03/91 PR CB PRREGCft r ■ Mar 13 JJJJ ^^OFOfio... EMP • NAME 47168S060 50S662439 474563339 471840871 47S443P62 472S03991 471729281 469526026 468821018 472529007 468701868 507585424 469686562 468420832 474667812 475380151 477500666 475444249 471569863 477647279 475246099 504260307 472500574 121262417 470667594 334506281 474822333 477028779 468909535 476783251 470700901 469848107 475382983 473746173 476447153 469629194 475569177 472563051 474663296 470704904 475505292 468629488 307809189 500403192 477881539 ANDERSON. BRUCE L BERNHAROSON. MARK E BOBZIEN. SUE A BOSMA. JAMIE ^ BRINKHAUS, JOHN F CHESWICK. GARY B CHRISTIANSON. SALLY CORNICK, JAMES L ENGLISH III. IRVING ERICKSON. KURT R FISCHENICH. DAN T FRITZLER. JOHN M GAFFRON. MICHAEL P GERHARDSON. JOHN R GREGORY, JAMES D HALLIN. DOROTHY M HANSEN. STEVEN C HANSING. CAROL J JOHNSON. BRADLtY P KARNITZ. RICKY 0 KILBO MELVIN H KNUTSON. CHARLOTTE KUEHN, THOMAS M MABUSTH. JEANNE A MORAN, MARK F MOROWCZYNSKI JAMES NAAB. THERESA L NELSON. DAVID D OBERAIGNER. SCOTT G OBRIEN. RANDY L OMAN. LYLE E PALMER. GREGORY A OUAST. WAYNE A RATHBUN. BARRY J ROBERTS. TIMOTHY W SKREEM. DALE S STEFFEMHAGEN. RONAL THOMTON. MARK R TOMCHECK. LAWRENCE TOMCZYK. MARK W VANG. BRUCE L VEE. LINDA S WALSH. KEVIN L WALTERS. LINDA G WECKMAN. STEPHEN J YTD CURRENT DPT GROSS GROSS 31 7977 91 1512 51 12 11806 80 2221.36 31 4771 47 958.72 12 2095 99 658 87 42 7579 28 15," 89 31 8000 00 l6t. 0 00 31 949 83 220 99 31 7944 67 1407 59 31 8300 46 1613.98 31 7158 50 1487 71 31 7691 48 1567 81 31 7476.96 1536 00 33 6929 09 1392 24 42 9’.11 61 1830 71 42 6492 29 1414 54 12 5968 79 1199 28 42 5649 09 1288 67 31 2784 42 572 51 31 7994 88 1650.56 31 2250 58 532 23 31 10167.67 2042 96 A ib 4771.49 953 72 15 9683 55 1945 68 33 9349.41 1743 53 31 7688.00 1537 60 31 8045 96 1685 79 12 4771.49 958 72 35 371 88 87 51 i 42 4896 36 1082 15 92 5693.78 1077 02 33 7163.43 1392 24 42 4978.49 1212 68 92 7092 95 1410 44 92 5895 34 1436 24 31 5292 73 964 95 42 5715.09 1278 50 .D 93 5978.99 1200.96 31 7293 55 1430 04 F 31 7400.61 1787.54 31 7065.28 1417.28 33 5670 17 1130.28 12 4055 99 814 96 35 119^ G4 274 96 !5 4563 41 808.38 33 4045 41 945 12 56.822 42 19*1 CITY OF ORONO CHECK NO. DATE 070014 070014 070020 070020 070020 03/0S/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 AMOUNT 56.80 163.73 220.53 110 00 90.80 88.70 289.50 * CHECK REGISTER VENDOR ALL STAR ELECTRIC ALL STAR ELECTRIC AMERICAN BANK AMERICAN BANK AMERICAN BANK ITEM DESCRIPTION REPAIR LGT REPAIR FISCAL AGENT FEE FISCAL AGENT FEE FISCAL AGENT FEE ACCOUNT NO INV 01-4343-129-31 72-4343-549-91 44-4630-907-00 72- 4630-909-88 73- 4630-910-89 03-11-91 PAGE • P O • MESSAGE • • •-CKS •••-CKS 070027 070046 5!0700S4 •••••• i' 07006$ ‘ f 070061 070011 h;- - 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 / ‘ 2.500.00 2.500.00 * APPLE VALLEY AGENCY 6.00 6.00 • 949.10 949 10 • 199.28 199.28 ‘ 125 74 45.32 171.06 • ASSN METRO MUNICIPS BARTON SAND/GRAVEL BLACKOWIAK 4 SONS BLACKS PHOTOGRAPHY SLACKS PHOTOGRAPHY AGENT FEE 070030 03/05/91 21.20 AT &T INFO SYSTEM DATA PROC070030 03/05/91 21.20 AT &T INFO SYSTEM data PROC07003003/05/91 21.20 AT &T INFO SYSTEM DATA PROC07003003/05/91 21.20 AT A T INFO SYSTEM DATA PROC. 070030 03/05/91 21 20 106 00 •AT A T INFO SYSTEM DATA PROC 070031 03/05/61 10.20 AT A T COMH TELEPHONE07003103/05/91 6.78 16 98 • AT A T COMM TELEPHONE 070036 03/05/91 69.69 69.69 •EARL F .ANDERSON ASSC GOLF SIGN TAPE SAND TRASH HAUL PHOTO DEVELOP PHOTO DEVELOP 01-1280-000-00 01-4340-059-14 01-4340-069-15 01-4340-129-31 01-4340-174-33 01-4340-249-42 01-4320-039-12 01-4320-129-31 74-4343-590-93 01-4210-039-12 01-4233-249-42 01-4343-099-17 01-4210-129-31 01-4210-174-33 NAN -CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS • N N .CKS N • N _CKS 1991 CITY Of 090NO CHECK REGISTER CHECK NO . DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO INV 070099 03/05/91 1.311 89 1,381 89 • CARGILL salt SALT 01-4233-249-42 070100 03/0S/91 99 87 99 87 m CASE POWER 1 EQUIP PARTS 01-4232-249-42 070110 03/05/91 66 00 66 00 m CHAPIN PUBLISHING CHIPPER AD 01-4322-249-42 070111 03/05/91 12 00 12 00 m CHESWICK/GARY MTG 01-4356-129-31 070114 03/05/91 102.25 102 25 • CITYVIEW PLMBG & HTQ REPAIR FURNANCE PO 01-4343-099-17 070133 03/05/91 8 00 8 00 • COMM-REV SALES TAX FEB SALES TAX Cl-3500-000-00 070142 070142 03/05/91 03/05/91 18 55 97.07 115 62 81 COPY OUP PR INC COPY DUP PR INC FGT TONER TRANSPARICIES 01-1261-000-00 01-1261-000-00 070154 03/05/91 910.30 910.30 A CVS UNIFORMS UNIFORMS ROBERTS 01-4221-129-31 07C193 03/05/91 5.00 5.00 m DYNAMED MEDICAL SUPPLIES 01-4232-129-31 070191 03/05/91 90.00 90 00 » ELMER J PETERSON CO PUMP SEPTIC 01-4343-099-17 070199 070199 . 03/05/91 03/05/91 16 10 S.500.00 5.516.10 ROLF E ERICKSON ROLF E ERICKSON SUPPLIES MAR FEE 01-4210-059-14 01-4307-059-14 070257 03/05/91 144.04 GERHARDSON/JOHN MILEAGE 01-4381-249-42 03-11-91 PAGE •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS « • •-CKS 1991 CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTER CHECK NO DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO IN 144 04 m 070299 070269 070269 03/0S/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 104.00 145 00 229 00 478 00 m GOVERNHT TRAING SERV GOVERNMT TRAING SERV GOVERNMT TRAING SERV GOETTEN SEMINAR CONF BERNHARDSON CLASS/JOHNSON 01-4356-020-11 01-4356-039-12 01-4356-129-31 070272 070272 070272 070272 070272 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/01 03/05/91 236 73 80 50 32 36 32 36 9 20 391 15 • Q 4 K SERVICES G 4 K SERVICES G 4 K SERVICES G 4 K SERVICES G 4 K SERVICES UNIFORMS MATS UNIFORMS UNIFORMS UNIFORMS 01-4221-249-42 01-4231-129-31 72- 4221-549-91 73- 4221-569-92 74- 4221-590-93 070303 070303 03/05/91 03/05/91 786.00 2,030 82 2.816 82 • HENN CTY FIN DIV HENN CTY FIN OIV TRAFFIC TICKETS JAN ROOM/BOARD 01-4322-129-31 01-4358-080-16 070301 070301 03/05/91 03/05/91 75 47 327.40 402.87 • HENN CTY SHERIFF OPT HENN CTY SHERIFF DPT REPAIR JAN BOOKING FEE 01-4342-129-31 01-4358-080-16 070330 03/05/91 150.75 150.75• ICMA RETIREMNT TRUST ICMA 2/18-3/3 01-4140-039-12 070337 03/05/91 2 50 2 50 m IMS/MN RATE CHART 01 -4210-039-12 070397 . 070397 ; 070397 070397 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 2 98 41.72 21.60 5.95 72.25 m KUEHN-THOMAS KUEHN-THOMAS KUEHN-THOMAS KUEHN-THOMAS MILEAGE FEB MILEAGE FEB MILEAGE FEB MILEAGE FEB 01-4381-039-12 01-4381-069-15 01-4381-174-33 73-4381-569-92 070402 • 03/05/91 7.293.25 7.293.25• LAKEMTKA CONS 0I5T 1ST QTR 01-4380-020-11 070404 03/05/91 46 14 THE LAKER ADS 01-4323-039-12 i (• 03-11-91 PAGE •••-CKS -CKS -CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS • • • .CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS • • ■-CKS 1901 CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTER CHECK NO DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO IN\ 070404 03/05/91 35 62 THE LAKER ADS 01-4323-249-42 070404 03/05/91 54 80 THE LAKER ADS 01-4323-249-42 136 56 • 070421 03/09/91 2.754 00 LHCIT NO STAR RISK 1991 AUTO INS 01-4374-129-31 070421 03/05/91 350 00 LMCIT NO STAR RISK 1991 AUTO INS 01-4374-185-35 070421 03/05/91 SOI 00 LMCIT NO STAR RISK 1991 AUTO INS 01-4374-249-42 070421 03/05/31 25 00-LMCIT NO STAR RISK 1990 ENDORSEMENT 18 74-2040-000-00 3.580 00 • 070437 03/05/91 18 60 CITY OF LONG LAKE JAN FLASHER 01-4325-249-42 070437 03/05/91 69 50 CITY OF LONG LAKE JAN LIFT 73-4344-569-92 89 10 • 070498 03/05/91 9 68 MA8USTH-JEANNE MTG 01-4356-174-33 070490 03/05/91 8 85 MABUSTH-JEANNE MTG 01-4356-174-33 18 S3 • 070477 03/05/91 12 35 MIDWEST BSNS PROD GAVEL 01-4210-020-11 070477 03/05/91 187 20 MIDWEST BSNS PROD 3 HOLE PUNCHS 01-4210-020-11 070477 03/05/91 44 25 MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-039-12 070477 03/05/91 13 05 MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-059-14 070477 03/09/91 13.05 MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-069-15 070477 03/09/91 13.04 MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-129-31 070477 03/05/91 13 04 MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-174-33 070477 03/05/91 13 OS MIDWEST BSNS PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4210-249-42 309 03 • 070498 03/05/91 127 05 MN CELLULAR TELE TELEPHONE 01-4320-129-31 070491 03/09/91 8.39 MN CELLULAR TELE TELEPHONE 01-4320-249-42 135 44 • 070934 03/05/91 570 80 MOTOROLA INC CONVERT LOADER 14-4560-633-00 570 80 • 070949 03/05/91 322 SO NAVARRE AUTO REPAIR TRUCK REPAIR 01-4341-174-33 322 50 • 070962 03/05/91 253 .68 NSP UTILITIES 01-4324-099-17 03-11-91 PAGE 4 • P 0 i MESSAGE • ••-CKS •••-CKS • * •-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS Man -CKS •••-CKS I 1981 CITY OF OKONO CHECK NO. DATE 070S92 070562 070562 070562 070562 070562 070562 070562 070512 070562 070562 CHECK REGISTER 070565 070574 070592 H • ft A A 070597 070601 070621 070621 070621 070621 070621 070621 070621 070621 , 070621 ’ 070621 070631 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 AMOUNT 1.213 462294 420 1.177 756 3781.155 176 264 6.296 VENDOR 00 00 00 32 16 00 00 00 40 60 48 • PHYSICIANS PHYSICIANS PHYSICIANS PHYSICIANS PHYSICIANS PHYSICIANS PHYSICIANS PHYSICIANS PHYSICIANS PHYSICIANS HEALTH HEALTH HEALTH HEALTH HEALTH HEALTH HEALTH health HEALTH HEALTH HEM DESCRIPTION 03/05/91 106.41 NSP UTILITIES 03/05/91 178.51 NSP UTLITIES 03/05/91 136.99 NSP UTLITIES 03/05/91 13.37 NSP UTLITIES 03/05/91 1.12 NSP UTILITIES 03/05/91 14.81 NSP UTLITIES 03/05/91 117 92 NSP UTLITIES 03/05/91 73.03 NSP UTILITIES 03/05/91 459.54 NSP UTILITIES 03/05/91 40.45 NSP UTILITIES 03/05/91 8.96 1.404.86 6 NSP UTILITIES 03/05/91 1.072 93 1.072 93 6 NSP ST LIGHTS 03/05/91 590 00 590.00 6 OFFICE PROD OF MN MAINT IBM EQUIP 03/05/91 32.50 32.50 6 OMAN/LVLE MILEAGE 03/05/91 4,250.58 4,250.58 6 PUBLIC EMPL RET ASSN PERA 2/4-2/17 03/05/91 300.00 300.00 6 PANNELL KERR FORSTER AUDIT PYMT 2 MAR INS MAR INS MAR INS MAR INS MAR INS MAR INS MAR INS MAR INS MAR INS MAR INS ACCOUNT NO INV 01-4324 01-4324 01-4324 01-4324 01-4324 72- 4324 73- 4324 73-4324 73- 4324 74- 4324 74-4324 099-17 129-31 249-42 290-61 290-61 549-91 569-92 569-92 569-92 590-93 590-93 01-4325-249-42 01-4340-129-31 01-4381-174-33 01-2031-000-00 01-1299-000-00 01-3872 01-4151 01-4151 01-4151 01-4151 01-4151 01-4151 01-4151 72- 4151 73- 4151 000-00 069-15 121-31 126-31 129-31 139-12 174-33 249-42 549-91 569-92 03-11-91 PAGE 5 f P O » MESSAGE -CKS ••*-CKS 6 6 6 -CKS •••-CKS • •• -CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS 3,390.00 POLKA DOT RECYCLING FEB RECYLING 01-4392-295-65 mi CITY Of OtONO CHECK REGISTER CHECK NO . DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NO IN\ 3.390 00 070938 03/05/01 457 20 457 20 9 PRAIRIE OFFSET PO/INVOICES 01-4322-069-15 07097S 03/05/91 1,830 24 1,830 24 m ROLLINS OIL CO GASOLINE 01-1260-000-00 0706tS 03/05/91 500 00 500 00 a LAURIE K SCHEFFLER FEB MTGS 01-4306-039-12 070690 03/05/91 48 00 48 00 a SHOREWOOO OIL BURNER REPAIR FURNANCE 74-4343-S90-93 070606 03/05/91 2.777 50 2.777 50 a SR CMNTV SERVICES 1ST OTR SR CT2 01-4385-100-21 070740 03/05/91 261.00 261.00 a STREICHERS AMO 01-4241-12C-31 0707S1 0707S1 03/05/91 03/05/91 407 70 282.60 690.30 a SUNDIAL BLDG SERVICf SUNDIAL BLDG SERVICE FEB CLEANING FEB CLEANING 01-4349-099-17 01-4349-129-31 0707S3 0707S2 03/05/91 03/05/91 234 84 55 00< 179 84 a SUBURBAN TIRE INC SUBURBAN TIRE INC TIRES CR LOADER 01-4341-174-33 01-4342-249-42 03-11-Sl PAGE 6 070771 03/05/91 118 80 118 80 • TOLL CO RODS 01-4232- . --42 •••-CKS •••-CKS 81 0 a •CKS a 0 a -CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS •■•-CKS •••-CKS ■■ .070776 03/05/91 408 48 TRACY OIL CO DIESEL 74-4220-590-93 ’’ •• •401.48 • ■3 fc •••-CKS ' ( \ 1 070763 03/05/91 6.24 8 24 • TOMCHECK LARRY MILEAGE 01-4381-129-31 %■••-CKS E.y ■*" .• EI ( IMl CITY OF MONO CHECK NO. DATE 070100 070115 070115 070115 070115 070515 070115 070515 070515 070515 070515 070515 070515 070525 070525 ii 070535 070544 070545 070551 070575 070501 070002 03/05/01 03/05/81 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 03/05/91 AMOUNT 105 00 105 00 79 79 39 364 St 79 59 79 11 27 71 125 1,015 61 61 63 57 63 66 45 66 95 66 96 11 32 • 215 03 453 60 666.63 42 00 42 00 * 655 00 655 00 • 6 76 6 76 • 1,600 00 1.600 00 ■ 6 40 8 40 * 250 60 250.60 • 150.00 CHECK REGISTER VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIVERSIT F MINN WALDOR PUMP WALDOR PUMP WARNING LITES OF MN WAVZATA BAY CAR WASH WECKMAN STEPHEN W HENNEPIN HUMAN SER WRIGHT HENN ELECTRIC CHARLES BODY SHOP MCOPA MCFOA CONF MACHINE COSTS IMPELLER FLASHER CAR WASH TICKETS mileage CONTRIBUTION UTILITIES REPLACE GRILLE MEMBERSHIPS ACCOUNT NO INV 01-4356-039*12 US WEST COMMUN TELEPHONE 01-4320-039-12USWESTCOMMONTELEPHONE01-4320-058-14USWESTCOMMUNTELEPHONE01-4320-069-15USWESTCOPMUNTELEPHONE01-4320-129-31USWESTCOMMUNTELEPHONE01-4320-129-31USWESTCOMMUNTELEPHONE01-4320-174-33USWESTCOMMUNTELEPHONE01-4320-175-34USWESTCOMMUNTELEPHONE01-4320-249-42USWESTCOMMUNTELEPHONE72-4320-549-91USWESTCOMMUNTELEPHONE73-4320-569-92USWESTCOMMUNTELEPHONE74-4320-590-93USWESTCOMMUNADV74-4323-590-93 73-4344-569-92 73-4344-569-92 01-4331-249-42 01-4341-129-31 01-4381-174-33 01-4385-100-21 01-4324-249-42 01-4341-129-31 01-4380-129-31 03-11-91 PAGE 7 • P 0 • MESSAGE •••-CKS **•-CKS •••-CKS « • A -CKS • •• -CKS •••-CKS •••-CKS 1S61 CITY OF ORONO CHECK REGISTER CHECK NO DATE AMOUNT VENDOR ITEM DESCRIPTION 150 00 H 070603 03/05/91 5,225 00 RICHMAR CONST PUMPHOUSE i3 PYMNT 5,225 00 « 070604 03/05/91 45 48 SWENSONS PAINT 45 48 07060S 03/05/91 75 00 CRAGUNS CONF CNTR CONF BERNHARDSON 75 00 m 070600 03/05/91 131 00 JOHN MERIDETH REFUND FEE 131 00 m 070607 03/05/91 145 00 JUDGE R AMUNDSON REFUND FEE 145 00 m 070606 03/05/91 4,230 05 PERA PERA 2/18-3/3 4,230 05 A 59,772 64 570 to no 00 5,760 53 1,808 11 763 87 68,785 95 FUND Cl FUND 14 FUND FUND FUND FUND TOTAL 44 72 73 74 TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL 03-11-91 PAGE 8 ACCOUNT NO INV • P 0 8 MESSAGE 72-4531-437-85 72-4231-549-91 01-4356-039-12 01-3502-000-00 01-3502-000-00 01-2031-000-00 GENERAL FUND IMPROVE 4 EQUIP OUTLAY F 1982 IMP BONO 0/S FUND WATER OPERATING FUND SEWER OPERATING FUND GOLF COURSE OPERATING FO •**-CKS .....r I V* //• r 1 NIPMH council meeting War 1 1 J99I C'TYoforono \ . LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA Regular Mee'ng, 7:30 PM, Wednesday, February 27, 1991 Tonka Bay City Hall 4901 Manitou Road (County Road 19) 7:00 PM PUBLIC HEARINGS:1. The Harborage Variance for dock use area adjustment or for a setback variance 2. Bowers Variance to adjust dock use areas, setbacks and length 7:30 PM REGULAR MEETING: LMCD Board of Directors 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Reading of Minutes: 1/23/91 4. Public Coanents - from persons in attendance not on agenda 5. Vice Chair Report, Foster A. "Save the Lake" annual recognition dinner February 21 B. Additional announcements 6. A. CoMittee Reports EURASIAN WATER MILFOIL TASK FORCE, Chair Reese 1) Approve bid on barging/trucking contract for weed control program 2) Approve proposed 1991 EWM harvesting budget with provision for shortened schedule dep-jnding on outcome of projected revenue 3) Approve reconsnendation for project manager position 4) Approve concept of lakeshore weed pickup for disposal on LMCD barge, subject to final agreement between participants “ LMCD, barge contractor, and private operators 5) Approve endorsement, bill for act re: funding for exotic plants, organisms 6) Additional business recotwnended by the committee B. HATOR STRUCTURES, Chair Grathwol 1) Approve minutes, meeting of 2/9/91 2) Approve Order for David Thomas Development, Bayshore II Homeowners Association, Inc. 3) Approve Resolution for Residential Temporary Dork Extensions without a Permit, adding new paragraph 2 4) Approve 1991 Multiple Dock and District Mooring Area License renewal applications 5) Approve Declaration of 1991 as a low water year 6) Approve $100 refund to William Schritter for deposit on permanent dock application 7) Approve Subcomnittee to study Wetlands on Lake Minnetonka, Ll LAKE MlNNETCrmA CONSERVATICrj DISTRICT Board Agenda 2/27/91 8) Approve new deicing permit for City of Grectu»o^ 1. receipt ol fees pending city council approval March 5 9) Additional business a) City of Greenwood appeal to DNR dredging permit extension for Channel Drive HOA, St. Albans Bay b) Update on legal action with Gayle s “'"arina regarding improper storage of watercraft c) Other business recommended by the Committee C. ADVISORY, Chair Rascop 1) Review progress on Metropolitan Council staff report to resolve the Met Council staff findings and recommendations of Met Council Systems Committee as adopted 1/22/91 2) Report on meetings and exchatiges with L.MCD cities regarding their dissenting resolution of 12,6/90 3) Review MN DNR response to property redevelopment as it relates to Shoreiand Rules adoption 4) Approve Shoreiand Grant Agreement as amended and distributed to LMCD Cities and Board 12/27/90 including the addition of the Technical Review Conmittee recommended at the joint city/DNR/LMCD Shoreiand Rules meeting of 12/10/90 5) Approve Resolution specifying the Procedure to be Followed in Amending the LMCD Long Term Management Program 6) Additional business recommended by the cc-nmittee D. LAKE USE COMMITTEE, Chair Pillsbury 1) Approve minutes, meeting of 2/25/91 2) Approve Resolution establishing fees tor Adding a Port of Call to a liquor li'ense renewal application per Section 5.44, Subd. 4 3) Review revised draft of MN DNR Bill for an Act regarding personal watercraft - informational or as recommended by committee 2/25/91 4) Approve amendment to Resolution 59, Policy on Open Water Fishing Contest permits 5) Approve amendment to Resolution 54, Establishing Liquor License Fees, adjusting fee for a preliminary investigation for new, on*sale wine license appl i c.it ions 6) Approve Hennepin County Sheriff s Water Patrol 1991 annual operating agreement 7) Approve Special Event License deposit refunds, $100 each: a) Lafayette Club Winter Event 2/3/91 b) Excelsior Chamber of Commerce - cancelled event 2/8/91 8) Water Patrol Report 9) Additional business recommended by the Committee B. FINANCIAL REPORTS, Treasurer Boswinkel 1) $.*..itement of Cash Transactions, month ending 1/31/91 2) Audit <:f Vouchers for Payment P. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, Strommen 1) Administrative progress 7. Unfinishsd Business 8. New Business 9. Adjournnienc LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Board of Directors Regular Meeting, Wednesday, January 23, 1991 Tonka Bay City Ball 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Cochran at 7:40 p.m. Chair 2. Oath of Office. Charles LeFevere administered the oath of office to David Bartos (Victoria) and Scott Carlson (Minnetrista). Bartos and Carlson were seated as Board members and welcomed by the Board. 3. Roll Call Members Present: Bert Foster, Vice Chair, Deephaven; Grathwol, Excelsior: David Cochran, Chair, Greenwood; Pillabury, Minnetonka; Scott Carlson, Minnetrista; Thomas Mound; David Bartos, Victoria; Thomas Martinson, Wayzata. present: 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; Burr, 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 Comments: 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 in 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. He 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 of the Management Plan. Cochran noted the new appointee, Brian Burdick, was noted in Greenwood’s Council minutes as to be appointed as of September 1. Cochran's term actually runs through the 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 Directors January 23. 1991 over-ail 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 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 reacn the middle ground with the 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 notion, Grathwol the second. 6.A. "Save the L2ike” Annual Recognition 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 Sando, has been invited to speak. (He has subsequently accepted.) Two film clips illustrating winter lake ice hazards will be shown by the Water 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, but the consensus was to stay with the original schedule. 6. C. Employee Performance Review Cochran reported the officers and committee chairs are proceeding with employee performance reviews. Board members were invited to pass any performance observations along to an ottice . 7. Conuftittee Reports Management Program to 7.A. ADVISORY, Chair Rascop 7.A.1) Presentation of Long Term Metropolitan Council Systems Coounittee The Board received the Metropolitan Council staff report, :^rRec™d^tui, L adopted b,- tha Metropolitan Spatana Committee (MSC) at its 1/22/91 meeting were also received. Cochran updated the board on two MSC meetings January. The first on 1/8. included Arndorfer, Hurr, Stronune.. - continued LMCD Board of Directors January 23, 1991 and Cochran. Wayzata. Orono. Spring Park and Greenwood representatives presented objections based upon the resolution drafted 12/6 and subsequently signed by eight cities. Woodland's jijiiyop spolce in support of the plan. Cochran s address to the MSC appeared to be favorably received based upon questions from the coninittee members. The second MSC meeting held 1/22 was attended by Cochran and Foster. Cochran re-stated the Board’s p<_.,ition. The MSC requested a time extension of six months for its comment review purpose. Cochran offered to present the request to the LMCD Board. , , , .eA major item cited in the MSC staff report was the lack ot 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 from the statutory sixty days 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. Mot 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 LMCD. Grathwol reconsidered his second for a six month extension to the Met Council recommending sixty days instead. Martinson proposed that the board allow up to six months extension to the Met Council comment period. Foster sees the purpose of the time extension to get most or all of the cities on board with the Management Plan. . . j LaFevere reviewed the Met Council’s authority in this regard to be:- continued L.. r 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 effect of approval: LaFevere 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 disagrees, 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 amend their earlier motion to reflect the yO-day delay and staff assistance offer by the Metropolitan Council. The motion carried unanimously. 7.A.2) Update, Meetings with Cities Resolution, Shoreland Rules. on Management Plan Cochran, Grathwol, Arndorfer, 3teve Prestin and the executive director met January 10 with Spring Park’s mayor, planner, attorney and clerk. A Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Shoreland 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 concerns 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 with City of Orono admiiiistrator and two council members was not conclusive. Orono still insists it will vork independently with DNR on the 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 1/22/31 Systems Committee meeting. LMCD Board of Directors January 23» 1991 7.A.3) Prr .ress on 1908-89 Recreational Monitoring Report TKe amended copy of the Recreational Monitoring Reportt a draft of which was provided Board members December 5, will be 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.A.4) Management Program Provision for Future Amendments A draft of a procedure for amending the Management Program was 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. This 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 a change is controversial and involves much consensus building a more elaborate procedure could be provided for. Foster moved, Martinson seconded, to refer the memorandum to the Advisory Committee. The motion carried unanimously. 7.B. WATER STRUCTURES. Chair Grathwoi 7.B.1) Approval of Minutes Grathwoi 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 Grathwoi moved, Foster seconded, to approve Option 4 of Attorney LeFevere's 1-2-91 letter authorizing 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) LMCD Code Proposed Amendment to Sec. 2.11 Regarding {Conversion of Use of Multiple Docks Grathwoi moved, Foster seconded, the first reading of a proposed amendment to Sec. 2.11, Conversion of Use, adding Subd. 5, Determination of Status. Grathwoi explained that this provides a uniform way of handling conversions of use as it applies to ixcelsior Bay Associates and Chapman Place, which have technical v**oblems with their applications. RecS'j inquired 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 LMCO 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 anenities. There being no further discussion, the motion carried. 7.B.4) Citjr of Deephavea Request Withdrawn 7.B.5) Amendment to Temporary Low Water Variance Application Form Grathwol moved, Reese seconded, approval of the changes to the Temporary Low Water Variance for temporary dock extension application form as recommended by the staff. Motion carried unanimously. Carlson questioned if applicants are referred to cities, such as Minnetrista, for theii dock permit requirements. He was assured that applicants are advised that they must check with the Piunicipality 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, approval of the following refunds: * Minnetonka Boat Works (Wayzata), 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) Deicing Applications Grathwol moved, Foster seconded, approval of the following deicing permits: * Renewals for Clay Cliffe and Dennis Carlson * Now Ownership for Minnetonka Marina and Yacht Club (formerly Smith’s Bay Marina St Yacht Club) Motion carried unanimously. 7.B.8) Complaint re Name Similarity Cochran reported calls from the Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club and the Minnetonka Yacht Club about the similarity of the Minnetonka Marina and Yacht Club name. LoFevere advised that it would 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 Jeven requests for the speci- will be prepared. Grathwol expressed concern for the outcome of the EWM budget considering the funding problems and prospective higher barging coats. 7.C.2) Report on MM 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 with many outstate people. Thirty-three lakes have EWM. The .-ieeting 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. ihe group will meet on a continuing basis as there is ongoing education. Reese suggested the best place to start is in the schools. 7 C.3) Project Manager. An advertisement has been placed for a project manager to replace Norm Paurus. There has been one 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.6) Other Foster reported a digitized map on a University of 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 D fisheries personnel that EWM is a totally bad thing. 7.D. LAKE USB, Chair Pillsbury 7.0. 1) Approval of Minutes. Pillsbury moved, Grathwol seconded, to approve the minutes of the 1-14-91 meeting as submitted. Motion carried unanimously. 7.0. 2) 1991 Hennepin County’s Lake Services and Projects Program Pillsbury reported the proposed budget for Minnetonka improvements of $174,000 reported by Hennepin County Lake Improvement Section, to the Lake use Committee has since been reduced to $124,000. Adjustments i have to be made in the program. LMCD Board of Directors January 23. 1991 7.D.3) Navigational Buoy Programs Foster objected to the Lake Use Committee recommendation to continue the "danger" buoy placement in lieu of channel navigation buoys, to mark channels of 2-1/2’ 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 be misleading, even with the danger buoys. County legal counsel recommends danger buoys to protect boats from damage. Carlson suggested using the newspapers to publicize the purpose of the danger buoys marking the channels. Cochran moved, Grathwol seconded, to continue the danger buoy, alow 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 ^"24- 90 stipulation placed on the Holiday-Johnson Crappie Contest requiring map distribution, replacing it with a requirement that their newspaper advt: *isements 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 announce a the 2-21-91 Save the Lake dinner. 7.D.6) Hater Patrol Report Sgt. Chandler reported there have been nineteen ice emergencies in the County. In the past ten days. two more 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 sP®ciai deputies and seven have entered the program for ® °ne year training, for a total of forty-five personnel Patrol time, licensed deputy has been assigned to the Water Patrol, 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 still recuperating. 8 LMCD Board of Diroctors 7.E. FINANCIAL REPORTS January 23. 1991 The 8'La'fcoBien't of cash transactions for the month ending 12”31“90 was received and ordered filed. K.2) Audit of Vouchers for Payment Cochran moved, Martinson seconded, approval of Checks No. 6614 through 6706 in the amount of $38,705.97. Motion carried unanimously. , ^ ^ ^ ^ ^4:Reese questioned if using the District truck for staff transportation in lieu of paying mileage would be a savings to the District. u u uGrathwol noted the newspaper publication costs are high. Me suggested checking with other pubiication-s for fee schedules. 7.B.3) United Marine International Offer to Settle 1990 Warranty ciaim Reese reported UMI has made the following offer to settle the 1990 warranty claim for hydraulic problems on UMI Aquatic Heed 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 authorise staff to prepare an appropriate application for the 1992-rfl funding cycle fro™ the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources before the z-io-»i 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 LMCD Board of Directors January 23, 1991 David Cochran, Chair Douglas Babcock, Secretary LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Action Report:Water Structures and Dock Committee Meeting:Saturday, February 9, 1991, 7:30 a.m. Wayzata Norwest Bank Building Community Room Members Chair, Mound; Bartos, Charles Present: Bert Foster, Deephaven; James Grathwol, Excelsior; Robert Pillsbury, Minnetonka; Thomas Reese, JoEllen Hurr, Orono; Marvin Bjorlin. Tonka Bay; Dave Victoria; Robert Slocum, Woodland. Also present: LeFevere, Counsel; Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Eugene Strommen, Executive Director. 1. David Thomas Bayshore II LeFevere reviewed the Bayshore II license Order and covenants, easement conditions and restrictions. He said the documents, in their present form, are acceptable as the lakeshore lota give up all their docking rights to the homeowners’ association. David Thomas, and Tuck Thomas. developers, and Dennis Trooien, Attorney representing the developers, were present. Trooien indicated they had assumed the original documents they submitted were acceptable when they received the DNR approval. It is their belief the current documents satisfy the LMCD requirements. Reese asked for an explanation of how this differs "funnel" lots. The Executive Director explained that in case there is 305’ of shoreland. Under the LMCD code of shoreland density eight slip*^ are allowed. Five slips will bo allowed on the comir.on dock for the off-shore properties and three yip^yi^n lots will be allowed one slip each. All dockage will be under the control of the Homeowners’ Association through an 0 easement on the shoreline. In response to a question from Hurr, Trooien said each property owner will sign off on the covenants. Bartos moved, Bjorlin seconded, to recommend approval of the covenants on Bayshore II subject to LeFevere’s detailed review of the documents presented 2/9, confirm.ing that they meet LMCD requirements. Motion carried unanimously. from this 1:50’ 2. Variance Background - Jeannie Bowers, Greenwood A Public Hearing will bo held on 2-27-91 to consider the request of Jeannie Bowers, 21600 Fairview Street, Greenwood, for an adjusted lot line extension and/or setback and length variance due to converging lot lines. The committee received a memo from the Executive Director, dated 2-6-91, detailing the facts leading up to the application. The Executive Director asked questions on the facts, requesting the Committee defer discussion of the application merits to the Public Hearing. Additional Comments: It is not known how Bowers' neighbors will react if there are Dock Use Area adjustments along the shore to accommodate Bowers low water access. - continued Ha'ter Structures and Environment Committee February 9, 1991 Pillsbury noted that LMCD has encountered similar situations. Staff is to review a Libbs Lake and a Deephaven case mentioned by Pillsbury for the Board's information. The committee asked for the Code reference which allows LMCD to make Dock Use Area adjustments. (See Sec. 1.07, Subd. 1, 2, 7.) Information should be obtained as to how many boats Bowers will dock. Strommen noted this point will be established at the Public Hearing. The docks involv ' are all temporary docks. 3. Variance Backgrr The Harborage The Harborage has requested a variance to their dock license to adjust their dock use area, or for a side set back variance. A Public Hearing will be held on 2-27-91 to consider the request. Thibault presented visuals of the changes in The Harborage dock configuration since 1987. A ff fact memo dated 2-4-91 included LeFevere’s suggestions: To allow a side setback variance or 2) increase the dock use area by adjusting the eastern property line to be perpendicular to the shore. He prefers the first option. There were comments about The Harborage ignoring previous requests that they either bring their dock configuration in compliance with their site plan approved with their Order or apply for a variance. 4. Proposed Code Amendment to 2.11 Conversion of Use Grathwol reported on the first reading of the proposed amendment at the Board meeting on 1-23-91. Grathwol explained the effect on the Excelsior Bay Associates and Chapman Place dock licenses. Excelsior Bay Associates has not made any change :a what was originally intended. A conversion appears to ^ t because of a transfer of ownership in the docks from ne independent owner to the condominium’s homeowners association. The City of Excelsior originally stated it will not grant permission for public access to the docks. The Excelsior ay Associates permit was granted before the current conversion of use Ordinance was adopted. The Chapman Place docks involve a change in operating management, with more influence and control eing exerted by the condominium owners. Chapman Place was licensed after conversion of use ordinance adoption. Grathwol said this code amendment does not solve the status of the Excelsior Bay Associates and Chapman Place docks but does set up a procedure for appealing to the Board any determination as to conversion of use identified by the Executive Director. Hurr objected to the Executive Director determining a status without the Board’s knowledge. Foster expressed concern about adopting the ordinance without setting out detailed procedures. - continued Wa-uer Structures and Environment Committee February 9, 1991 Foster moved, Pillsbury seconded, to leconunend approval of Grathwol’a appointment of a sub-committee consisting of Cochran, Rascop and Grathwol to recommend a solution to the Excelsior Bay Associates and Chapman Place compliance with dock license orders with LeFevere. Motion carried unanimously. Foster moved, Hurr seconded, to recommend tabling the second reading of the proposed Code amendment. Motion carried, Reese voting nay. 5. Wetland Inventory Progress Update •phibault reported she had met with Charles Melony to identify wetland inlets, using thj aerial maps. They located a few which will be added to the inventory. Input from Board members will be appreciated. , . c- Thibault has visited the University of Minnesota torest Resourras, Water Quality Division. which has the GIS computerized mapping of Lake Minnetonka using overlays for various identifications. Adding wetlands as an overl ly would be possible. The Division is presently still addin,-: the Eurasian Hater Milfoil infestation data. It was agreed to investigate the cost of mapping the wetlands. Hurr commented that cooperation with the University of Minnesota is a public relations plus. 6. Multiple Dock Length Study Thibault submitted a summary of multiple dock lengths. The lengths are based on the Ordinary High Water Line placement. The lengths are taken from the applications and have been verified by annual inspections. Hurr suggested the need for registered surveys rather than scale drawings. The high cost of repstered surveys and use of seasonal docks making the dock placement somewhat variable each year were cited as making registered surveys a cost burden. mn»It was further explained docks a»e to be no longer than 100 except where a variance has been granted. per Sec. 2.03 and bee. 1.07, to extend a dock to a maximu of 200’. An additional 2b may be allowt'^ for a gas dock extensi n. 7. Residential Temporary Low Hater Extension Policy Review The committee received a re-draft of a Resolution Regarding Residential Temporary Dock Extensions Without a Permit ^***^^^Thibault reported receipt of a phone call from Jeff Fox, Serv-A-Dock, questioning the navigational water depth of three feet in this extension policy. He feels 45" would "*°5u realistic. He also thinks there should be a dock length limitation. , ^ ^Bjorlin moved, Foster seconded, to recommend appro.al ot tne Resolution as submitted with the addition of a clause encouraging neighbors to go together to share docks during a low water period. Motion carried unanimously. Wa'ter Structures and Environment Committee February 9, 1991 8A. Hultiple Dock and DMA License Renewals The committee received the list of dock licensees requesting renewals for 1991. including orders, stipulations, etc. Village certificates have been received or time has expired for responses. Hurr moved, Foster seconded, to recommend approval of the following: * Twenty-nine renewals without change (No history of temporary extensions) * Renewals with Minor Changes: Grandview Point Association, Carsons Bay Back License 1990 from : 5 BSU, 9 WSU To: 0 BSU, 11.5 WSU Renew.”^! for 1991: 8 BSU. 11.5 WSU Rossberg, A. F., South Upper Lake (Formerly Adeline Johnston) New Owner * Multiple Dock License Renewal.^ Without Change With Temporary Dock Extension Renewals - No Oiange Chimo Association,Carsons Bay - 50’ extension, total length 147’ Herzog Acres Association, Wayzata Bay - 22' extension, total length 110' Libbs Bay Boat Club, Liobs Lake - 12’ extension, total length 147' Motion carried unanimously. The committee discussed the Minnetonka Yacht Club request for a 40’ extension at their Carson Bay facility. It would provide a temporary dock for rigging the sailboats buoyed at Carson Bay. the normal dock location for this purpose being too shallow. It would not interfere with navigation. Foster moved, Pillsbury seconded, to recommend approval of the multiple dock license renewal without change with temporary dock oxte^»a:<'n renewal - no change: Minnetonka Yacht Club/Lake Minnetonka Sailing School - 40' extension, total length 76’ Site 1 - 10’ extension, total length 10' Site 3 Motion carried unanimously. Bjorlin moved, Pillsbury seconded, to recommend approval the following temporary dock extensions with changes: Baycliffe Property Owners Association, South Upper Lake - New dock layout Boulder Bridge Homeowners Association, South Upper Lake - Increase from 124' to 144’ Gideons Point Homeowners Association, Gideons Bay ~ Decrease from 160’ to 160' Methodist Lakeside Assembly, Wayzata Bay ** Increase from 104' to 264' Minnetonka Power Squadron, Big Island Passage - New Site Plan Smithtown Bay Association, Smithtown Bay — Decrease from 190' to 160' - continued of flayer Struct;ures aud Environment Committee February 9, 1991 Thibault showed visuals of the layouts. There were questions about the Methodist Lakeside Assembly dock length increase. Slocum pointed out that the dock is located well away from boat traffic. Motion carried unanimously. Foster moved, Pillsbury seconded, recommended approval of the following District Mooring Area renewal applications for 1991: City of Deephaven City of Excelsior Methodist Lakeside Assembly Minnetonka Yacht Club The committee requested a scale drawing be included with the Methodist Lakeside Assembly application for a temporary DMA extension showing the mooring area distance from the requested dock extension. Motion carried unanimously. SB. Declaration of Low Hater Foster moved, Pillsbury seconded, to recommend declaring 1991 a low water year (below 928.0). Motion carried unanimously. There was no action on whether to use 3’ or 4-1/2’ for a navigable depth for temporary dock extensions. 9. Deposit Refund BJorlin moved, Pillsbury seconded, to recommend approval of a $100 refund to William Schritter for a permanent dock application. Motion carried unanimously. 10. Wetland Sub-Committee Qrathwol suggested forming a sub-committee to work on wetlands, reviewing related ordinances. Hurr moved, Reese seconded, to recommend approval of a sub­ committee consisting of Babcock (Chair), Hurr, Reese and Carlson to work with the wetland inventory. Motion carried unanimously. Foster suggested the Board members accompany Thibault on a viewing of wetlands in their respective community shoreland. 11. Boat Definition Bjorlin was given information on the location of canoe racks and was advised a boat of less than 16’ and 10 hp is not a countable boat. 12. LCMR Funding The Executive Director submitted the LCMR invitation tor natural resource project ideas. He submitted four suggestions and the following were added by the committee: - continued Harvesting management for EWM control; Investigate innovative ways to increase harvesting productivity: Analysis of the impact on fishing by the infestation of EWM. ENVIRONMENT 1. Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force, Chair Reese lA. Bid Results for Barging/Trucking Contracts Reese reported one bid was received for barging and trucking the harvested weeds, according to the approved specifications. Reese moved, Foster seconded, to recommend approval of the bid of Minnetonka Portable Dredging to provide barge service at $28S.OO per hour and truck service at $42.50 per hour. Motion carried unanimously. 1.B. Budget Update Reese submitted a 1991 budget proposal reflecting the anticipated coats using the barge off-load compared with the 1990 actual and what the costs would be for 1991 if the shore off-load ff0re used. The total cost is budgeted at $264,500 for the barge off-load compared with $207,730 for the shore off-load. The amount of EWM to be harvested was suggested by Reese to increase at least two-fold using the barge off-load, thereby reducing the cost per ton cut. Reese reported the following projected income for 1991 to off-set the costi From the Cities MN DNR Hennepin County Private Funding _._ _ Total funds from the county are not confirmed and are in $21,000 is in from the private solicitation to date, $27,000 total including Save the Lake designated funds. Reese said Congressman Jim Ramstad has offered to follow up on the Corps of Engineer application for funds. The doubt. $63,000 30.000 65.000 75.000 $253,000 l.C. Applicants for Project Manager Position Reese reported there are two applicants for the Project Manager position. One has been interviewed and the other interviewed before the Board meeting. A recommendation will be forwarded to the Board. ’• l.D. Lakeshore Pick Up Program Reese said there is no legal bar to the with a private operator to pick up EWM from beaches and disposing of the weeds on the _ , oi summarised the contractual considerations in a memo dated 1-2Z-91. -continued LMCD contracting private property barge. LeFevere ^1. ffa'tar Structures and Environment Committee February 9t 1991 Foster said he would encourage private weed harvesters using the LMCD barge to off-load their weeds. The Executive Director said he has talked to Dave Gustafson, Lake Minnetonka Lakeshore Owners Association. He has an interested prospect for shore weed pick up. The Executive Director cautioned about developing a weed off-load to the barge program which would interfere with the LMCD operation. Hurr said she believes there should be a charge for off-loading to the barge. - ,Reese moved, Foster seconded, to pursue a concept of shore pick yp Qf private weeds for disposal in the LMCD barge, the LMCD working ifi-fcb private entrepreneurs. Motion carried, Hurr voting nay. Adjou There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:55 a.m. ICR THE COMMITTEE: Strommeny Executive Director James N. Grathwol, Chair LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT FEBRUARY 6» 1991 to:C COMMITTEE FROM: STAFF SUBJECT: 1991 DOCK AND DMA LICENSES THE FOLLOWING DOCK LICENSEES ARE REQUESTING RENEWALS FOR 1991. IHCLUDING ORDERS, STIPUUTIONS, ETC. VILLAGE CERTIFICATES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED OR TIME HAS EXPIRED FOR RESPONSES. A. RENEWALS WITHOUT CHANGE (NO HISTORY OF TEMPORARY EXTENSIONS) BAYSHORE MANOR CONDOMINIUM ASSN., EXCELSIOR BAY CARDINAL COVE BEACH ASSN., COOKS BAY CRYSTAL BAY SERVICE, CRYSTAL BAY CURLY'S MINNETONKA MARINA, INC., LOWER LAKE SOUTH DRIFTWOOD SHORES ASSN. HARRISONS BAY GRAY'S LANDING HOMEOWNERS ASSN. GRAYS BAY HARRISON HARBOR TWINHOME ASSN.. HARRISONS BAY HENNEPIN COUNTY. SPRING PARK BAY HOWARD'S POINT MARINA. INC., SOUTH UPPEP LAKE LAKBSHORE VILLAGE APTS., BLACK LAKE LORD FLETCHERS OF THE LAKE. COFFEE COVE MAPLE CREST ESTATES. JENNINGS BAY MBADOWBROOK BOAT CLUB. GRAYS & LIBBS LAKE MINNETONKA BEACH, CITY OF. EAST CRYSTAL BAY. LAFAYETTE BAY & LOWER LAKE NORTH NAVARRE COVE HOMEOWNERS ASSN.. CARMANS BAY NBSLUND, RIOtARD, WAYZATA BAY RDP PARTNERS/UPPER LAKE MTKA YACHT CLUB, SPRING PARK BAY RIDGEWOOD COVE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSN., JENNINGS BAY SCHMITT MARINA. EXCELSIOR BAY SEAHORSE CONDO ASSOC., JENNINGS BAY SETON TWINHOMES. SETON LAKE SBTON VIEW. SETON LAKE SETON VILLAGE ASSN., WEST ARM TONKA BAY. CITY OF. LOWER LAKE SOUTH VICTORIA ESTATES. NORTH ARM WALDEN TRACT X OWNERS ASSN., ST. LOUIS BAY WALTER'S PORT IMPROVEMENT & MAINTENANCE ASSN., CARMANS BAY WAYZATA, CITY OP, WAYZATA BAY WILLOW WOODS CORP.. GIDEONS BAY 1/ / LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT February 21, 1991 900tAST *Af^ATABCV.UV*HO SWT ISO WAtrATA MINNCSO'A SM9» fFU»»ONf Sl7 «n fOM eUGENE ft. SnSOHHCN. EXECUfvt D>of CTO« 0.0^ WW«kiFE3 2 6 1 Mr. Jim Rivers, Pres. 1444 Shoreline Or. Uayzaca, MN 55391 Dear Jim: Confirming our telephone conversation today, we are forwarding a modified form for your use in applying for your 1991 Temporary Low Water Variance. The application you submitted last December did not state the temporary distance you expected at that time, and the new form is more descriptive of the information we require to act on these requests. the current water level at 926.63', compared with 925.4 at this time a year ago, you may be in a position to re-assess the need to extend your dock the full 80* for the 1991 season. The UlCD Board does recognize some allowance for projecting lake levels later in the boating season must be made, particularly as the lake levels tend to decrease in the late summer. Your application should be returned to our offices by March I since the Water Structures Committee prepares to act on them at its March 9 meeting. If you prefer to have the application acted upon in April, you may do so. We would need the application by April 3 for an April 13 meeting. As we further discussed today, your extension request is to be supported by water depth readings to the furthest distance you propose to extend. These may be taken either through the ice at this time or when the water opens. We request that you advise us when you will take the depth readings so our dock inspection, Rachel Thibault, can be present. The attached correspondence from Dana M. Wells further Identifies area concerns for the extent to which your dock is extended. We appreciate your consideration in recognizing these concerns as well. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, SERVATIOM DISTRICT R. Stroosen, Executive Director ct Jean Mabusth, City of Orono Dana M. Wells i I f* li I i 9 * • f I ■ f . # D«i* M. Wella 1397 Orono L.„e ^•7***^ Minncou 55391 January 18, 7991 Eugene R. Stronroen Executive Director Mt" UkT* District Wayzata NN 55391 f Dear Mr. Stroamen: by sumnr. You assuSS »f J*'“ ‘"creased and «« s,?hfr- "f‘e>- t"at "Uh Uie Increased*Mter"f.5^t* Permit would not‘"Proved ‘n Windward g.r?ni:?s “ ?it“ to notrth'e’’ch;n9e*"a‘nd p*u‘t Thank you for your cooperation. ^ncerely, iud,ua Luil^ liana Wells OW/ts ElIzabeth^N^rton"'”^ A<^mistrator, Orono City Hall M/M Richard Nolan M/M Henry See Sm S' '9 ”°e"M/M Newell Weed ^^ECEI vtu JAN 22 1931 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT WATER STRUCTURES ft ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA Saturday, March 9, 1991 MAR 4 1S21 Community Room, Norwest Bank Building 900 East Wayzata Blvd., Suite 135 (Elevator access for handicapped: use west entrance on Wayzata Blvd) 1. Bowers variance to establish a dock use area during low water. 2. The Harborage variance for a dock use area adjustment, or for a side setback variance, for a change in dock configuration. 3. 4. 5. Approve 1991 multiple dock license renewal applications. Report on Channel Drive Homeowners Association (St. Albans Bay) dredging. Proposed ordinance amendment S2.ll Conversion of Use (Chapman Place and Excelsior Bay Associates). 5. Develop a mission statement for the Wetland .'jabcomroittee. 7, Discuss policy for adjustment of dock use area 8. Update on deicing inspections. 9, Review District Mooring Areas as they relate to LMCD policy statement. 10. Additional business recommended by the committee ENVIRONMENT 1. Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force, Chair Reese A. Progress on lakeshore weed pickup program development. B. Response to Rep. Klnkel's Bill regarding funding for control of exotics. C. Operations progress. 2. Additional business recommended by the committee 3-1-91 . fc.-'--A. Wednesday Saturday LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 473-7033 L.N.C.D. MEETING SCHEDULE March 1991 Management Program review. Board and all cities 7j00 p.m., Wayzata City Hall, 600 Rice Street, Wayzata Water Structures & Environment Connnlttee 7:30 a.m., Norwest Bank Building Wayzata 900 East Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 133 Superior Street, east entrance Friday Monday Wednesday Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force 8:30 a.m., Norwest Bank Building Wayzata 900 East Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 160 Superior Street, east entrance Lake Use Committee 4:30 p.m., Norwest Bank Building Wayzata 900 East Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 160 Superior Street, east entrance LMCD Board of Directors' Regular Meeting 7:30 p.m., Tonka Bay City Hall 2-27-91 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Action Repr Meeting: Lake Use Conunittoe Monday, February 25, 1991 4:30 p.m. Wayzata Norwest Bank Building Community Room Menbere Present: Bert Foster, Vice Chair, Deephaven; James Grathwol, Excelsior; Robert Pillsbury, Chair, Minnetonka; Scott Carlson, Minnotrista; Thomas Reese, Mound; Marvin Bjorlin, Tonka Bay. Also present: Sgt. Wm. Chandler, Sheriff’s Water Patrol; Rachel Thibault, Administrative Technician; Eugene Stroramen, Executive Director. The meeting was called to order at 4:32 p.m. by Chair Pillsbury. Crystal Channel. Bailey, Bailey 1. Request for Slow Buoy at Coffee Channel The Committee received a request from Jim Urban. Bay, for a Slow Bcoy at the east end of Coffee Pillsbury reported he has talked to Mrs. Urban and Denis Engineering Technician, Hennepin County Lake Improvement suggested bringing out the channel buoys '’5 feet from the channel on the Crystal Bay side, in lieu of slow buoys. Mrs. Urban agreed this would be a good solution. Foster moved, Grathwol seconded, to recommend requesting Denis Bailey to move the the red and green channel buoys on the East side of Coffee Channel out 75’ to 100’. Me ion carried unanimously. 2. Resolution Establishing Fees for Adding a Port of Call, per Code 5.44, Subd. 4. Strommen explained that Code 5.44, Subd. 4 provides for a public hearing when a licensee for a liquor license application renewal adds a Port of Call. To date, no fee has been set to UQver the cost of publication of the pub.' hearing and administrative costs. r, i ^ Bjorlin moved, Foster seconded, to recommenu a Resolution to establish a fee of $150.00 when adding a Port of Call to a liquor license application renewal. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Revised Draft of MN DNR Bill for an Act Relating to Personal Watercraft. The committee received a report from Thibault that the revised draft of the MN DNR Bill for an Act relating to Personal Watercraft does not include LMCD’s suggestion for a slow no speed within 150 feet of a "moored or anchored" watercraft. The Bill adds "a personal watercraft may be operated at a reasonable speed within 150 feet of the shoreline for the purpose o.f directly accessing and returning from the open speed zone . The DNR did not add the prohibition "to buzz, chase or spray any other watercraft".- continued Lake Use Committee February 25. 1991 The item in the Bill of most concern to the Committee is a section which restricts personal watercraft operating within 150 feet of another watercraft. other than another personal watercraft, at greater than a siow-no wake speed. The Committee is firm in its belief that this creates a safety hazard. Chandler offered to talk to Anita Twarowski, MN DNR Boating Staff Specialist, to clarify LMCD s concerns. Foster moved, Grathwol seconded, to recommend a request to the Sheriff's Water Patrol to work with the MN DNR staff technical people regarding the 150’ slow-no wake speed because a serious hazard exists for the personal watercraft operator. Motion carried unanimously. Reese moved, Foster seconded, to recommend staff write to the MN DNR urging inclusion of the prolonged operation restriction. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Resolution H59, Policy on Open Water Fishing Contest Permits Thibault explained that Resolution H59, Policy on Open Water Fishing Contest Permits, requires that a copy of the DNR permit is needed along with the LMCD application. This requirement causes excessive delays in issuing the permit. The DNR permit is needed before the contest can be held, an inspection verification LMCD can make through spot checks. Grathwol moved, Bjorlin seconded, to recommend de ion of the requirement that a copy of the DNR permit is neode' - ch the LMCD application for an open water fishing contest permit. Motion carried unanimously. 5. On~sale Wine License Fee for a Preliminary Investigation Strommen explained that the Resolution Establishing Liquor License fees for the Sale of Liquor on the Lake requires a $3,000 advance deposit for the preliminary investigation required for the initial application or an application for transfer of an "on- sale*' liquor license. The Resolution does not address an application for a wine on-sale license separately. Strommen stated the cost of investigation is nominal, averaging well under $500, and the $3,000 fee is burdensome for those making application for an "on-sale' wine license only. Grathwol moved, Reese seconded, to add a Section "e." setting the preliminary investigation fee for an "on-sale" wine license at $500, with the same provisions for refund of unused balance and over-cost recoup as for a liquor license. Motion carried unanimously. 0. Sheriff's Water Patrol Annual Operating Agreement Strommen reported receipt of the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Water Patrol annual 1991 operating agreement amended by the County Attorney. He explained the County Board no longer will automatically renew annual agreements. The Agreement contains - continued Lake Use Committ':e February 25, 1991 provision^j tha* were reconunende\_ the Laiie Use sub~ committee member- end approved by the Lja. 9'26-90, except for removing the ."» j-onatic renewal provision, and a hold harmless clause for Lh-L a result of actions of Hennepin County Sheriff’s oraployjas. Foster mo-ed, Grathwol seconded, to recommend approval ot the 1991 annual operating agreement with the Hennepin County Sheriff for the Water Patrol as amended. Motion carried unanimously. 7. Withdrawn 8. Special Event Ret iinds Foster moved, 'irn:,hwol seconded, to recommend approval of the following special ^^/ent reiunds; a. Leposit refund for Lafayette Club’s 2/3/91 winte-* event $100. b. Return deposit for canceled kite flying event at Excelsior Chamber of Commerce’s Chili Open 2/8/91 $100. Motion carried unanimously. 9. Sumer Rules - Publication with Solicitation of Funds Strommen proposed an envelope with a perf .iated tear off flap to bo inserted in the summer rules brochure. The campaign ^ould be aimed at the contributor in the $5 to $25 range. Pillabury suggested a change in the pledge card which would give the c intributor a choice of the allocation of the pledge. It was suggested the order of selecti'' '>? would be changed -to: 1) Use any wayj 2) Weed control j 3) i»..ormation. Education, 4) Water Patrol, Public Safety. Grathwol moved, Bjorlin seconded, to recommend approval ot the concept of a pull out envelope to go with the summer rules, as suggested by the Executive Director. Motion carried unanimously. , ^ i. • u uCarlson offered help to reach the larger donors which ho knows. A review of the solicitation list will require assistance of perso.i familiar with major donors. Strommen added. The Executire Director will draft a solicitation letter directed larger^ dcHtjors as the entire fund raising program is evaluated reach its goal. The letter, plus personal contact, would directed to a select list of contributors with the potential giAking contributions in the $2,000 to $5,000 range. to to be of 10. Wate- Patrol Report Chandler reported: * The fish house count shows 1366 fish houses compared 1240 in 1990. The largest number were in Phelps Bay. - CO nued Lake Use Committee February 25, 1991 * A large snowmobile theft ring particularly after "Polaris Trail Indies” has been operating throughout the state. They are now working on the Lake. * The Water Patrol has been cooperating with the MN DNR Conservation Officers on the Lake clean-up. * There continues to be many fish house oreak-ins. Despite a publicity program people continue to store valuables in their fish houses. * There have been eight DWIs on Lake Minnetonka, most of them issued to car drivers. * The Water Patrol is trying to locate a place for a training session in April. * The National Sheriff's Association will have its convention in Minneapolis in June. They plan on having a fishing contest as part of their program and may ask for a waiver of fees. * Chandler will check out Reese's report of a glaring high pressure sodium light on the north side of Priest’s Bay. 11. UennepiD Coiuity Proposals for 1991 Lake Minnetonka Services and Projects Denis Bailey, Engineering Technician, Hennepin County Lake Improvement Section has advised the District that the Lake Improvement budget, as presented on 1-14-91, is being reduced from $174,000 to $124,000. Because of this the Narrows Channel seawall repair and possibly either Seton Channel seawall repair and/or St. Albans Channel dredging, may be postponed for at least 1991 . 12. Request to Sell Ice Cream on the Lake Reese reported Steve Chase has asked about selling ice cream and other food items on the Lake. The Code prohibits selling of food from a watercraft. Chase stated in a phone call he intends to send in a formal request. 13. Adjournment Bjorlin moved, Grt.thwol seconded, that the meeting be adjourned. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 5:28 p.m. was FOR THE COMMITTEE: Eugene Strommen, Executive Director Robert Pillsbury. Chair r •> I '■b crrv IQRONa CITYof ORONO Post OfficY Bok 66'Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323• Municipal Officaa On the North Shore of e Minnetonka February 2j, 1991 Mr. Eugene R. Strommen, Executive Director Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 900 East Lake Street Wayzata, MN 55391 Subject: LMCD's Comprehensive Plan Dear Gene« During the !#0 day period that L.VCD 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 oi ono tha!- LMCD remain within its original charge and not tr./.s.'orm tne organization as envisioned in the plan to an organization that has agendas and constituencies that are no longer shared by <it least the majority of the cities around the lake. Specific areas of comment on the plan include: Board Structure - 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, Orono desires the plan be amended to retain the Boards original composition. (We suggest LMCD obtain letters from each of those agencies stating they do not feel such is appropriate.) As an alternate LMCD may desire to amend the composition of the Board to more accurately reflect the financial contribution and/or shoreline on the Board. Shoreland - It is Orono's position that any reference to LMCD being involved in the shoreland area be deleted particularily 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 individua ly deal with DNR in further develooment of their own regulations. It is additionally requested that LMCD also support the cities BUtUNNG A ZONING • 473-7)97 ASSESSING ADMINIsnUTION A HNANCE - 473-73M FAX - 473A510 PI iUC WORKS - 473.735* ll » Mr. Eugene R. Strommen Lake Minnetonka Conservation District February 28, 1991 page 2 of 3 individual grant requests to DNR for the monies that were originally earmarked for the cities through LMCD. Finally the LMCD should limit its role regarding additional parking spots for public accesses to that of determining any adverse impacts on the surface use. Surface Use Management - The City of Orono would again encourage change in the emphasis of the plan so that the first priority is the handling of the existing safety problems on the lake before allowing additional access growth on the lake. 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 nr cise standards selected. This is also true for many '*e city’s land use standards. However, the policy de ..s on 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 also 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, the broadening 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. Role of Plan - In light of Metropolitan Council assertion of authority as to LMCD's plan, Orono again requests that LMCD include in their £>lan 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. Mr. Eugene R. STrommen Lake Minnetonka Conservation District February 28, 1991 page 3 of 3 B. The process for review and amendment by LMCD of future plan amendments and the extent of review required by other governmental bodies. C. Specifically address the relation of LMCD actions to the comprehensive plan and how preceived or actual inconsistencies between the plan and LMCD actions are determined together with how any such inconsistencies are to be resolved. To the extent that this plan is approved by Metropolitan Council, LMCD's defining the plan role would then have Metro Council's concurrence. We remain open for further discussion. We are encouraged by Mr. Cochran's statements of February 22, 199 1 on deletion of shoreland regulations from the plan, retaining the current Board COBiposition and deleting reference to gaining additional taxation authority. n behalf the Orono City Council. [ark E. BelMitarardson City Administrator cc: Mayor and City Council JoEllen Hurr, LMCD Representative BULLETIN 1 fe- t March 1, 1991 TO; Mayors, Managers/Adininistrators and Legislative Contacts FROM: Roger Peterson, Director of Legislative Affairs A. GOVERNORS BUDGET ANALYSIS 1991. The Governor has proposed reducing city/county LGA/HACA by an additional $50 million to be taken from the December 1991 payments. City share is about $21 million or an additional two percent plus of base which is egual to the Budget I July LGA/HACA cuts. This recommendation has a high probability at the legislature since it will be viewed as reducing cash flow or reserve dollars for 1992 rather than services for 1991. There is also a recommendation by the Governor to move to a three time or quarterly property tax payment system which would provide payments to cities earlier thus reducing the amount needed for cash flow. 1992 and Beyond. The Governor has recommended two basic elements in revamping the property tax system. One, a state budget balancer, the other, a major overhaul of the property tax classification system. The AMM has commissioned a statistical analysis of the overall budget proposal anu has some startling preliminary results. But first a brief explanation of the proposals which are not dependent upon each other. Aid Cuts. The Governor has recommended that all Homestead and Agricultural Credit Aid (HACA) and Disparity Aid be eliminated and that the $342 million Local Government Aid (LGA) including Tax Base Equalization Aid be reduced to $176 million. This cut equals $639 million, although when combined with Budget I (July cuts) and current law reductions from 1991 to 1992, the total cut equals $753 million. The $176 million in LGA will be distributed partially as categorical aids to large cities and partially to other cities by some yet to be developed formula. In addition, $189 million is added to the circuit breaker to provide a safety net for property -1- 183 university avenue east, st paui. minnesota 55101 (612) 227-4000 tax increases to the poor. It is not clear if this safety net is needed primarily due to aid cuts or the classificaiton system change. The LGA/HACA cut effect varies dramatically from city to city and from Metro to Outstate. Obviously the impact on ® no LGA or HACA is nil whereas cities having a 75 to 80 percent reliance will have some very significant problems. Again, the ranae of increases in city tax from a low of 1.5 percent increase to a high of 120 percent increase. The range of total property tax increase is 1.6 percent to 29 percent. These increases indicate only the impact of LGA/HACA cuts and do not reflect increased spending. Classification System Change. The proposal includes a return to the mill rate system using market value as taxable value based on the following: ram roperty taxed at 25% of Market Value ”^*3*unit8 or'^less”^taxed at 50% of Market Value Apartments (3 units or more) , ^ , plus protected C/I at 75% of Market Value Commercial/Industrial at 100% of Market Value. cities. The increase for lower valued homes is up to 133 percent in the metro area and over 260 percent in some greater Minneso a Cities. The general range in the metro area is a , narcent increase for lower valued homes, a decrease of 16 to 20 percent for C/I, a decrease of about 12 percent for apartments, and a decrease in homes valued over $178,000. ?December^A/HA^*cut $21 million as was July LGA/haca -HACA eliminated -Disparity aid eliminated -LGA cut from $313 million to $176 million j w w Distributed based 1/2 on categorical to large cities and half on soma new need based foraula -Levy Limits repealed in 1992 .Class rate changes based on Market Value Fam property “ 25% of market -2- Homes and small rental “ 50% of market Apartments and protected C/I - 75% of market Comm' rcial/Industrial - 100% of market $189 million added to circuit breaker Study/Consider; ^ ^ Increased number of property tax payments to make funds available sooner to cities. Fees on tax exempt property New revenue sources B. ACTION Nhat is AMM doin«j? The AMM is continuing to support and lobby the membership adopted policy including preservation of an LGA/HACA program, elimination of levy limits, elimination of the homestead third tier classification, and property tax reform in moderation. AS INDICATED, THE AMM HAS PREPARED AN ANALYSIS OF THE GOVERNOR'S PROPOSAL AND WILL MAKE INDIVIDUAL CITY RESULTS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST, (partial analysis attached). We are continuing to inform legislators, news media and others that )i3ve not caused the states budget problems. City employment 1)33 decreased seven percent per capita over the last decade while spending has stayed within inflation. County spending and employment is up nearly 20 percent per capita, school spending is up 22 percent per pupil, and state employment is up 11 percent per capita. City aid has decreased as a percent of state budget to less than 5%. While Minnesota State and Local government spending in total ranks fifth or sixth nationally, Minnesota cities are at or below the national average for most service categories. Aid to cities, general revenue, spending, and employment in the last two years has either been well below inflation or decreased in actual numbers. CITIES ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. CITIES HAVE BEEN PRUDENT, CITIES SHOUIJ) NOT BE THE CURE. CITY SERVICES ARE PEOPLE SERVICES AND ARE ESSENTIAL. Along with the 'people services' video and the budget analysis, the AMM is currently preparing op-ed releases for local newspapers. What Should > Do? To whatever degree possible tell your constituents wnat the impact of the Governor's proposal is in terms of tax increases (more than double up to $70,000 market value homestead) or service cuts to offset large tax increases. Call your legislators and register your concerns with the Governor's proposal. Do keep in mind that this is the first salvo in the budget game, but it is a powerful shot which cannot be dismissed out of hand. II implemented, it would cause significant property tax shifting. To develop counter proposals the legislators need to hear from city officials and constituents. Regional hearings have been scheduled -3- £. (860 below) which may be held in or near your co^unity. If they are try to attend and testify. Do not hesitate to call Vern or Roger at the AMM (227-4008) if you need any further information. C. WHAT GOT COT - REMINDER r:::‘s.55;to holp u» in our lobbying offort on Budget II. We are still interested if you haven't already responded. D. Hearings House Property Tax Subconunittee Rep. Edger Olson, Chair, phone 296-4265 Richfield City Hall - 7:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. Wednesday, March 6, 199x Crystal City Hall - 7:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. Thursday, March 7, 1991 House Appropriation Economic Development Division Rep. Jim Rice, Chair, phone 296-4262 Chaska 9:00 A.M. - 11:00 A.M. (location unknown Friday, March 5, 1991 - call for schedule) Senate Finance nay also hold hearings, but have not yet set a jchedule. DISTRIBOTION NOTE: This bulletin has been mailed individually to ■ember Mayors, Managers/Administrators, and Legislative Contacts. -4- CfllNAfP IN^ACI Of GO^ftiOri PCmAl* Urai POPCiTT TAK luaCEWl Aupcittivi 0f iittropolltAA Micipelintt 02/?e/91 p*9t 1 tosof upon 0 tP^OOO hM 1 t#Att i^on •n avfrtgf \tlut ^aM TiAei upon 6 $1P.0P C/I proptrty TaMl Mpon a t1,0P,000 C/I property CurroAi 0ovtrnor*$DoUor Ptrctnt Avtraft Currtnc Covtrnar *1 Dollar Atrctni Currant Covtrnor'i Dollar Atrctnt Currant Covarnof *a Dollar Oarcant Aropotol*Dionoo C60ng«vtlua CAM Oropotal*Chtnga Chanp L6U Afopoitl*Chang*Chang*lau fropoial*Chan*#Change OflOKA USI •1.MA $711 109.41 174,000 $7P $1,409 $719 91.9X 11,213 13,024 (12P)•6.91 U7>l $19,319 (•I.333)•17.0* •mi «M.Uf 1411 $1,119 $716 119.41 01M.IM •1.203 •1.964 1761 6l.lt $1,193 12.9P (1167)9.1$U6.665 $14,419 (»7,I51)i6.a« MM« MUt $640 tl.SiO $670 90.41 •nt.Mo t1.9P $2.1f4 U69 24.4$$3,149 13,006 (1543)10.2$UV.565 $99.P2 (•10,403)•21.2S iAfPOIT USl $1,144 $ni 112.11 M0,700 •097 11,645 $747 01.1$$3,291 13,060 (1.91)•9.P •a.117 $99,741 (•0.3)6)17 3X iUlP ts$$$1,160 $709 t07.7«•n.ooo $791 •1,460 1709 94 4$$9.2P 15.022 ($249)•7.S1 •a.3u $39,264 (69,060)•10.7X • ••••««»• •*••••• •••..........................................• ...............«««••••••»• •••• PffMIMIdi $646 H.179 $711 111.11 199.400 11,224 11,996 $771 63.P 13,292 13.090 9.6$•67,t).139,647 (•3.117)•17,1$ itoonn cioTit $694 $1,400 im 111.41 $71,900 $771 •1,565 $792 102.4$$3,391 13,206 (SU3>5.41 •50,16)U1,701 (•3,430)•16.9$ •Nonti ••■«mi $1,961 $S11 lor.n $79,700 •1,011 S1,e32 .621 01.2$$3,969 13,323 (•263)•7.n •53.061 $43,193 (19,063)•10.6$ MifVlUl UM tl.}40 •710 112.n $94.9M •1,121 •1.063 $74?P.2$$3,176 12.990 (•)86>•5,9$•47,010 $34,479 (•3,134)•17.3$ oyMKia S«W •757 107.91 $79,7M •940 $7 d1 P.9$$1,411 13,161 (»2S1)•7.9$150.437 $41,P4 (19,399)14.6$ COMMS $f64 t\,i6T $407 104.91 $1P.4M •1,700 $7,491 $ni 44.2$$3,697 13,436 ($261)•7.1$$94,712 »44,666 4610.044)•14.4$ $669 •MM $491 97.VI 1 $49,400 •1,005 $1,495 $64 7 64.4$$5,297 12.994 (1342)•10.4$U4,763 13«,404 (•10,3*5)•21.1$ CINil PMf UM • MU $601 107.71 $70,600 ••29 $1,517 $6A»*03.01 $5,195 12,939 ($??0)•7.M $46,692 »3«,t51 (10.540)•14.1$ CCUMU Mliift $619 •I.M*$797 120.11 $?).7M •AOB 11,491 $763 110.61 11.134 13.099 ($74)•2.4$$46,176 •39,77)(•6.605)•14.2$ COQi UPIN $471 $701 104.91 $77,900 ••59 11,964 $706 62.21 $:,iio 13,040 ($276)6.4$$49,109 •39.323 (•9,513)•19.9$ COIlOtt ItOVf $709 $1,401 $H6 110.01 U1.0JO $979 $1,764 $769 61.07 $5,429 13,217 (•212)6.2$$90,792 U1.S26 (»3.v26>17.6$ cawtiAi $741 $1,944 $42$111.41 $77, IP M94 $1,666 $631 99.91 13,999 13,363 (»I96>9.5$$52.6n U1.717 (U.956)17.0$ tAflOi $701 $1,414 $711 101.41 U9.7P $1,147 $1,890 $716 62.71 11,424 IS,IP (t}15t 9.2$$90,670 W0.4U <910,256)•20.2$mmou $419 $1.4U $799 109.91 $176. IP $1,692 $3,740 $66 2.41 $3,376 13,191 (1226)•6.71 $49,971 U0,962 (19,010)•14.P lASJi $591 $1,779 $411 107.71 $P.2P $1,064 $1,719 $690 61.1$$3,092 12,116 (1235)•7.7$$49,164 $36,614 (13,550) •14.9$ fjMa mitii $617 $1,461 $776 112.81 1119,6P $1,929 $7,971 $644 11.4$$3,376 11.172 (12(W)•6.P $49,9P $41,236 163.724)•17.9$ lOlOO Mil $1,790 $672 100.71 1144,4P $2,411 $2,740 $329 11.6$13,122 12,906 (»2I6)•6i9$ U6,207 $37.7W 163.423)•14.2$ fAim piMii $711 $1,926 $791 IP. 11 1107.2P $1,494 $7,291 $7P 91.5X 13,926 13,262 (S246)•7.W $92,211 U2.P7 (69.343)•14.1$ fllMf $471 $1,704 $664 107.21 1P.7P PS2 $1,976 $674 79.11 13,127 12,696 (•229) •7.1$U6,279 $37,P9 (•3.611)•14.6$ aotifi miif $707 $1,494 $792 112.91 $104.TP $1,907 $7.IP $792 92.61 $5,419 13.244 (•121)9.P $90,942 U2.1P (•3,377)•16.P MIIOU $991 $1,144 $ 91 111.91 •74,«ao $7P $1,914 $611 114.9$$2.PI 13,096 $69 2.2$U4.267 $39,710 t«.537)•10.2$ «K)M U57 $1,402 $610 127.71 ur.ooo 91.017 $1,697 $6P P.9$13.233 13,223 ($10)•0.9$•47,645 $41.P7 (63.949)•12.4$ IMfi PM PIPil $499 $1,144 $729 110.01 I47.7P $1,011 $1,779 $741 72.1$13.277 13.096 ($219)•6.7$U«,49»$19,749 (M.749)-94.P NMUMPI $691 $1,411 $719 101.01 11P.0P $1,144 17.076 $731 94.4$13.369 13,101 ($269)4.4$•50,093 U0.114 169.777)•19.9$ KMU PM $7M $1,942 $742 107.91 U9.6P $:.24S $2,012 $789 61.9$13,629 13,311 ($311)•4.6$•33,664 063.04I ((lO.SO/)•19.P imhwobo $1,479 $764 IP.11 •15.300 $1,010 $1,411 $761 79.0$15,449 13,209 ($219)•6.9$$91,099 U1.720 ($9,114)•14.1$ PIMU PIPtI 5^.--$1,219 $441 107.011 itso.roo $2,199 $2,910 114 3 19.6$13.069 12,834 ($211)•7.5$U9,1P $94. P6 (U.520)•14.n nlMMiii $1,474 $947 142.71 1 ft74,400 $021 11.6U $1,019 121.9$13,377 11,599 $179 9.1$U9.976 U4.2P ($1,796)•7.9X lUMIQM Uil $1,140 $727 111.111 oiu.eoo $1,779 $2,5P $611 14.4$11,260 13,092 ($2P)•6.4$ua,249 $99,671 CP,974)•17.p MM $446 $1,196 $790 116.01j tar.ooo $1,022 $1,607 $7p 76.31 11,219 13,076 ($119)•i.ll $47.9P 1P.9P ($7,6P)•16.P • III 0r#K !• titiflilt tM Im ••tlMIM Mr P rtviMtf 0f !C •! tti* Cov«rnor*ft proposal upoo prcptriy burptni. IT9 dtt«iU of Ch€ Cov«rnor*t propoi#t 0#<gai« «yaiUbli. U ti nccwiiary to Mit l•vtf•l fiptcUlly In rtfnrtf |« th« dittributlM of otott old. Tlitto WACf or oorfiMot*s Momn* upch rtorcifr im muENs MMcUli«n •# NttrcpoUcan iMUiptUl!•» OttIO riiMOkfio mm im UMIT IICWIIU MHVliU uiM tnmm l«l«T riMCII UIM IflUIS f«K lAiar MU. UlaT MU MK OMMI ¥110 OMi If NUl litiiultii mmu KIT if liU. f«AM • 161.000 ^a0t Currtnt ipirtrnorU DoUar farccnt im fropota(* CK«n9t Changa iMVBBaMaaMSVSBaaasasMaaBiaaaa int S6IS im 1612 1661 f1,W 11.417 11.514 11.499 11.179 ♦ • • • • B un 1615 »722 6611 1794 p • B a « A 1640 5700 5762 5622 5710 91.415 H.141 91.512 91.429 91.595 • a p ♦ a 91.214 91.511 91.706 91.179 91.494 9710 9H2 9911 9007 5716 9742 5707 5791 9741 9901 P • • a • • 9644 Ull 9944 9757 9761 109.59 106.99 112.19 116.59 109.09 110.19 111.19 109.59 107.71 101.09 100.69 119.n 121.99 121.69 104.59 ••ppppapaaaaaaa •••♦pppp 9591 9471 1697 9742 9694 9770 U99 9716 9726 1679 91.242 91.141 91.510 91.765 91.519 91.572 91.425 91.411 91.514 91.564 9661 9671 93H 91.021 9025 9794 9H0 9717 9001 9004 tpiet upon an Bvcrtga vaiup ^omt ni.n 100.19 116.99 117.91 119.99 • B p • a • B • 102.19 104.99 100.19 111.19 110.19 Avtraga valut pbbbbbbbbb 992.600 999.500 964.000 974.100 977.100 PBPBP«B**B 976.700 9196.700 971.200 9115.000 992.400 • ••BBBB* •• 977.900 977.000 971.700 992.900 994.600 B.tBBBBaPB »91.t00 $62,800 $|t,SO0 $70,600 $66,700 bBbbPPPPP« 910.500 976.200 1102.500 9149.100 966.600 Currtnt Oovtrnor't Dollar ftrctni lap aropoaal* Char^at Changt ■ •■■■••■BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBaBO B BBBBB BBSatB U16 un 9664 U9I 9511 91.C56 91.514 91.4M •1*4 91.152 9641 U16 9799 9796 6H9 104.19 124.19 120.21 114.99 120.59 11.016 11.120 11.06) 9921 9641 BBPB* 9645 11.664 9612 91.791 91.161 UZf 9666 9645 U95 91.102 pBBaa»aBBBB*B 9975 9619 99H 9799 9661 • •tPBtaBBaaa* 11.064 9661 91.469 91.004 96U 91,612 92.071 91.695 91.6) 6 91.564 91.596 9).686 91.628 92.417 92.167 91,471 11.716 91.798 91.661 92.078 • 0 B • • • • • 91.66) 91,241 91.110 11.6) 2 91.490 » • a B P B • « 91.860 91.597 92.160 91.179 91.511 4794 975) 9632 9517 972^ 4751 52? 5796 lt?6 5504 564^ 5550 5954 5786 9776 9685 9621 9M7 91.0) 9609 5797 1714 5601 5175 9666 76.11 57.19 76. It 99.61 66.It • • f • B « * U.6t 0.6t 95.6t 34.?t 59.01 77.91 96.01 112.91 67.81 59.61 70.51 100.11 U.OI 129.41 111.91 IB •••#«• 74.91 85.01 47.01 12.51 110.lt Tatci upon a 9100.000 C/I proparty Currant Oovarnor a Dollar Itrctnl Liu rropoial* Change Chaoga gaaw■BBBBBBBBaBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBSBBBBIB 6.21 7.61 •5 91 •4.21 •6.61 975.400 995,000 U5.800 9168.200 660.400 9750 91.212 91,012 U.052 U17 91.194 92,115 91.64^ 94.11) 61.596 9644 590) 96)4 961 9762 65.61 74.51 12.41 2.01 9M1 53.454 53.164 53,490 53,365 53.271 51.)19 I3.17i 13.469 53.377 53.722 5),222 13.40/ 53.646 53.098 93.517 BfBBB 92.987 93.264 93.199 l).5n 13.191 91.695 93,167 13.467 93.501 91.2H 95.240 93.107 93.265 93.242 93.049 93.106 92.967 93.263 53.124 53.373 92,912 53.332 53,625 53.046 53,226 B •«BSB*P 92 nV 92.979 93.264 93.711 15.258 91.168 13.Ill 93.110 95.267 91.449 (9214) (9257) (92C53 (9U3) ^9222) (9215) (9165) (5226) (9253) (9349) . . . . . . . . . .. a (9311) (975) (923) (951) (9269) «$161) <$S0S) ($1») $t$S ($1S6> (1126) (9255) 19317) (9214) 9152 6.41 5.81 6.51 7.51 9.41 •9.61 2.21 •0.61 •1.61 •1.21 B B ■ B » ♦ •5.41 •9.11 i.Ol 4.61 •4.01 p • p a p « •i.n •7,51 •9.71 •6.11 4.a 91,101 93,327 I' 290 . 0.114 97,144 91.261 13.181 91,241 91,007 (9256) (966) (9109) (9147) (9107) I.n 2.01 1.11 4.11 1.41 C2/28/I1 969t 2 «atct tpon • 91,000.UOO C/1 praparty Currant Goaarnor'f Dollar Darctni lap 9ropo56l* Change Chang# iBBBBtBBBBBPPa* BBBBBPPPPPBBSaaPPesaPBBB 551 119 949.762 951.656 ISO.097 948.407 949,127 946.9)9 951.63’ 949.975 955,089 147,691 950.420 951.991 945.6U 952.055 «B*« BBBPB 944,214 948.602 950.109 952.an 150,249 954.681 950.110 951.116 951,810 U8,f0 U5.I92 U9.245 946.6U 950.166 946.091 942.121 9^^.0.19l U2.7U U2,145 919.611 P • P B S P • W40,)U $}$,aio $42, tit $«0,$l) $4l,tS« k«*BBBBB4 917.850 U1.119 947.122 919.604 U1.96I (U.998) (99.191) IU.946) (9^.952) (U.775) ■ Bp.pPPBBB (91.744) (U,110) (99.220) (99.162) (1)1.215) PBPPbPbPBP f$9,84l) ($2,I02J <U,t$9) CU.2t0) ($io,ota> 17.M It n ir,» 11.R II.IS p a a a BP a a • • p • B a a p a a IU.741 111,727 U2.412 U8.592 U2.160 (97.466) (99,174) (97.im (U.2I7) (9/,IIO) U1.7I9 (910,194) U0,m (99,407) U0.6U (910.620) U2.725 (19.014) U4.U7 (91.9U) • ir.n •17.11 •17.91 •11.71 •10.41 B . t a a • a •20.61 •14.11 •12.71 •11.61 •19.41 a a p p a p P •16.91 •20.11 •15.71 •1.11 •15.71 a a a B a P p •19.91 •11.61 -20.71 •17.51 •6.11 916,977 942.197 941.191 942.156 959.095 (66,915) (U.647) (97.115) fU.006) (U.9U) •19.41 •11.91 •15.11 •16.01 •15.21 1667 ^640 91.412 11.154 9725 1713 105.61 111.41 9101.100 91,in 92.103 9ni 51.21 9142.700 M.099 U.622 (91.277) -15.61 13.372 93.158 91.099 92.998 (92H) (9160) •6.11 •5.11 949,907 946.745 U0.2I1 918.975 (99.624) (97.771) 19.31 16.61 Ifi grUr to tatiaaCO tha af iM li»am#f *t proposal Lpr . praparty taa burdens. •fllOilil mt it rtvlaad at oort datallt of the Covtrnor«f propotal btcooa avaUabia. It U nacettary to Mht sevaral atssnptiona. fipectally in regard to the dittribution of ataia aid. Iboaa A COMMUITITY NEWSLETTER SPRING 1991 West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board T.AX TIPS CHILD & DEPENDENT CARE TAX CREDITS There is a Child and Dependent Care Credit available in both Federal atid ^tate returns. You may qualify for the credit if you pay someone else to care for yuur child or other dependent so you can work or look for work. The maximum Federal credit is 30% of your approved expenses. The maximum Minnesota credit is S720 for one child (or dependent) and S 1.440 for two or more. In order to qualify for the Minnesota credit your household income must be les.s than $27,000. Dependents other than children must be disabled (not able to care for his or herselt). A disabled husband or •wife may be a dependent. Children over age 13 may or may not qualify for this credit. If eligible, you should claim the credu even if you do not have enough incom*' *o meet the requirement for filing a Miiu ^ ta or federal income tax return. will pay the credit yo*a are eligible for. To claim either credit you must file your taxes and complete Form 2441 for the federal credit and Minnesota form M-lcd for the Minnesota credit. EARNED LNCOME CREDIT ^'ou can apply for the earned Income Credit on a federal tax form. To qualify' t'AO things -nus: be true. First, your earned income c" d adjusted gross must have been less tha •. S20.264 in 1990. .\nd second, you must ha-.e a dependent child living with you more than six months during the vear. If both of these things are true, you may qualify for this credit. If you do. you can subtract it from the tax you owe. or get it as a refund even if vou had no tax withheld from vour wages. •4 is TAX ASSISTANCE l..e Ame an Assoc, .lion of Retired Persons’ 1 a Aide program offers tax assistance a .eniors, disabled Sc low ir. e. Free tax counseling is -.rovided by V ;ers ♦rained by the IRS. To get the set eauie to* help at a site near you, call 888-0962 or 729-1819. $ anA ^ FREE HOME VISITOR PROGRAM IN RURAL AND SUBURBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY Would the support and advocacy of a trained volunteer who can come to your home help you: • feel ’ ' 'solated and alone? ^.nd resources you yourself and achieve them? • remove some of the roadblocks in vour life? TTierc are times in all of our lives when the road is blocked. We could use support, advoca^, or just someone to listen and help sort thin^ out A volunteer from Perspectives, Inc. Home Visitor Program can meet with you. *Diey can come to your home once a week. You pick your own issues and work with the volunteer to find ways to meet your needs. This program is free for Rural and ^burban Hennepin County residents who live on a limited income. FSor more 474-5443. lM(|imation call Cyndi Cook at LOW INCOME MOM’S GROUP The YMCA Home Team and Perspectives are co-sponsoring a Support Group for Mothers on AFDC or working with hmited mcome. The group offers support and printed materials on self-esteem, self-growth, and parenting issues. They meet on Friday mornings at .Northwest YMCA. This program also offers a group for Low- Income Moms on Monday evenings and a Sincle Parents fmoms nr siiinnnrf income Moms on Monday evenings anc Single Parents (moms or dads) Support Group on Wednesday evenings. There is no cost for these groups and child care and/or activities are provided. For more information or to register please call Pat at 535-4800. k: • LOOKING FOR CHILD CARE? There is a toll-free telephone number for information about child care in Minnesota. The service is helpful to parents and child care providers. The number is 1-800-475- UNK. Lines are open Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. CHANGES IN CHILDREN’S HEALTH PLAN Parents may be able to get health care for their children ages 1-17 through the State Children’s Health Plan. The plan is for families who can’t get medical assistance and can’t afford health insurance. It covers doctor, dentist and clinic visits. It also covers X-rays, eyeglasses, prescriptions and immunizations. It does not pay hospital costs. It will now pay up to $1000/child/year for mental health costs (counseling, testing). The plan costs S25 per year per child. For more information call 1-8004552-9747 or check with your doctor. DID YOU KNOW ??? The House of Representatives says the U.S. has the highest child poverty rate of any industrialized nation. One of every five American children is poor. One in ten are poor in the United Kingdom. In Sweden, one in every twenty children is poor. NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK April 21-27, 1991 is National Volunteer Week. West Hennepin Human Services Joins others in saluting the time and talents of volunteers. The Energy Assistance Program alone relies on over 75 volunteers each year. They help with answering telephones, screening clients, clerical tasks, home visits, data entry, and outreach. Another dozen volunteers help with newsletter and other mailings. Many other volunteers serve on West Hennepin’s Planning Board or committees. Hats off to these fine people helping to meet the needs in their communities! OLUNTEERS VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION WEEK APRIL 21-27, 1991 IMMEDIATE NEED: The Energy Assistance Program needs volunteers to answer telephones from 1-4 in the afternoon until May 1st. It’s not too late to help "Warm Homes and Hearts". Call 927-5615. W--..... .... Lt INTEREST-FREE LOAN PROGRAMS FOR LOW-INCOME FAMILIES No interest, small loans are available for eUgible families. Loans through the program range from $500 to $1,500. They can be used for things like the purchase of a used auto, auto repair, auto registration, or insurance. It can also be used for child care costs and medical expenses. To be eligible, you must have custody of minor children, and work at least 20 hours per week for the last 6 months. If you do not have a job, you must be in school or a training program. You must be taking at least 9 credits for 2 quaners. A G.E.D. ^program does not count as school. Applicants must be unable to borrow money hrom a regular lending institution. They must have no other funding sources available to them. Applicants must be able to repay the loan over no more than a 24 month period. Call the McKnight Foundation at 333*4220 for the number to the loan program in your area. Vj\. INSURANCE The Veteran’s Administration has a new toll-free number for questions about V.A. Government insurance. It was developed for several reasons. It is faster than getting information by mail. It is easier to get complete information. Policy changes a^id addi^ changes can be processed faster. The number is 1-800-669-8477. There is an overnight message service for after-hours calls. These messages are returned within 2 working days. NSP OFFERS NEW PROGRAMS NSP has a new program for elderly and disabled customers. The Med-Defer Program helps age 60+ or disabled customers who are in the hospital for at least 2 days. These customers can ask for a 30 day extension to pay their bill. They won’t have to pay a late payment fee. For more information call 639-4325. The Kitchen Appliance Marketing Program is also new. Small markings are put on oven and range knobs. This helps blind and visually impaired customers cook more safely. For details, call 330-7639. REMEMBER^ It’s not too late to apply for help paying your fuel bills. The Suburban Energy Assistance Program continues until May 1, 1991. CaU 929-2474 to see if you are eligible. We answer the phones from 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. r I i'r •• •* • * V • i : •• ^■m STORE TO DOOR DELIVERING FOOD AND FRIENDSHIP Store to Door is a non-profit grocery delivery service. It’s for aging and disabled persons. Service is available in most of Hennepin and Ramsey counties. Volunteers take grocery orders, do the shopping, and deliver items. These volunteers also bring in a bit of the outside world to customers who have few other contacts. Orders are taken in different parts of the city on different days of the week. You can order once a week or less often. There is no charge during a week you choose not to order. You can order almost any item carried in a large supermarket. You can not order liquor and tobacco products. Tell your order-taker if you have coupons for items you are ordering. Groceries are delivered a day or two after you order. You will get a copy of your order and a cash register receipt. It lists each item, the cost, and tax. There are three parts to your bill. The first is the cash register bill. The second is the delivery charge. The third part is any credit for coupons or returns. You must pav bv check for your order at delivery time. Store to Door is supported three ways: 1. A modest delivery fee based on the size of vour order. 2. Grants and donations form corporations, foundations, and Hennepin County. 3.The hard work of volunteers. To apply for the service you should contact Store to Door, at 642-1892, .Monday through Friday between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. \\ STC’Re* \ TO '/ f: ASK YOURSELF: A re yol 'r energy bills too high? The Answer may be a FREE ENERGY WORKSHOP Sponsored hy Minnegasco, SSP. West Hennepin Human Ser\ ices 8 t • Free Malcriab • Free wealbtriatiM work* • Free relircskaeals & childcare • 5% rcdacthn to year hfianegafco bodget February 27,1991 11:00 AM n 1 I Sf. Louis Pork Roc Confer 5005 West 36th Street St. Louis Park u & Y 8 .0 * for EAP eligible Mifneguceemamera you MUST BE REGISTERED TO ATTEND CALL 348-4367 today to register or for inore infomuition n* > 5S ^ 4 3 C f9 5 ^ Z UJc: ft '7. & 5 ^ ^ S M *S ^ C o e -I. J -s — c3 3 2 ? 1J Jl_ -8 a § >s ^ -3 1 ^ I u CAu > ■9 C ^ i Eu a Ni LU 2I ta UJc:QO < 5 3 West Henneoin Human Services Planning 2card 4100 Vernon Avenue Soutn St. Louis Park. Minnesota 55416 (612) 920-5533 Bulk Race vJ.S. Postage PAID Perniit No. 1387 Mols., Mxnn. h fE3 a ^ * .'iMr.rt c - J.V ~C : <• OrtONO r.rv nt^,_ BO.-. -i€ w i Mi_ .*.^1 ^5 fc*■ FtmOCD BY CONNONITY ACTION FOR SUBORBAN HENNEPIN (C.A.3.B.) Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Cemmission443 OAK STREET • EXCELSIOR MINNESOTA 55331 • (612)474 6539 FEB 2 2 1991 DATE:February 21, 1991 TO:LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMISSION MEMEBER CITIES FROM:Jennxjfer Watts, LMCCC Aominxstrator RE:ATTACHED NATOA REQUEST Recently, the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors sent the enclosed materials to its membership. The materials include a request from NATOA that its members collect signatures from local elected officials in support of the concerns stated by NATOA on upcoming cable legislation. Please note this is the first joint effort by NATOA, the National League of Cities, the United States Conference of Mayors and the National Association of Counties to address cable legislation at the federal level. These voices were conspicuously absent during the drafting of legislation last year <ind as a result, the legislative bills that came out of committee did not favor local regulatory authority nor did it offer a viable solution to competition in the marketplace. ♦ The full Commission recently authorized staff to pass this request along to the cities and ask that each city address the Issue at the next city council meeting. If, after reviewing the materials, your councj.1 chooses to participate in this effort, a letter similar to or the same as the "sample” enclosed should be drafted on city letterhead and sent to the NLC, to the attention of Leslie Woliack, as noted. Because NATOA was late in mailing this to its memoers, and understanding it takes time to address such a request, please ignore the February 15 deadline; signatures may be sent as soon as a decision can be made. With the concerns voiced at the recent annual cablesystem evaluation conducted by the LMCCC, I hope your council will consider this request with some of those concerns in mind. If you would like more information on NATOA's position or if you have any questions, please call me. TIM Mmtionmt Amsociatlon of T^oemtmumfeatlono OMeon and AMaora 1301 ^nnaylwtm fkmnm, NW MteMngtan. 0.0 20004 (202) 0250100 /ivTvTv (202) 0250043 WPIr An affitiste of the National League ol Oties January 30, 1991 AgTTQIf XT^RT ~— ACTION ALERT- -ACTION ALERT- - -ACTIOM ALERT TO:NATOA Maabarship Laglalatlva and Legal Affairs Conmittee Stata Chaptar Presidents FROM:David Olson and Michael Hunt, Co^Chairs, Legislative and Legal Affairs SUBJ: Signatures from elected officials for letter to Congress In cooperation with the National League of Cities, the U.S* Conference of Mayors, and the National Association of Counties, and pursuant to NATOA's work plan, NATOA needs your help in collecting signatures fron elected officials to affix to a forthcosing letter to Congress (draft attached) from NLC, USCN, and NACo. The letter to congress cites the problems faced by franchising authorities under current law, and attaches a detailed summary of the specific legislative remedies sought. Please obtain signaturer from vour Mayor or orincifsal elected 0|£ficialfs). and foi-ward these signatures to Leslie Wollack at the MLC as soon as possible. You can send signatures via FAX (203) 626-3043, if desired. Signatures should be sent by February I5th if possible, or as soon thereafter as possible. Signatures received will be assembled by NLC, USCM, and NACo and attached to a master copy of the Congressional letter, as attached. A saig>le format to be used for obtaining signatures is attached, as well as a copy of the letter to Congress. Please telephone us if you have questions. Enclosure cc: Leslie Wollack On I II., ■ Mii^ 'SAMPLE******^******** YOUR OFFICIAL LETTERHEAD TO BE SIGNED BY NAYOR OR ELECTED OFFICIAL National League of Cities attn. Leslie Uollack 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue NU Hashlngton, D.C. 20004 Re: Cable television legislation Dear Ns. Vollack: Please Include us aaong the elected mayors, city council officials across the country who endorse the letter to Co sponsored by NLC. USCN, and NACO, to be dated February 1! attachment describing the specific needs of local goverrn television legislation from the Congress In 1991. ^r.d county '*ly Please Include our signatures and titles as follows. Sincerely, Nayor, City of , sTAtt other dected Official, Title, Jurisdiction, State Th« United Statmm confarancs of Mayors, Ths Kational Lsagus of Citiss, and Ths National Association of Counties February 15, 1991 Ths Honorable _ _ _ _ Washington, O.C. Osar Senator [Congrasssan]: ssyors, city council assbars and county officials across the country, wa are deeply concamed with the problaas that the monopoly market povar of cable talavision operators is creating for consumers. CAbla subscribers have confronted escalating cable rates and, in many cases, poor customer service ^nce the cemaunicatiens Policy Act of 19a4 partially deregulated the cable industry. Local governments pi»M«fitly have very limited tools to deal with these probli We urge congrese to adopt legislation ensuring that consumers receive high quality, yet affordable, cable service. The price and quality of cable service new deterBlnes the level of television service to more than 55 percent of the television households in the nation. Protection of these cable consumers is vital. Our constituents have come to us with countless ceapXaiata concerning, among other things, poor signal q^ityi the failure of cable operators to respond to service requests within a reasonable JJJJ' of esurse, draaatic rate increases. Considering that a cable aerator builds and operates Its system largely on public property, it is understandable that consumen 4imaet US to be able to protect them. cSrMt statutory framework, we lack the authority address many of these complaints. Moreover, because tha vast majority of cable operators do not face any Manlncfful co*p«tition# th* Mr)c*tpl«c« doo not pro 1 cenoumers with adequate protection. L- Th« Renorabl* February 15« 1991 Pa9« 2 «• .trongly b«ll«v. «>•« !"*"leaialation that fostars coapatitlon In the cablj industry• But axparlanca also haa taught ua that cS^tltlon l. tS fromafcronolv urge Congraaa to enact legialatton grants th. .uthorlty toMaultino free the absence of competition. The attacneo describee our proposals to address consumerSSSrSrS5jr2.bl. «• or,, yoo^o .upport incorporation of our proposals into new cahie legislation. Its are asking our local officials with rsaoonsibility for administering cableeiMslv with you in order to convey the cablein TOP luilwllction. tnd to r.fl«:t our .tron, iS SSli tilw/Ulon B>tt«r.. in tn. n^ntiM, fop furthop InfopMtion po,»pdin, tho .^LoHio dUm. contact uo dipoctly op call Judith E22?? at thTonltod Stataa conf.ronca of Hayopa ?5oi!Ms!7J3oT, MoUo wollacit at th. Katlonal loa,ua of 4i”oi*UM-S«-i3M). or ^Pt Fo,.l at th. H.tlonal Association of Counties (202-393-6226). ws thank you for your attention to this matter of l.poptJS.^rS.b!ll con.5n.p. aero., th. country. Sincerely Local elected officials i AMD TgTJfVTSTOII UCiaiATTOM — 1991 Conauaars nmmd Isqislativs h«lp aora than avar, as vary llttla aaanlngful eoapatition is aatarialising and eabla oparatera centinua to incraaaa aiibscribar rataa. X^al govamaanta baliava that tha cora alaaants ot auch lagialatien ahould bat — Previaiona to anhanca eoapatition, including a eoivatitiva franchiaa ranaval procaaa and fair aceaaa to prograaaing. — Mora balancad franchiaa ranaval proviaiona to aliainata vhat la affactivaly a parpatual franchiaa undar praaant lav. — Zntaria rata regulation to protact eonauaars until eoapatition aaargaa, undartakan by local govamaanta vithin a fadaral fraaavork and vith a right of appeal to tha FCC. — X directiva to tha FCC to issue baseline eonauaar protection standards, vith local discretion to adopt aora stringent raguiraaants. — Daaagaa iaaunity for local govamaanta regulating and adainistaring cable franchises. These principles are described in soaa additional detail balov. Coanatition eonauaars are bast served by a policy Aat footers eoapatition in tha local cable aarkatplaca. A eoapstitivs threat froa a nav entrant, through tha petSBtial denial of a franchiaa ranaval, does not exist undar tha ourraat statutory ranaval achaaa. Zf eabla oparatera know they would face eoapatition during raaawal, they would have a greater incantiva to provide fnir rates and iaprevad cuatoaar service during tha life of thair franehiaa. Local govamaanta . aaaningfttl coapatitlva ranaval provision can affa^ivaly ganarata tha banafita of eoapatition in local eabla connifiit^iM c*n support only ono fronchlso. - 2 - Mor«ov«r, th« lack of accaaa to prograaain? can b« a •arieua obstacla to th« %^lability of compatitiva BUltl-channal ayatana. Fair accaaa to pro^raraing la nacaasary in ordar to ancouraga cabla coapatltlon* CabXa lagialation alao ahould contain a aora raaliatio dafinition of "affactiva conpatition," which ia tha banehaark undar tha 19$4 Cabla Act for whan localitiaa aay ragulata tha rataa cabla coapaniaa iapoaa on conauaara. Tha FCC racantly propoaad thraa nav altamativa taata for whan a cabla coapany will ba daaaad aubjact to "affactiva coapatition.” Xt ia aneouraging that tha FCC ia conaidaring factora auch as cabla panatration rataa and tha axiatanca of altamativa aulti-ehannal providara. Howavar, tha FCC'a proposal aowa tha aaada of ita own undoing by ita incluaion of a vaguo and potantially aaailyaatiafiad# aalf- p^ippatuating "good actor" atandard. l^cal govamaanta ara eoneamad that tha FCC propoaal aay hava tha aaaa affaet aa ita axiating atandard» undar which 97 parcant of tha cabla ayatana in tha Unitad Stataa ara daragulatad. Noraovar« unlaaa tha axiating Cabla Act dafinition of "baaic" cabla aarvtca ia changad to raflaet tha axpandad aanu of what aubaeribara know today aw baaic cabla aarvica, tha FCC*a actiona will naan littla ainca cabla oparatora would ba fraa to atrip baaic cabla of all prograaaing axcapt ovar-tha*air broadcaat aignala. Tha tranaition to a truly coapatitiva anvironaant vill taka aavaral yaara* Tharafora, it ia appropriate to raatora rata regulatory authority on a intaria baais to radraaa axcaaaiva rataa that hava davalopad ainca paaaaga of tha Cabla Act. Such authority ahould ba daaignad ao that local govamaanta aay act affectively to protect conauaara who typically turn to, and raly upon, local govamaanta for auch protection. Z^ooal authoritiaa prefer coapatition to regulated aonopnl 1 aa They aupport tha principle that local c^le pp^iP^tora abottld ba aubjact to haad-te«haad coapatition wharovar phyaieally and aconoaically faaaibla. Jh* authority to dataraina thia faaaibility auat ba left in tha hands of local officlala. Local authoritiaa aupport Congraaaional conaidaratlon of new aolutiona to oMouraga coapatition agalnat cabla oparatora. Congraas ahould aarloualy review propoaalatha proviaion of video prograaaing aarvlcaa by potential coapatitora. At tha aaaa tiaa, tha aarkatplaca reality - 3 - that tha vait majority of local govarnmants faca is tha monopoly provision of cabla sarvica, which in tha intsrim raquiras ragulation. Consumar Protaction Local franchising authorities, which ara closast to consumars, should continue to ba allowed to fashion customer service standards tnat meet local needs and conditions. The FCC itself has concluded that tha Cabla Act should be clarified "to increase the effectiveness of the powers given to local franchising authorities to oversee the customer service practices of cable operators." Local governments do not oppose national minimum customer service standards set by the FCC. However, they need to retain the discretion to adapt such guidelines for application to local circumstances. Signal quality problams ara a significant category of subscriber complaints. However, the causes of such complaints differ from market to market. Local governments believe that cable operators should provide a signal quality that meets the desires of consumers. The FCC*s existing standards, which have net been uj^ated in 30 years, fail to do this. To the extent that the FCC can develop contemporary signal quality standards that aid consumers, local governmenta support the effort. However, a franchising authority should ba allowed to adept or negotiate with its cabla operator standards that excaed tha FCC*s standards and meat tha individual needs of local cabla ceamunitias. Damages t— The judicial approach to the authority of local franchising authorities is an issue in flux, with no consensus among courts cencaming the application of First Amendment and ether legal standards to actions taken by local franchising authorities. I^al gcvesiasnts believe that given this legal uncertainty, a frsaebising authority should be immune from monetary liability for such actions. Accordingly, legislation should contain a prevision granting franchising authorities immunity in any federal, state or local claim challenging cable television regulation. Xt is unfair to allow cable operators to threaten local governments with the specter of money damages when the law is unsettled. By providing damages immunity, congress would adept the sane approach already tak^ under the antitrust laws with regard to local regulation ■if •i’ ■f 'f/ f^' i. f- . ■ f ' i4.'t'‘.'Ji^ - 4 -ot CAbXtt •y#t#s#» LocaI 90v®tiuB#nts would o^lll b# ■ubjoet to injunetivo and daclaratory raliaf If thair actions aro dotorainad to vioXata tha law. • >. r r. P€/I Imi«« |€fVlCC/ htMmpki hmon smvIcm pfoMiing boord ¥Hio<i Q¥>mit touliv it loulf porK nUimtpio S5416 ftO-5533 Februa|^2^ 1991 \f\ \ U * Mark E. Bemhardson City Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 FEB 2 5 199^ Dear Mr. Bemhardson: I am writing in response to your inquiry about the additional member from Orono on our Board of Directors. Dale Wocdbeck is a member of the Board and resides in Orono. He is also the current Chairman of the Board. Mr Woodbeck is elected to the Board by other Board members. Our Joint Powers Agreement outlines how the Board is selected. Each municipality has two representatives that they select on the Board, and the Board of Directors itself can elect additional members who will add skills and expertise to the workings of the Board. Two<thirds of the Board are municipally appointed members and 1/3 members elected by the Board. So current^, there are three members from Orono: LaDean McWilliams and David Use who are appointed by the City of Orono and Dale Woodbeck who is elected by the Board of Directors of West Hennepin Human Services. Please let me know if you have questionj or would like further information. Sincerely, Marcy Shapiro Executive Director cc:LaDean McWilliams David Use Dale Woodbeck U .. . ii€/i MMMflll 4100 VMiioii QWiMW toutfw it lovit porK mifin«oto 95414 900-5533 March 4,1991 6 .1831 * •'-I Dear Municipal Officials: i- ■ ’•t Vr f m' As part of work in undertaking community needs and demographics, West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board intends to compile and analyze 1990 U.S. Census data. We will be sending municipalities reports of this new data as it becomes available. Enclosed is our first report which is the population figures by race of each municipality in Hennepin County. Please note that the report is divided into two parts: 1. percentage of total population. 2. percentage change from 1980 to 1990 and the population figures for each category. I hope this information will be useful to you. Sincerely, Marcy Shapiro Executive Director ■MMia ^ jtfwlf/ I—I 4100 VMiMii amtmm soullw sL lovis pork, mliiiiMoto S5516 oto-ssss 1990 Census Figures by Race of all Hennepin County Munlcipalites Prepared by West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board March 1991 r- [T OF TOTAL FOPIJUTION HEHNEPtN COUNTY HUNICIPALITIES CENSUS FIGURES BY RAC£ ■ Li" TOTAL NHITE eiACK INDIAN ASIAN OTHER HISPANIC mOMINSKM 1960 81.831 97. nx 0.66X 0.221 1.47X 0.34Z 0.54X 1990 66.33S 94.71X 1.61Z 0.29Z 3.09Z 0.30X 0.93Z MOOKLVN CCNTEIi 19B0 31.230 96.01X 1.70Z 0.64Z 0.95X 0.70X 0.67Z 1990 26.867 90.94X 9« ..0.94Z 2.31X 0.61X 1.27Z MOKLVN MMC I960 43.332 95.65Z 1.94Z 0.39X 1.42X•0.60Z 0.92X 1990 56,361 90.60X 4.94Z 0.62X 3.40Z 0.45X 1.15X GNIMPLIN 1960 9,006 98.70Z 0.19Z 0.48Z 0.53X 0.10Z 0.44X 1990 16,649 98.05X 0.39X 0.53X 0.79X 0.24X 0.7BX 1960 4.252 96.92X 0.02Z 0.33X 0.42X 0.31Z 0.31Z 1990 5,199 96.62X 0.17Z 0.42X 0.5UX 0.21X 0.52Z OtVSTAL I960 25,543 97.72X 0.60Z 0.47X 6.32Z 0.37Z 0.66X •1990 23,786 95.30X 1.62Z 0.61X i.esx 0.44X 0.95Z MVnM I960 4.070 96.95X 0.17Z 0.42X 0.52X 0.22X 0.42X 1990 4,443 97.82X 0.27Z 0.92Z 0.92X 0.07X 0.34Z KErWVOI I960 3.716 98.79Z 0.05X 0.22X 0.73X 0.22X 0.51X 1990 3,653 96.30X 0.25Z 0.06X 1.37X O.OOZ 0.30X &BOI PMIIIC 1960 16,263 97.82X 0.57Z 0.22Z 1.24Z 0.15Z 0.56X 1990 39.311 96.36Z 1.12Z 0.18X 2.09X 0.22X 0.70X CBINA I960 46.073 96.39Z 0.S1Z 0.09X 0.71X 0.29Z 0.46Z 1990 46,070 97.19X 0.72X 0.14X 1. 73X 0.22X 0.71X DttLSIQR I960 2,523 97.76X 0.20X 0.24X 1.63X 0.16X o.oex 1990 2,367 97.93X 0.25X 0.30X 1.35X 0.17Z 1.31Z PREPARED BY NEST HErMPIN HUNIN SERVICES SOURCE: 1990 U.S. aNSUS blv lOTAL NHITC 61 ACK INDIAN ASIAN OTHER HISPANIC QOLOCN VALLEY i9eo 22,77$96.71X 1.49X 0.16X 1.19Z 0.44X U.47X 1990 20,971 94.71X 2.68X 0.23Z 2.00Z 0.29X 0.97Z CRECNFICLD 1960 1,391 98.92X 0.I4X 0.36Z O.SOZ O.07X 0.07X 1990 1.4S0 99.17S 0.14X O.b/X 0.41Z 0.21X 0.14X fiREEMOO 1980 653 99.3W O.OOZ O.OOX 0.61X O.OOZ O.OOZ 1990 614 98.sax O.OOX 0.16Z 0.98X 0.33X 0.33X HAMMS 1960 248 97.90X o.oox O.OOZ ' 0.40Z 1.61X 2.02X 1990 787 98.98X O.OOX 0.13Z 0.64X 0.2SX 0.09X HOPKINS I960 IS. 336 97.70X 0.61X 0.21X 1.13Z 0.35Z 0.70X 1990 16,534 9S.23X 1.54X 0. S4Z 2.26Z 0.44X 1.16X INOEPENOENCE I960 2.640 90.71X 0.11X 0.04X O.OOZ 0.34X 0.4SX 1990 2.822 98.37X 0.04X 0.43Z 0.82Z 0.35Z 0.53X LONG LAKE I960 1,747 99.08X O.OOZ 0 29Z 0.52Z 0.06X 0.17X 1990 1,984 S8.64X 0.30Z 0.25Z 0.3SZ 0.45X 0.40X LQKTTO 19D0 297 100.00X O.OOX O.OOX O.OOZ O.OOX 0.67X 1990 404 98.02X • 0.50X 1.24Z O.OOX 0.2SX 0.74X 11I960 20,525 97.94X 0.62Z 0.1 SZ 0.9SZ 0.34X 0.70X 1990 38,736 97. nx 0.07X 0.29Z 1.S5Z 0.18X O.BIX NAPLE PUIN I960 1,421 99.37X 0.07X 0.2IX 0.20X 0.07X 0.07X 1990 2,005 98.7SX O.OSX O.SSX 0.30X 0.3SX O.SSX NEOICINI LAKE 1980 419 98.09X 0.24X 0.48X 1.19X O.OOX 0.4BX 1990 365 98.18X 1.30X O.OOX 0.52X O.OOX 0.26X MEDINA 1980 2,623 99.16X 0.15X 0.1 SX 0.46X O.OOX 0.46X 1990 3,096 98.29X 0.42X 0.32Z 0.61X 0.16X 0.68X j*/ TOTAL MUTE BUCK INDIAN ASIAN OTHER HISPANIC MINNEAPOLIS I960 370,951 87.30X 7.66X 2.41X 1.1 IX 1.52X 1.26X 1990 360.363 76.44X 13.0?X 3.35X 4.27X 0.93X 2.14X HINNITONKA 1960 36,683 98.35X 0.42X 0.17X 0.78X 0.2BX 0.50X 1990 46.370 97.06X 0.92X 0.1BX 1.59X 0.26X 0.81X MINNITOMCA KAOH I960 575 90.76X 0.1 VX 0.17X 0.70X 0.17X 0.17X 1990 573 98.43X O.OUX 0. 35X 1.22X O.OOX 0.70X HINNETRISTA I960 3.236 98.64X 0.12X 0.06X • 0.77X 0.40X 0.31X 1990 3,439 99.10X 0. 1‘jX O.OCX 0.64X 0.06X 0.44X •MOUND 1980 9.260 98.14X 0.2-JX 0.45X O.ObX 0.26X 0.64X 1990 9.634 97.64X 0.46X 0. i?X 1.36X 0.20X 0.69X tCMHOPC 1960 23,067 97.55X o.etx 0. 33.-i 0.8/X 0.41X 0.69X 1990 21,653 94.74X 2.48X 0.54X 1.96X 0.26X 1.06X OMMD I960 6.845 99.04X 0.13X 0.26X 0.31X 0.26X 0.47X 1990 7,265 98.34X 0.38X 0.25X 0.75X 0.27X 0.80X OSSEO 1900 2,974 96.22X 0.07X 0.27X 0.67X 0.77X 1.21X 1990 2,704 98.93X 0.26X 0.15X 0.33X 0.33X 0.76X PnMMlM I960 31.615 97.13X 1.1 IX 0.39X 1.05X 0.32X 0.52X 1990 50,689 95.66X 1.61X 0.36X 2.04X 0.32X 1.02X •lOfflELD 1960 37,051 97.49X 0.61X 0.19X 1.01X 0.49X 0.5SX 1990 35,710 93.49X 2.61X 0.61X 2.81X 0.40X 1.07X MNIffiOAlC I960 14,422 90.6IX 0.44X 0.26X 0.42X 0.27X 0.42X 1990 14,396 96.19X 1.73X 0.58X 1.19X 0.31X 0.9IX nocrfOno I960 360 99.47X O.OOX 0.26X O.OOX 0.26X 2.63X 1990 2,665 98.01X 0.4SX 0.03X 0. 36X 0.34X 0.64X V?"r:krr r TOTAL HI11E OLACIC INDIAN ASIAN OTI1ER HISPANIC ST. ANIHQNY Sf. BONIFACIUS ST. toils Mmc SntlNfi M«C IQNKA MY I960 1990 t960 1990 1900 1990 1900 1990 1900 1990 I960 1990 1900 1990 652 690 7,901 7,000 057 1,100 42,931 43,707 4,646 5,917 1.465 1,574 1,354 1,472 99.05X 90.71X 97.17X 96.26X 99.77X 98.I4X 97.90X 95.26X 98.62Z 97.00X 99.11X 98.20X 99. MX 98.90X O.OOX O.OOX 0.30X 0.74X O.OOX O.OOX 0.56X I.09X 0.26X 0.59X 0.07X 0.30X 0.0 7X 0.27X O.OOX 0.29Z 0.16X 0.3IX O.OOX 1.I9X o.ztx 0.4IX 0.19X 0.03X 0.14X 0.32X 0.37X 0.14X 0.1 5X 0.14X 1.75X 2.39X 0.23X 0.51X I.04X 2.10X 0.62X 1.32X 0.61X 0.B3X 0.07X 0.54X O.OOX O.06X 0.61X 0.29X O.OOX O.OOX 0.26X 0.34X 0.30X 0.2SX 0.07X O.OOX 0.37X 0.07X 0.15X 1.43X 0.54X 0.93X 0.35X 0.34X 0.S7X 1.03X 0.39X 0.85X 0.41X 0.25X 0.89X 1.09X t-f IT CNMiGc mm \m to 1990 .womra .WM MK > Qimiii cnsTM. T900 1990 1900 1990 TOTAL VMITE 1900 81.031 79,464 1990 06.335 5.50S 81,766 2.90S 1980 31,230 29.984 1990 20,087 -7.S0X 26,271 -12.363 1900 43.332 41,448 1990 56.301 30.111 51,079 23.241 1900 9.006 0,869 1990 16,849 87.091 16,521 85.861 4.252 5,199 22.271 25,543 23.780 >6.071 4,206 5,127 24.961 22,669 21.901 9.181 eiACK 702 1,394 530 1,502 840 2,785 17 65 1 98.581 183.401 231.551 282.351 9 800.001 152 432 104.211 INDIAN 184 248 34.701 201 271 34.831 170 348 104.711 43 90 109.301 14 22 57.141 121 144 19.011 ASIAN 1,203 2,669 121.861 296 668 125.681 614 1,916 212.051 48 133 177.081 18 30 66.671 2,125 439 -79.341 OTHER 278 258 -7.191 219 175 -20.091 260 253 -2.691 40 13 11 94 104 HISPANIC 443 005 273 367 400 650 344.441 -15.381 10.641 01.721 34.431 62.501 40 132 230.001 13 27 107.691 169 227 34.321 ORVTQN j 1 1 ^ * a i * V 1 4 9MIRIE EOIM I960 1990 1980 1990 4,070 3,946 7 17 21 9 17 4.443 9.161 4.346 10.141 12 71.431 41 141.181 41 95.241 3 -6 >.671 15 -11.761 3,716 3.671 2 8 27 8 19 3,653 -1.701 3,591 -2.131 9 350.001 3 -62.501 50 85.191 0 -100.001 11 -42.111 16.263 15,908 92 36 202 25 94 39,311 141.721 37,889 138.181 440 378.261 71 97.221 823 307.431 86 252.001 275 192.551 46.073 45,333 21S 43 327 135 220 46,070 -0.011 44,774 -1.2»333 41.701 65 51.161 796 143.431 102 •24.441 327 48.641 2.523 2,467 5 6 41 4 2 2.367 -6.181 2,318 •6.041 6 20.001 7 16.671 32 -21.951 4 0.001 31 1450.001 W’’ QOLOCH VM.LCY i; CUCENFIELO ty mam k 'vl.ur • r •• UM LAKE ir; V-' r‘ Hi. ittikiittaiiMi TOTAL WHITE I960 22,779 22.026 1990 20.971 -7.92* 19,661 -9.83X I960 1990 1,391 1.450 4.24X 1,376 1,436 4.SIX I960 1990 653 614 -5.97X 649 605 -6.7BX I960 1990 248 787 217.34X 243 779 220.S8X 1980 15,336 14.964 1990 16.534 7.61X 15,745 5.06X I960 2.640 2.606 1990 2.822 6.89X 2.776 6.52X 1980 1990 1,747 1,984 13.57X 1,731 1,957 13.06X UKT10 1980 297 297 t:1990 404 36.03X 396 i |. MfU CMME I960 20,529 20.103 1990 30,736 68.73X 37.615 HMU PUIN I960 1,421 1.412 ..y 1990 2,005 41.10X 1,980 miCINI LAKE 1980 419 411 1990 365 -8.1.x 378 b; WMIIR 1980 2,623 2.601 1990 3,096 18 03X 3,043 33.33X 40.23X -8.03X BLACK 340 563 65.59X 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 2 128 337 1 o.oox CRR ERR 93 254 173.12X 1 -66.67X 500.00X ERR 163.20X O.OOX S 400.OOX 4 13 INDIAN 225.OOX 36 49 36.1IX 1 -80.OOX 0 1 ERR 0 1 ERR 32 89 178.13X 1 12 1100.OOX 5 O.OOX 0 5 ERR 30 113 276.67X 3 11 266.6;X 0 -100.00X 4 10 150.OOX ASIAN 272 437 60.66X 6 -I4.29X 4 6 SO.OOX 1 5 400.OOX 174 373 I14.37X 21 23 9.52X 7 -22.22X 0 0 ERR 194 6L1 209.79X 4 6 SO.OOX 5 2 -60.OOX 12 25 108.33X OTHER HISPANIC 101 61 -39.60X 1 3 200.OOX 0 2 ERR 2 -SO.OOX 53 73 37.74X 9 10 II.m 1 9 800.00X 0 1 ERR 70 70 O.OOX 600.OOX 0 0 ERR 2 5 ISO.OOX 106 203 87.96X 1 2 100.00X 0 2 5 7 2 3 1 ERR 40.001 108 191 76.8St 12 15 25.00X 6 166.67X SO.OOX 314 118.i«l 13 1200.00X 1 -SO.OOX 12 21 75. OOX TOTAL MUTE BLACK INDIAN ASIAN OTHER HISPANIC KIMKtfO(.lS 19M 370.9S1 323,032 28,433 8,932 4,104 5,650 -39.65* 4,684 68.66*1990 368,303 -0.69X 268,967 -10.77*47,940 68.64*12.335 38.10*15,723 283.11*3,410 7,900 mUCTONKA I960 38.603 36,045 163 65 301 109 14.68* 193 103.11*1990 48,370 25.04X 46,950 23.41*443 171.78*65 30,77*767 154.82*125 392 MNNCIONKA flCACH 1900 575 566 1 1 4 1 1 300.00*1990 573 -0.35Z 564 -0.70*0 -100.00X 2 100.OOX 7 75.00*0 -100.00*4 raUCTRISTA 1900 3,236 3,192 4 2 25 13 10 50.00*1990 3,439 6.27X 3,408 6.77*5 25.00*2 0.00*22 -12.00*2 -84.62*15 WUNO I960 9,280 9,107 27 42 80 24 59 1990 9,634 3.01X 9,407 3.29*46 70.37*31 -26.19*131 63.75*19 -20.83*66 11.66* NEMHOPC I960 23,007 22,521 193 77 201 95 160 1990 21,063 -5.34* 20,703 -6.07*542 180.83*116 53.25*428 112.94*62 -34.74*232 45.00* OKMO I960 6,045 6,779 9 18 21 18 32 ••1990 7,205 6.43X 7,164 5.60*26 211.11*16 0.00*55 161.90*20 11.111 58 81.2A* I960 2,974 2,921 2 6 20 23 36 1990 2,704 -9.06X 2,675 -8.42*7 250.00*4 -50.00*9 -55.00*9 -60.87*21 -41.67* M.W0UIN 1900 31,615 30,707 351 123 333 101 165 1990 50,009 60.96Z 40,682 58.54*821 133.90*165 50.41*1,040 212.31*161 59.41*SIR 213.94* IICMFICLP 1900 37,051 36,902 307 73 384 185 208 1990 35.710 -5.66X 33,307 -9.53*932 203.58*219 200.00*1,002 160.94*170 -8.11*383 84.131 MMIMSIMLE 1900 14,422 14,221 63 38 61 39 60 1990 14,396 -0.18X 13,847 -2.63*249 295.24*63 118.42*172 161.97*45 15.38*131 118.331 IQCHFCftD 1900 300 376 0 1 0 1 10 1990 2.665 601.32%2,612 591.01*12 EMi 22 2100.00*10 CAR 9 600.00*17 70.00* L TOTAL Mine biack ;m\m ASIAN OniER HISPANIC KttEJiS I960 1990 0S2 698 7.061 Ml 609 5.04X 0 0 ERR 0 2 ERR 1 1 o.oox 0 6 CRR 1 10 900.001 ST. MITHONV I960 7,981 7,75$24 13 140 49 -53.06X 43 69.77X 1990 7.000 -2.17X 7,516 -3.06X 58 141.67X 24 B4.62X 187 33.57X 23 73 Sr. KMIFACIUS 1980 6S7 ass 0 0 2 0 ERR 3 33.33X19901,100 37.69X l,1S8 35.44X 1 ERR 14 ERR 6 200.OOX 1 4 ST. LGUIS MMX 1980 42.931 42,030 240 104 •446 111 33.33X 244 BS.25X199043.787 1.99t 41,713 •0.75X 626 244,17X 179 72.12X 921 106.SOX 146 452 SMOifMDOO I960 4,646 4,582 12 9 29 14 ia • 1990 9.917 27.36X 5.787 26.30X 35 191.67X 2 -77.7BX 78 16B.97X 15 7.14X 50 177.70S IMING PMK 1900 1,46$1.452 1 2 9 1 -100.OOX 6 -33.33S19901,574 7.44X 1,547 6.54X 6 500. OOX 5 150.OOX 13 44.44X 0 4 • tonka say 1960 1,354 1.342 1 5 1 5 12 1990 1.472 0.71X 1,457 8.57X 4 300.00X 2 -60.OOX B 700.OOX 1 -BO.OOX 16 33.331 HAVUTA I960 3,621 3.568 3 3 22 5 13 1990 3.006 5.1 IX 3,738 4.1BX 21 600 OOX 3 o.oox 37 68.18X 7 40.OOX 35 169.23X I960 526 522 6 1 2 1 1 1990 496 -5.70X 490 -6.13X 0 -100.OOX 0 -100.OOX 4 100.OOX 2 100.00X 3 200.0OI h ■ l-.Lve*.aSiu. r MINNEAPOLISDistrict Councii IVfeeting HATF #m A prh 5. I»WI REGISTHAHON 7:00 - 7:30 am PROGRAM X 7:30- 10:15 am PLACE Cforjif Uttimrr Raoissc ^n Soi'Mi Worn - r» a /a Rih>m I5UH1MINC.U3N. MN f 3<llf Si Solutions to Minnesota’s Property Tax Dilemma 7:00-7:30 am 7:45-8:15am 8:15 am Re{{isiratkin Btrakf;isl InmxliicRYn Ciwincnis R»\c/B I)Nntt ( oimal C motor Urlxtti land itiMitiitr 8:X)-8:50am ‘’SwildiiiiR fnim llic Oty Pcrs|KxliNc u> the Stale Persiictiisc I Vclf/Sc hudrrfo^f C liid ol Siirfl for C'n>vctnor ( ailsori I t>niHTC iiy AilniiiiLsirator. C it\ ol Mmik\i|>flis 8:55 - 0 15 am ‘‘IVHX»sMij{Soiuc Scriutioiis for I ;iir \ a\vs l\wi (tiOi\*v Iiiumn I lainlinc Sl. IhkJ of I a\s I onner Mayor ol St Paul 9:15-UHX) am DiMiissk>n RiJh-fL Sf7(nli()t4i Pu'sidint Slu'nelion \ss<K iim‘s. Inc. (Real I Appraivr' Hltli Vi UIlIH,!’ M.mn tSr Srixm law I inn CAiionicN for Real I state lax Ap|x*alst Ilartiliiic'vluH>l t>l I aw / \ul/ Si /iv\tii::lk'p/ CI Ik I ol Mall lor Cn»vm lore ill bxki 10:00-10; 15 am 10:15am (^ICSliiMtS Adjourn Ciitl: BlrakfaNi .itui SIS rlr«sr ni4kr ihciks pavaMr to t nifrii rro|H f(ir\ Scml cherk to |ntl% S klirtu.Min I’niUiI PtoiH ilirs 3MXUV HililiSirro BliHiiiiiitgion. MN S >4 II Hcasc c<»nlirin rcscnaiions with )<h!v al 1*12/8^3-8822 bv lnilii\. Mith h I lii<> j I KntiiiiMlioii ol .1 «»crii «• t«f I >ivitu I ( Mtim a Mn pfM% ulr I ’I I inmlicf k .ivso( Mirs .nut |i;ii<-sis «>p|v*Tminis to r»in I .mil iIiM isMK*- rrirv.ini l«» ihf n jI t si.Ot nutuMi> ( oittiniiltig I (liu.iMon I ' liiMirs I'l Si.iti *1 Mitmrvna C («nitmitng I iltu .nii»n 1 f» <lirx h.is Keen iipptirtf ft'f Tl IE IIRBANI AM) liNSHTl I E 1.___L mm seating is linited to 200 people. We expect the progian to be fully sold out. We have sent Invitations to a nuaber of trade associations, but we will give soae preference to ULl neabers and associates that register early. So please do not delay. SOLUTIOHS TO WINWESOTa»S PROPERTY TXX DILEHNAsgpLO^gg^sreff~QDEgf iowsa SieS T T “ '•"Ri k a - ——Afnjirjrnn •I Uhile‘*residenti!l «Pproxisiately 5% of valueall th«i properties pay between It and 31? After tli;s‘5::eV;: irTiii.ii vii;;^ -- 1 .. . mar 1 1991 * co2«SrclilMM"eJ5i[”t«era^"tJ capital formation in our teal estate markets? 3. lical*?Ixiuin‘lnd*i^" little direct relationship betweeniJsiihir-"' S5ur:io.r.;;;.'S; 4. taxe. th!f ®*" * retail tenant pay real estate ihile «li/?n^ doubled or tripled over the pait five JJJJS reill.Mi ? Increases have failed to keep pace? »s it'^ 1-.?^**^^® look at other revenue sources such as a salee o replace some part of the property tax burden? 5. Given the serious state budoet defir»*- .n,* n.- j t^:e*^;5^•iJk:Vthi r:ii;u:'sS^::L"ns5 ‘ n.. iiin ;n;: i: s?:,, ’■ ”«'l” »■>“ c.n it b, .bid to '' iii'rWr. s: thi tix JiLitfee th^ hiTconsflt'^ f * increase in o 5H be to be more equitable with mihn !r . market value ande With metro area prrperty taxes? 10. homes We are bark^^ increase taxes on lower valued • ccoi«pll.h,dl r.ducibd tpendln, — how will thl. b. » ♦ r MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ORONO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 278 HELD ON FEBRUARY 11, 1991 I The regular meeting of the School Board of Orono Independent School District No. 278 was held on Monday, February 11, 1991. r i;i'- Present: Dave McKown Don Anderson Lucie Taylor James Franklin John Maresh Peg Swanson Thomas Mich William Fenholt UPON MOTION by John Maresh, seconded by Jim Franklin, the consent agenda was approved as follows: - approved the minutes of the January 28, 1991 regular meeting; - accepted the resignation of Howard C. Lerohl, high school music teacher, at the end of the 1990-91 school year; - accepted the resignation of Donald K. Boylan, high school mathematics teacher, at the end of the 1990-91 school year; - approved the bills as covered by vouchers 068688 through 068867 - approved the Treasurer's Report for October, 1990. Motion carried unanimously. Board members expressed appreciation to Howard Lerohl, Donald Boylan and Barbara Jacoby, teachers retiring at the end of the 1990-91 school year, for their many years of dedicated service. Or. Mich reported that he will send letters of appreciation to the retiring teachers on behalf of the Board of Education; that the Board is invited to attend an open house at the school age chile care center on February 21 from 3:30 - 5:00 p.m.; that he was distributing information from the ungraded classes on their study of Italy; that on February 26 Vicki Perri from HTC will present a workshop for clerical classified staff on the "Professional Telephone Touch"; that the NCA visitation will be held on February 19, 20, and 21 in the areas of music and special education and the Board is invited to attend the exit report on February 21 at 3:30 p.m.; that at the February 25 Board meeting a tenure ceremony will be held for the following newly tenured teachers: Cynthia Conger, fourth grade teacher, Diane Oingman, elementary physical education teacher, Connie Fladeland, primary school principal, Chris Locker, speech coi^rection teacher, Sarah McDermott, kindergarten teacher, Kristen Powell, fifth grade teacher, and Joanne Moyteke, high school counselor; that winners in the spelling bee held last week are: Sarah Meyer, first place, Joe White, second place and Tom White, third place; that the equity lawsuit begins on February 19 in Elk River; that the comparable worth study is being studied/reviewed as the deadline for updating/implementation is December 31, 1991 which means the committee will be reconvened and the district will engage someone to assist in this update; that administration has begun to study/review capital projects for the coming summer and that a new five year capital plan will be developed/presented to the Board. I - V u m ■-5; -t, ^r> «•. I r' Fr’ ^i. % :.t :f- ID '■/D- •t k f.'k“ f’K- m Don Anderson provided the Board with a brief report on the Teacher Meet and Confer meeting held on January 20 with the areas of discussion being the school calendar and the class size in the high school for physical education and health. Board Member Lucie Taylor expressed concern regarding MSBA's legislative plat­ form with Board discussion following. Concerns will be expressed to MSBA. Or. Mich updated the Board on the progress of the construction and Bill Fenholt distributed a summary of revenue/costs for the classroom/pool addition stating that costs are close to the available revenue as the project nears completion. Board members expressed appreciation to Christenson Building Corporation for their informative updates on the project and also commended Bill Fenholt for his time/efforts with the project. UPON MOTION BY Don Anderson, seconded by Lucie Taylor, the Board of Education adopted the P.E.R. policy as follows: J Approved by the Orono Board of Education - 2/11/91 mOPOSED PER POLICY H«y 18, 1990 k proc«aa for PUnnlng, Bviluotlng, and Reporting (PER) ha* been adopted which Ineludea ilia following coopooato! 1. 2. 2. 4. 5. 4. 7. f. 10. 11. 12. Dli0tirl»6Ciroat~gonniava been adopted by the board which provide general direction for gtsCrlct cwrriculitn and Inatrwetion. Currlewlwa Review Cycle ................. A fIvo year carrlcultm review cycle haa been adopted to guide dlatrict currlculuo davalopoaot and avaluatlon. Sla?rict at§f will develop a plan for the allocation of flacal and huaan (ataff claa) raaourcea for the overall PER proceaa of the dlatrict. Yhla plan ahall ba updatad annually and Include the reaourcea to aupport a thorough currlculun review cycle proceaa. Learner (bitcooaa for each eu^rjv*^" area In the currlculun, learner outconea will be prepared at grade and couraa level. Developaent of learner outconea will follow the currlculun review cycle, theae learner outconea ahall Include atate adopted eaaentlal learner ouCconei whan they becone available. Rrudent and Progran Evaluat loj> Ongoing evaluation of atudent perfornance will be conducted, aa well aa progran avalu^lona, following the dlatrict currlculun review cycle. State developed teata will ba uaed aa required by atate lav. Pit Connlttea A dlatrict wide PER Connlttea will be eatabllahed to advlae the board and ataff on fclatittg to currlculun review and evaluation. Role and Reaponalblllty Iff w; 110*9 9nO ■MPEpiivav****# blatrict atan wllfd^elop written rolea and reaponalbllltlea for all partlclpanta in tha dlatrict'a PER proceaa. Thla deacrlptlon of role and reaponalblllty will include the PER Connlttea aa well aa dlatrict adnlnlatratlon and ataff involved in currlculun review. biatTict ataff will prepare currlculun Inprovenenta plana on an annual baala to addraaa arena of weahneaa identified through progran evaluation actlvltlea. Aaaurance af Maatenr (AOH) . . tj*fa, rT*t*** ***• ntehllahed which Identlflea atudenta who are not naking aufflcient pragreaa In coanunlcatlona or noth. Renedlal action will be planned for theae atudenta. Pit Raaortg draft PER report will be prepared annually by dlatrict ataff with input fton the PER coMlttee. The report will be approved by tha board prior to October 1 of each and dlaaenlnated to dlatrict realdenta and the State Oepartnent of Education prior to October 15. Linkage 0gs(ifier pri^aiaa auch aa Rorth Central Accreditation, educational effectlveneaa and technology, will ba Integrated with the PER proceaa whenever poaalble to ■cslnlae reaourcea. PER AidPinancl^l old received by the dlatrict under the PER law will be for PER related actlvltlea only. J < Ht Ft-r r \r ■ f ib > •■.. Carried unanimously. Or. Mich distributed the first two policy series/procedures to the Board and reviewed each of these with the Board. Approval of these policies/procedures will take place at the February 25 Board of Education meeting. Member Lucie Taylor adoption: introduced the following resolution and moved Its 1. 2. 3. 4. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING OATES FOR FILING AFFIDAVITS OF CANDIDACY The period for filing affidavits of candidacy for the office of school board member of Independent School District No. 278 shall begin on March 12, 1991 and shall close on March 26, 1991. An affidavit of candidacy must be filed In the office of the school district clerk and the $2 filing fee paid prior to 5:00 o clock p.m. on March 26, 1991. The clerk Is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of said filing dates to be published In the PIONEER, the official newspaper of the district, at least two weeks prior to the first day to file affidavits of candidacy. The clerk is hereby authorized and directed to cause notice of said filing dates to be posted at the administrative offices of the school district at least ten days prior to the first day to file affidavits of candidacy. The notice of said filing dates shall be in substantially the following form: rt f' 1^- MOTICE or FILI*I6 OATES FOR ELECTION TO THE SCHOOL BOARD IHOEPENOENT school district NO. 278 MTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the period for filing affidavits of candidacy forSrS twa oeneral election shall be held on Tuesday* Nay 21, 1991. At that election, t!o Sabers will be elected to the School Board for terms of three years each. next ensuing general election. The affidavits of candIdKy eust be filed In the office of the schMl J1iJ**^ct clerk and the filing fee paid prior to 5:00 o’clock p.m. on Narch 26, 1991. Date: February 11, 1991 BY 0R0ER/i)F THE SCHOOL BOARD /$/Luclenne J ir^.I.r I6k. ‘'Ar f., p- P »< The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by ■ember Jim Franklin and, after full discussion thereof and upon a vote followingbeingtaken thereon, the following voted in favor Swanson, Haresh, Taylor, Franklin, Anderson, McKown thereof: and the following voted against the same:None Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. UPON HOTION by Don Anderson, seconded by John Maresh, the Board of Education approved the appointment of Mrs. Marge Gasch and Mrs. Evy Zacher to assist the clerk in preparing for and running the May 21, 1991 School Board election. UPON MOTION by Lucie Taylor, seconded by Don Anderson, the Board of Education approved the 1991-92 calendar as follows: f)"'■ , i lli ‘.■•v ^1-.t.m }<r: i' f I' i; r; August 5 12 19 1 6 7 8 13 14 15 20 21 22 Q El B 2 9 16 23 November 4 5 11 12 18 19 25 26 1 6 7 8 13 14 15 20 21 22 27 @ © February 3in 4 11 18 25 5 12 19 26 6 7 13 14 20 21 27 28 4 5 11 12 @ 26 6 7 13 14 20 21 27 28 1 8 15 22 29 independent school district no . 278 n Teacher uorkshop/inservice/ artleulatlon/curr1cu1 mn School not In session Q 3 Opening and closing of student attendance 0 End of semester; teachers mill work (no school) school calendar 1991-92 September ft T W 16 17 23 24 30 4 11 18 25 5 12 19 26 6 13 20 27 December 2 3 9 10 11 12 13 S ^ March 2 3 9 10 11 12 13 ^ ^ ^ June 1 8 15 22 29 2 9 16 23 30 3 10 17 18 19 24 25 26 Date Activity Approved by the Orono Board of Educatlon-2/1 1/91 October 1 7 8 14 15 □D 22 29 c j ^ 9 U 11 16 @ @ 23 24 ^ 30 31 January ]3 14 15 16 17 21 22 23 24 28 29 30 31 Aori 1 6 7 13 14 20 21 27 28 1 8 15 22 29 2 9 16 23 X 3 10 Date Activity 8/26-8/30 All teachers wkshp 9/2 Labor Day 9/3 aASSES BE6IN 10/17-18 MEA/MFT 10/21 Teacher wkshp 11/25,26.27* Conf. Days 11/28-29 Thanksgiving Break 12/23-1/3 Winter Break 1/6 Classes resume 1/20 Semester ends; Teacher Wkshp 2/17 3/m?T 3/23-27 4/17 5/25 6/4 6/5 Presidents* Bir. Conf. Days* Spring Break Teacher Workshop Memorial Day Last Day Teacher Workday *Deta11ed conference schedules available at Individual school offices J r n-: ■»:•ift =■. I t. (! E.: Or. Mich stated that the calendar is basically an imitation of the 1990*91 calendar having been reviewed both by the administrative cabinet and by the Teacher Meet and Confer Committee with discussion/concern expressed regarding the number of days for elementary conferences, the length of the winter break, the dw'iire for another professional day and the need for appropriate student breaks throughout the year. These areas will be studied/reviewed during the upcoming year. Motion carried unanimously. UPON MOTION by Jim Franklin, seconded by John Maresh, the Board of Education authorized the call for written quotations on the bus transportation contract as called for by M.S. 123.37, Subd.lb. Notion carried unanimously. Bill Fenholt reported that the Orono School District has been randomly selected for an optional nationwide radon survey and that the District has agreed to par­ ticipate. Mr. Fenholt stated that the advantage to the District is that this will be done at no :ost to the District and in all probability, will be required at some future date. Further information will be provided to the Board as the testing progresses. UPON NOTION by John Maresh, seconded by Jim Franklin, the meeting was adjourned. Carried unanimously. Lucienne J. Taylor,'C Approved: own, chairman MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSIO HELD FEBRUARY 19, 1991 ATTENDANCE 7:00 P.M. Afw I JOa. The O'-'ono Planning Commission met on the w4«E^ the following members present: Planning Commission*^ (HjTjQjji^arlie Kelley and Planning Commission Members Maureen Bellows, ^U§jf^n, Jim Hanson, Candace Rowlette and Sara Moos. Jeff Johnson^was absent. The following represented the City Staff; Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Gaffron, and Citv Recorder Scheffler. Council Representativa Jabbour was also • ient. (il)ZONING FILE #1619-0. MARC A !. S. WHITEHEAD 1220 LYMiXN AVENUE PUBLIC BEARING - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION Marc Whitehead and his surveyor, Walter Gregory, present. were Kelley opened the Public Hearing at 7;C Gaffron to make his opening comments. p.m., and asked tlaffron displayed a sketch o ' c le ; iitehead property and the existing roads and drivev/=»ys. .'iu stated that Lyman Avenue currently serves five hour. .. .ui could potentially serve eight. He said, "The Whitehec s ra proposing to have a total of four lots on this property iv/o of which would be served from a private driveway outlot. It is still the Whiteheads' intention to have Lot 4 served by an access directly off of Lyman Avenue. The existing house is served by a driveway that crosses an easement and intersects Lyman Avenu..." Kelley asked Gaffron to show where Outlot A is located and asked how wide it will be. Gaffron depicted Outlet on the plat drawing and stated that it is 25’ off of the existing center line." Walter Gregory confirmed Gaffron's statement. Gaffron stated that the major issues involved with this subdivision are potential upgrading of Lyman Avenue, access to interior lots, septic, aid lot standards. Gaffron began reviewing these issues by summarizing the information .resented in his February 14, 1991 memo. He displayed sketches showing various options for locating a cul-de-sac if it is not constructed where a partial dedicati.on has occurred. Gaffron stated that one option within the Whitehead property would conflict with a septic site. Another option would be to locate a cul-de-sac within the VJhiteheads' driveway easement. He said, "The Whiteheads do not have the right to change the existing configuration of roads v/ith that easement. If this cul-de-sac option is considered, it would be necessary to obtain neighboring property." - 1 - fe”* ORONO PLANNIRG COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 1991 (tl)ZONING PILE #1619-WHITEHEAD CONTINUED Rowlette stated that only three-quarters of the oroperty has been dfidi’cated for the existing cul-de-sac shown at the end." Gaffron stated that the City would have to take a 50 foot wide 'dutlot in order to access that cui-de-sac. He said. "Another issue to consider is whether the applicants should be responsible for upgrading Lyman Avenue all the way to Smith Avenue. There is a precedent situation with Woodhill Avenue to the south. Planning Commission may wish to concider whether any hardships exist to allow an upgrade of Lyman Avenue to be less than what City standards require. There are some trees on the Pesek property that could be disturbed." Gaffron continued his review of the issues pertaining to this preliminary subdivision application. Bellows asked Gaffron how old the failing septic system is that serves the existing house. Whitehead stated that it was constructed in 1969. He asked if he could make his statements at this point. Kelley asked him to proceed. Whitehead stated that he has lived on this particular piece property 22 of the 27 years he has been an Orono resident. He said, "We have tried to plan this subdivision so that we can preserve the unique and beautiful character of this special property. I was present when this property was rezoned to two acres in 1967. At that time, there was a big issue about whether or not municipal sewer was going to be installed from the Long Lake treatment plant to serve this entire area. During the rezoning hearings, the property on Lyman and Smith Avenues was identified as a unique and protected area. One of the reasons that this area was rezoned to two acres, was to preserve the properties between Woodhill and the Orono Golf Course. VJhen we moved into our housa, there was only one other residence on the road, which belonged to Mr. Eisencramer. Mr. Eisencramer was a retired Orono City employee, which is why Lyman Avenue is maintained up to the driveway serving that lot. Lyman Avenue was never opened as a public road and was never authorized as such. The property we purchased is already platted. We approached the City and the owners of 1200 Lyman Avenue regarding a driveway access so we could preserve the trees and drainage areas. The City approved the vacation of other existing streets in the area, with the express understanding that the driveway would be located where it is now. I would now like to respond to items specifically addressed in Mike's report. First of all, we are definitely planning to bring the - 2 - ORONO PTANNING COMHISSION HEETING FEBRUARY 19, 1991 K (tl)ZONING FILE 11619'HHITEHEAD CONTINUED access, and we would put a covenant in the deed, for Lot 4 directly out onto Lyman Avenue. There are great sight lines and it is the most logical place for a driveway. The real issue is what should be done with Lyman Avenue. We purchased this property after it was rezoned specifically because the City had deemed it to be special and unique. Everybody that lives on Lyman Avenue likes it the way it is. Wu like it small so people have to slow down, which is beneficial to children. Those of us living on the road have never experienced any problems. In response to Mike's memo, wherein he states that the road must be upgraded, the City code requires upgrading only when it is necessary for additional development. I don't believe it gives you the power of upgrading for existing development. The additional development here is only two houses. Lot 4 has no affect on the portion of Lyman to wh.ich you are referring. The road is very much in keeping with the rural character of the area. With regard to a cul-de-sac, the City Code states that it shall be located at the end of a dead-end road. That is where the City has it. There does not seem to be any reason to locate a cul-de-sac in the middle of the road. On page two of his memo, Mike states that the development capability of the property is limited. In my opinion, the lots conform, and if there is a limited development potential, that is my problem. The pond on the property was dug by Harold Eisencramer and is a breeding ground for wood ducks. v/e would like to kf.ep the pondf and I do not bel eve it is necessary to maintain setbacks from it because it is not a designated wetland. The pc .id has never overflowed during th<» 22 years that I have owned the property. I would next like to address Mike's comments regarding access. As he states in paragraph #6. Lo: 4 is proposed to be served by a single driveway existing directly to Lyman Avenue. With regard to Outlot B serving the two interior lots, Walter Gregory has assured me that we have adequate area to conform with the Code and is feasible. We do have an overhead to show what we would do in the event we need additional land. Section Four in the Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan states as a matter of policy that most new rural lots will be directly served by privately owned and maintained roadways. V7e arc not interested in public road or public maintenance. Tne Plan also states that joint driveways are allowed in rural areas with a maximum of three residence per driveway. Outlet B vould only serve two houses and would therefore qualify under the City's Comprehensive Plan to be served by a private driveway. We would be happy to provide an outlot if that is what the City needs. - 3 - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 1991 (#1)ZONING FILE #1619-WHITEHEAD CONTINUED Looking at page four, Mike conunents on the nsed for a temporary cul-ds-sac. I would really argue against that. I do not understand the need for it, and it would be necessary to remove a great number of trees in order to construct a cul-de-sac. Any type of cul-de-sac would be environmentally damaging and may affect an existing drainage swale that runs through that area. As Mike notes, a temporary cul-de-sac may eliminate one lot. We are hoping to construct a new home for ourselves and really need three lots. I do not believe there should be concern regarding the curve radius because no one drives 30 miles per hour on this road. We would be happy to post the road at whatever speed the City recommends. We would strongly urge the City to give us a Variance on the 275' radius requirement. .Mike discusses the issue of arterial roads under his section on Access to Lots. The City of Orono only has four arterial roads, and this is not one of them. This is at best a private roadway. We do not think that any standards that apply to an arterial apply here. Code Section 11.32, Subdivision 1 (A) states that no subdivision shall be approved unless the area has access to a private roadway open to traffic. We do have access from a private roadway for all of these lots in a manner that complies with your Code. With respect to septic sites. Mike notes that there is some discrepancy about the allowed slope percent. Most of the sites have 6% slope, a few have 7% or 8%. I do not believe that septic sites are an issue. Lastly, I believe that the 30' front setback proposed for Lot 1 is necessary because of the topography." Dick Cornwall, 1200 Lyman A/enue, stated that he endorses Mr. Whitehead's comments concerning the uniqueness of the area. He said, "We would very much like to see the unique environment . The discussion about the road upgrading and possible cul-de-*ac is disturbing to us. We prefer the small gravel road. The only comment I care to make is that this boils down to choosing among the lesser evils. The least evil of the cul-de-sac alternatives is the middle location on the corner of the Whiteheads' property. I have adjacent land in that location that I would be willing to discuss contributing for that kind of solution." Brian Palmer, 1190 Lyman A/enue, also expressed concern regarding the upgrade of Lyman Avenue. He said, "I can assure you that the other residents who wore unable to attend this evening, do not wish to have another Woodhill Avenue. Whatever can be done to maintain the character of that area should be - 4 - u ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 1991 (IDZONING FILE I1619-WHITEHEAD CONTINUED done.“ Howard MacMillan, 1275 Lyman Avenue, echoed the concerns raised by Palmer, Cornwall and v;hitehead. He said, *’I have read that Barbara Peterson, our Mayor, seems to bo interested in upgrading all non-standard roads. That concerns me. I would like to ask M.r. Whitehead if he has given consideration to the number of trees that will need to be removed to construct three homes and driveways on this property." Whitehead stated that only a minimal amount of major trees will have to be removed. Mabusth said, "I would just like to announce that Mr. MacMillan did quote the Mayor. That was an incorrect quote. The Mayor did not say that. The writer of that nev/spaper article has been so advised." Cohen stated that though he had read the material on this application, he had been unable to visit the site, and would, therefore, abstain from any discussion or voting. He suggested tabling t.he matter because of the number of issues involved and the different positions of staff and the applicant. Hanson asked Whitehead drawing of a three-lot plat. to respond to Staff's conceptual Whitehead replied, "In my opinion, the only real issue with the four-lot proposal is the road. Mike put a lot of things in here, but they are really very minor and can be solved. Our needs are such that we have to have four lots. We love the land and have tried to plan this in an environmentally responsible manner." Hanson asked, "Am l correct then to state that there would be ten houses served by a substandard private road?” Kelley said, "I will state my position straight out. I am not going to approve the subdivision unless there is an upgrade to that road." Hanson added, "I would further that by saying I would not consider a four-lot subdivision under the circumstances. Many of the issues that Mr. Whitehead is trying to address by careful siting really arise because of an attempt to force four lots out of the subdivision." Whitehead replied, "But they comply with your Code." Bellows replied, "The lots do not comply with our Code. They require Variances and we typically do not give Variances - 5 - I y Iv- OROMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 1991 (11)ZONING FILE 11619-HHITEHEAD CONTINUED with subdivisions." Hanson stated that in his opinion, Lyman Avenue is one of the more hazardous private roads in the City. Kelley said, "You cannot deny the fact that there have been accidents on that corner." Bellows stated that she wis almost struck by a car coming out of the VJhiteheads* driveway. Rowlette 'oncurred that the road is unsafe, particularly when going arc, d the corner. Whitehead said, "If the City wants to make the road a public project and upgrade both Smitn Avenue and Lyman Avenue, that is one thing. It does nut make sense to have a road 16 feet in width entering a road 24 feet in width." Hanson said, "I think your point may be taken on that. It aee.ms to me that the issue of access to the existing cul-de-sac has to be addressed." Kelley said, "If the V4hiteheads develop this property it is likely that people will put in swimming pools, tennis courts, etc., and the trees will come down. The characteristics will be lost and this site will change dramatically. I would also state that I am not in favor of filling in the man-made pond. In my opinion, that ia a designated wetland and the restrictions regarding the septic sites are applicable. I also will not grant any Variances to our Codes for the subdivision of this property. The applicant has the option of requesting us to table this matter, but I have stated my position." Whitehead asked if the Planning Commission would walk through each Variance to explain their position for denial." Kelley advised Mr. Whitehead that it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide hardships to substantiate the need for Variances. Kelley stated that in this application, he sees no hardships. He said, "I think you are forcing a bad situation on a unique piece of property." Bellows added, "And you are forcing it for economic reasons. It is our responsibility as Planning Commission members to consider the safety of the citizens of this Community. It is up to us to interpret the Codes. You have stated all evening that the only issue is the road. For most of us up here, that is all the further we need to go to recommend denial. There is a serious problem with putting more traffic on a substandard road." - 6 - * ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 1991 (#1)ZONING PILE 11619-WHITEHEAD CONTINUED Kelley stated that the Cxty has been under more pressure to develop substandard properties. He said. The position of the Planning Corwnission has been that we are not going to give into those pressures and we will not granc Variances for subdivisions." Rowlette added that she was concerned about the access for Lot 4 coming directly onto Lyman Avenue. Whitehead stated that he would like the record to include his written comments to Mike Gaffron's February 14, 1991 memo, and the City’s Transportation Plan, as well as any photograph he may take of the road. There were no further comments from the public and Kelley closed the Public Hearing at 8:03 p.m. He asked Mr. Whitehead if he would like the Planning Commission to act on this application or table it to provide an opportunity to revise his plan. Whitehead replied, ”I would like the Planning Commission to act on this and state their reasons so we have something with which to work from. At this point I have no guidance. I nave no idea what this Planning Commission thinks about the alleged Variances, which we deny are needed, or ever are Variances. I have no idea where to go. I am not accepting that we need to go to three lots because we comply with the Zoning Code. I think you need to make your decision. Obviously, if we v;ant to come back with a three-lot plan, we can do that. I do not want to be tabled in limbo with no guidance from the Planning Commissionr which is where I sit right now. I have no way of even sitting down and negotiating with Staff given the current status of your record. ** Rowlette stated that the three-lot conceptual drawing provided by Staff was more acceptable because it eliminates most of the issues involved with Mr. Whitehead's proposal. She said, "This plan would allow Lyman Avenue to remain the unique country road that everyone likes. The three-lot plat makes a lot of sense. Just because you have enough land to create four two-acre lots, does not mean it will work." Whitehead said, ’The Planning Commission has a lot of discretion. They can either take arbitrary views, or they can try to work with people to make things happen." Bellows said, "Mr. Whitehead is asking us for guidance. I believe we have clearly stated that we want the road to be improved and will not consider anything without it. Further, our preference seems to be that if you woi Id go to the three-lot subdivision, where Variances would not be required for any lots, that we would then consider a subdivision of this property." - 7 - i ORONO PLANNING COP1MISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 1991 (#1)ZONING FILE #1619-WHITEHEAD CONTINUED Whitehead stated that he may be willing to negotiate the roed issues if he knew that the rest of the proposal would be acceptable. Moos stated that in her opinion the road is the major issue, but that she would not approve any Variances. She added, "Staff has conceptually drawn one alternative, there may be others." Whitehead said, "I understand where thv Planning Commission is coming from. I do not mtvan to lecture tlie Planning Commission. However, tht Planning Commission does not have the ability just to not do something b»^cause they don't like to. There are laws and ordinances. When we qualify for a Variance, certainly you have some discretion, but it is limited. I think for you to concern yourselves with the hardship that is presented by relatively minor aspects of the Code is an obligation of the Planning Commission. If the laws allow you to have four lots, whether somebody is g.oing to build tennis courts is not your concern. It is a concern whether we comply with the Code." It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Hanson, to recommend denial of the preliminary subdivision for Marc and Tracy Whitehead, based on there being no demonstrated hardship for the Variances requested, and that what is being proposed for Lyman ivenue poses a threat to the public's health, safety and welfare. Notion, Ayes-5, Na/s-0. Cohen abstained. (#2)ZONING FILE «1S70-CHUCK DOWNEY 2665 CASCO POINT ROAD COMTimiATlON OF PUBLIC HEARING-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Chuck Downey was present. Kelley re-opened the Public Hearing on this matter at 8:10 p.m., and asked Mabusth to present the information pertaining to Nr. Downey's application. Mabusth stated that Staff met with Mr. Downey at the site to discuss alternatives to the tiers of retaining walls, which were too intense and did not fully address the drainage problem. She said, "Mr. Downey is now proposing to construct a 25 lineal foot retaining wall with a height of three to three and a half feet. The wall will channel drainage along the lot line where it will then fan out toward the lake. In order to preserve mature trees and an existing boathouse in the lakeshore yard, a retaining wall approximately 58 feet in length, and four to four and half feet high would be constructed. The City Engineer has requested that additional 'deadmen* be added to the installation of the wall to provide more support. Mr. Downey al^30 intends to remove the existing steps and replace them cement pads that are three feet wide and would be trimmed timbers. Hardcover within the 0-75' and 75-250' setback areas would be reduced." - 8 - r !■ ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 1991 (#2)ZONING PILE I1570-DOWNEY CONTINUED Ther0 w^re no public comments regardin9 Kelley closed the Public Hearing at 8:17 p.m. this matter and jt was moved by Cohen, seconded by Hanson, to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of retaining walls at 2565 Casco Point Road. Moos asked if it will be necessary to screen the retaining walls from the lake. Mabusth stated that due to the height and location of the walls, 5creening would not be needed. She said, “Staff has pointed out the need for Mr. Downey to maintain the upper retaining wall because of the potential erosion created by severe slopes and channelization of runoff by the wall. If erosion does occur, he should come back to the City. Motion, Ayes-6, Nays-0. Motion passed. (#3)ZONING FILE #1609-AL1CE BROCK 2780 SHADYWOOO ROAD PUBLIC BEARING-AFTER-THE-FACT AND PROPOSED VARIANCES Alice Brock was present. Kelley opened the Public Hearing at 8:20 p.m., and asked Mabusth to provide a review of the application. Mabusth asked if the Planning Ccjmmission members were able to view this property prior to the snow storm. The Planning Commission members indicated that they had not seen the property without the additional snow. Mabusth said, “Staff went out to the site to look at the landscape area underlain plastic. The plastic has deteriorated to a point where I would not consider it to be hardcover. CounciT, at their February llth meeting, conceptually introduced a policy whereby landscape plastic within the 0-75' setback area can no longer be traded for structural hardcover, and must be removed entirely. It is my understanding that if plastic is located in the 75-250' or 250-500’ setback areas and hardcover exceeds the allowed percentages for those areas, the excess must be approved or removed, and cannot be traded for structural hardcover." Bellows asked if the dsck stairs are included in the deck measurements. Mabusth replied, “The stairs are included in the har.-cover calculations.“ Ms. Brock stated that the catwalk was included in the contractor's plans. She said, “The contractor is now bankrupt and cannot be located. The extension of the deck was p.lanned specifically so that a catwalk could be extended to the back - 9 - ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 1991 (#3)ZONING PILE #1609-BROCK CONTINUED bedroom and provide an exit. The only exit I nave from the top level of my split-level home is from the deck doors at the front of the house. T'lose doors are currently frozen shut." Mabusth added, "The applicant is concerned that she would have no way out of the house should a fire start and come up the main stairway, located in the middle of the house." Bellows stated that Ms. Brock's home is no different than any two story home and that the Building Code requires bedroom windows to be a minimum size to provide egress in the event of a fire. Mabusth stated that the issue of eaves as hardcover enters into this application because the catwalk would be located below the four foot eaves. Mabusth also stated that the eaves were not included in the hardcover calculations. She said, "Applicant had originally thought that there would be no increase in hardcover resulting from the catwalk because of the eaves overhead." Ms. Brock stated that she had tried to hire reputable contractors that had worked in the Orono area. She said, "I was surprised when I received the letter from tne City. The letter came whan the deck had been completad and work was about to begin on the catwalk. I would like to have the car.walk. The master bedi'oom and bathroom, my office and another bedroom are all in the back half of the house. I am concerned about being able to get out of the house." Kelley asked Ms. Brock if she had the same concerns when she considered buying the house. Ms. Brock replied, "Yen, I was concerned about an additional exit when I bought the house. I would also like to say that I do not believe the deck is hardcover. I believe that the concrete slab below is hardcover. I also do not understaid how the catwalk, which fits entirely under the eaves, would be considered as hardcover. The catwalk will not interfere with runoff in any manner. There is a gutter on the eave." Cohen stated that he would recommend approval of Ms. Brock's proposal provided hardcover remains at 30.4%. Hanson concurred with Cohen. Kelley said, "I would approve the deck. I am not in favor of the catwalk. If the applicant wishes to remove plastic to maintain the 30.4% and keep the deck, that is one thing. I am not going to allow additional plastic to be removed so that the catwalk can also be constructed. I would allow the applicant to have a door and stairway to address her exit concerns." - 10 - r' b > ^ ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 1991 (#3)ZONING FILE #1609-BROCK CONTINUED Hanson asked M;i. Birock if slie would Plannin9 Coininission table her application. prefer to have the Ms. Brock stated that this problem has been causing her grief since it began and she wanted to resolve it. Th«re were no public comments on this application, with the exception of’a letter dated November 17, 1990, fron Ken Roelofs, and Kelley closed the Public Hearing at 8:30 pm. It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Bellows, to recommend approval of the after-the-fact hardcover Variance, provided hardcover within the 75-250' zone does not exceed the existing hardcover percentage of 30.4%. This applies only to the deck. further recommended that Council deny the Variance requested for the catwalk, based on a lack of hardship. Motion, Ayes-4, Rowlette and Moos. Nay. Moos and Rowlette did not believe that the catwalk would interfere with runoff and that it complies with the intent of the Hardcover Ordinance. Kelley added that if the applicant wishes to propose a plan showing a stairway exiting the rear area of the second floor, that she would need to bring that back for Planning Commission's consideration. (14)ZONING FILE #1621-TERRY a JONELL JOHNSON 1045 LINDEN LANE PUBLIC HEARING-VARIANCES Terry Johnson was present. Kelley opened the Public Hearing at 8:38 pm Gaffron to make his opening comments. and asked •Saffron summarized the issues pertaining to this application .IS stated in his February 13, 1991 memo to the Planning Commission. Bellows stated that, in her opinion, the applicants' plan is overly ambitious for the property. She also stated that the lake is low and makes it difficult to tell how far the lake normally comes on the property. Gaffron said, "There is no question that the lake is farther out. The 75' setback line is measured from the riprap." Bellows said, "If the applicants wish to undertake a remodeling project, it mu.ut occur within the existing confines or extend out in another location. I cannot allow this house to Qjfeap any closer to the lake than it does currently. Terry Johnson stated that he had explored other options, but due to the interior layout of the house, and other setack - 11 - u ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 1991 («4)ZONING PILE #1621-TERRY JOHNSON CONTINUEDencroachments, the plan proposed represented the best option. He added that the distance between the house and garage (250' approximately) posed a hardshi* He said, "It is difficult for my wife to lug groceries that far, especially if it is raining, or really cold." Cohen stated that he concurred with Bellows. He added that he may give the applicants some consideration about the garage situation, but that there has to be a reduction in hardcover. Johnson stated that he would be willing to remove some of the gravel and the detached garage. Bellows noted that the detached garage and gravel area is outside of the 75-250* setback area. Hanson said, "I would consider that to be an improvement to the property as a whole." Rowlette and Cohen agreed that they would look more favorably on an addition to the existing house if those two items wern removed. Rowlette added, "If you would add a second story entirely over the existing house, that is one thing. Extending the addition toward the lake is something else.” Cohen asked Mr. Johnson if he would like the application tabled. Johnson stated that he would like an opportunity to revise his plan. W It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Moos, to table this application as requested by the applicant. (#5)PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING-CODE AMENDMENTS It was agreed by the Planning Commission to schedule a Public Hearing regarding Code Amendments for March 4, 1991 at 7:00 p.m. Rowlette indicated that she would be unable to attend. (#6)NORK SESSION The Planning Commission agreed to review the Code Amendments in conjunction with the March 4, 1991 Publio Hearing. (7)APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Moos, to approve the minutes of the Manning Commission meeting held January 22, 1991. Notion, Ayes-5, Nays-0. Motion passed. PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE It was agreed that Sara Moos would attend the March 11, 1991 Council meeting as the Planning Commission Representative. - 12 - ORONO PLANNING COHMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 1991 ADJOURNMENT Kelley adjourned the meeting at 8:54 p.m. February 19, 1991 Planning Commission ■■V».i.V i ^ Date :9-7-82,5-16-90 re Scale:r .MO Iron narker found iron narker set astuned datun. 1 htrcDy carttfy tnat ttilt survey .(as prepared by *e or 2S7JSmZi undtr my direct supervision and tnat I an a duly regist­ ered land surveyor under the lies of the State of Minne­ sota. COrPIN A fiAONICRG, INC. -- - - , nn. tic. tie. W'SS Engineers, Land Surveyors. Planners Long Lake, Minnesota _ _ rv EXHIBIT A f*/C- w:ODH!LL COUNTRY CLUB Fiocd Prone Areas ~'\ Perched Water Table Areas Eugene A. Hickok & Associates Figure No 3 5gSp gSilS^ M » » SsSfe s^s CONNECT TO PEAVEY LANE MH POSSIBLE ROUTE TO WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB